The Syndicate

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.

I already have a G bond with G-Man and no-one can take it away.

Except G-Man.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: 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.

Unsurprisingly I agree with this.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

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.

T is for The Baddies?

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: 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.

Unsurprisingly I agree with this.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

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.

T is for The Baddies?

Something like that.

T begins "Teamwork"
T begins "Tier"
T begins "The baddies" who will take your beer!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: 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.

Unsurprisingly I agree with this.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

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.

T is for The Baddies?

Something like that.

T begins "Teamwork"
T begins "Tier"
T begins "The baddies" who will take your beer!

Not the beer! Damn those villainous villains!

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

I have been lucky in my BTS partners in the past, that's for sure. I would recruit any of those guys for both game related and personal reasons. Super competitive, smart, detail oriented and somewhat patient with me asking the same question for the 88th time, lol. Plus just fun guys to hang out with; I have never really had regualr BTS with aapje, but he has basically held my mostly stupid & uncomprehending hand throughout Aces D & D game patiently telling me week after week what my roll should be. I don't think I have ever won with Typh, and I only won with Tranq in Jurassic Park (where we used our lynch switch to save Nutella, a baddie on the other team, and got ALL of those guys lynched, lol, good times). But winning isn't everything.

I play Mafia to have fun playing hard. That said, if any of them are recruiting, they did not recruit me

@Golden, in the past, the recruit passed down. That's how I got it in the first game, the original recruited was NKed.

original recruiteR *

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

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.

So you think BWT is off-meta?

I would like to lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, I very much agree with the merit of that plan, but I have trouble lynching someone I don't find suspicious over someone I do.

linki @svs - that's useful to know.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

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.

So you think BWT is off-meta?

I would like to lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, I very much agree with the merit of that plan, but I have trouble lynching someone I don't find suspicious over someone I do.

linki @svs - that's useful to know.

Yes I do. I will not be voting for birdwithteeth11 today.

Dom wrote:You think Golden is a recruiter because he is asking SVS/the thread for advice?
Are you supposing he knew that SVS has been a recruiter before? (RM1 and 3, I believe?)

No on both counts. Please see below.

bea wrote:@ Epi - i don't think Golden asking how others have recruited makes him bad. I think if Golden were a recruiter he would shut the fuck up about it tbh. I'm not sure I buy the WIFOM that Golden would play dumb as a recruiter and ask for advice.

I don't think that either. I think naming the gamut of types of people he would recruit is suspect. He named four different types of people (he says two, but I don't agree): Under the radar people, wily people, people he'd probably have fun with, and people he had not had BTSC with. That's four categories- a broad answer that says nothing about his mindset right now, meaning, if he is a recruiter, and he gets lynched as such, finding his recruits will not be an easy task.

Does that make sense?

S~V~S wrote:I think Epi thinks you were trying to entrap me somewhat, ask me a leading question, then hoist me on my own petard; Lord knows (as does Epi) that it''s an easy thing to do sometimes. The only thing I found odd about the whole thing was the names you threw out there. I think your point was pretty clear without using examples.

But yeah, discussion works best when different perspectives are brought to the table. I think this is something that Epi does, he comes into the thread and throws a name down like a gauntlet for reasons of his own. Sometimes he is very right, sometimes not.

I didn't think that about entrapment, no- my suspicion of Golden is because of his broad answer when you posed the question back to him (see my reply to bea).

unfurl wrote:Golden-Epig back in forth, intersting (haha I noticed Epig hates the word intersting!!!! :P)

I don't hate the word "interesting." I don't know why you would mock something before trying to understand it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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?

That's a poor question.

How I would recruit would depend upon what side I drew.

If I were good, I'd recruit 3J early because he tends not to take Night kills despite being a strong presence in the thread. I'd recruit G-Man after that because they would have fun together spreadshitting everywhere.

If I were bad, I'd recruit thellama73 early because we work well together and think alike. I'd recruit 3J later because I would want to observe his flip from non-bad to bad game.

Sorsha wrote: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?

Most of the people talking about adverbs don't understand that it's a rather nuanced thing, and that just making dismissive jokes about it is doing them no favors. Cretins.

Roxy wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

You arrived at that in 20 minutes?

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote: What is the purpose of sign-ups with people that a) Have been leaders before and b) have not been followers? I feel like they would purposely give people that have been leaders before the reigns. I think Bass may be on to something.

Scotty, the second yes option in the sign ups was "Yes, I have followed a leader in the past", not "Yes, I have been a leader before". Probably a way to indicate they have prior experience with this type of game. Of course, some of the 19 who signed up that way have actually been leaders in the past, but I doubt all of them have.

This is nonsense. Black Rock and Long Con know who were leaders in their own games. They don't need a poll telling them so.

DrWilgy wrote: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?

I think it was a bit weird that you voted without saying why when you cast your vote. In fact you didn't even mentioned you voted until someone asked you about it. Also you voted really early, we aren't even halfway the day yet. Usually people only start voting earlier once a lot of discussion has already taken place and they have made up their mind. Unless of course they have to vote early for scheduling reasons.

Epi

1) You continue to say SVS asked me something she didn't ask.
2) You continue to treat the first half of my response as me saying 'who I would recruit' which it wasn't. Because that wasn't the question SVS asked.
3) It's time for you to read before you continue to box on against me based on at best, you not reading the thread properly, and at worst you deliberately misrepresenting the conversation that occurred.

MM, you so far said you will not be voting for BWT, Canuck, Roxy and MP.

Who are you looking to vote for, so far?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

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.

Ricochet wrote:MM, you so far said you will not be voting for BWT, Canuck, Roxy and MP.

Who are you looking to vote for, so far?

You've noticed my pattern? Good eye there mate. I will not be voting for Ricochet today.

I'm slowly eliminating the names of players I will not vote until there is one left. That is my Day 1 strategy.

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote: What is the purpose of sign-ups with people that a) Have been leaders before and b) have not been followers? I feel like they would purposely give people that have been leaders before the reigns. I think Bass may be on to something.

Scotty, the second yes option in the sign ups was "Yes, I have followed a leader in the past", not "Yes, I have been a leader before". Probably a way to indicate they have prior experience with this type of game. Of course, some of the 19 who signed up that way have actually been leaders in the past, but I doubt all of them have.

This is nonsense. Black Rock and Long Con know who were leaders in their own games. They don't need a poll telling them so.

Again, the sense I got from that option was "press 2 if you've played this before". Scotty talked about it highlighting viable leaders, not me.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:MM, you so far said you will not be voting for BWT, Canuck, Roxy and MP.

Who are you looking to vote for, so far?

You've noticed my pattern? Good eye there mate. I will not be voting for Ricochet today.

I'm slowly eliminating the names of players I will not vote until there is one left. That is my Day 1 strategy.

Better hurry then, you've got 30 more to exempt.

aapje wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: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?

I think it was a bit weird that you voted without saying why when you cast your vote. In fact you didn't even mentioned you voted until someone asked you about it. Also you voted really early, we aren't even halfway the day yet. Usually people only start voting earlier once a lot of discussion has already taken place and they have made up their mind. Unless of course they have to vote early for scheduling reasons.

DrWilgy may not have been in a game with a lynch poll before, so may not have recognized that we consider it good form to do so. This is his first game here, and Jesus Toast does not have such a mechanism.

Linki: and 24 hours to do it too.

DrWilgy wrote:

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?

Generally, until recently, we could not change votes, so holding votes till closer to the end was more common. We do both styles now, unchangeable votes, and votes that can be changed. We still tend, overall, though, not to vote early & change often. It is still kind of suspicious, but with the influx of people from other communities, like yours, that perception is changing a bit. You don't know Unfurl, and our community is a bit differnt in that not all of us are as concerned with "solving the game" or playing the same way as each other. I think Unfurl has been acting pretty much like herself~ but you don't know that, so meh.

Day one often turns into a last minute clusterfuck.

Golden wrote:SVS - help me with a bit of theorycrafting. (For anyone who asks, I asked SVS specifically because I know her brain works a lot differently to mine and so I think her perspective can be very helpful to me, but I'm interested in anyones view). If you were a baddie leader, what would your preferred approach be on day one - try and recruit someone you know is a major FEB and could be a big asset to the team, or try and recruit someone no-one would suspect?

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?

I just want to be really clear here. I asked SVS to help me with a theory.

I (didn't quote this bit) said her response hadn't helped with my theory.

She then asked me what my theory was and I told her.

SVS did not ask what my motivation would be for recruiting.
I never implied that my theory was based on my own motivations for recruiting - which it was not. It was based on me trying to figure out what I thought might be common reasons for others to choose to recruit (and I thought SVS might be a good example of someone whose thought process would align with my theory).
The entire first paragraph you highlighted in green is not a response to a question about how I would go about recruiting, nor was it me talking about my thought process for recruiting.

AND EVEN IF IT WAS

Why would giving four different reasons be indirect? What about my post was indirect?
Why would giving four different reasons make me bad? What about my post was bad?

Questions you have avoided so far...

If I'd be a baddie recruiter, I'd recruit all the players I have had grudges with.

If I'd be a civve recruiter, I'd recruit my best friends on the forum.

It's not the case, either way.

Write both down under "Fun", I suppose.