The Syndicate

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Boogs wrote:According to the rules here are the winners as follows as far as we know:
Day 1:
Hedge wins Windfall
Epignosis wins dice roll
Epignosis wins chance

Day 2:
TH wins Auto protect
TH wins jail card
LC wins auto find and has partner contact
BwT wins auction card



So Again, Epignosis and TH win 2 things. Also, how does Epignosis have so much cash to blow, he must be getting low or have help. And LC auto found a partner potentially last night making him very powerful.
I will vote for either of those 3 if we agree they are getting too strong, which I totally do.

I do appreciate the list. Thanks! I'll add it to my spreadsheet.

Do you have any reasons to think Epig, TH, or LC are bad though? The only one of those who's pinged me at all is Epig (with the stuff between LC and him), and it wasn't enough for me to vote him yet. Or do you just want to vote for them because you feel they are too powerful?

If they're powerful, then fine. But I'm going to stick with voting for people I think are bad for now.

Also, I don't think I won the auction card. Someone outbid me for it pretty close to the last minute. Can't remember who though.

Linki: That actually is a good point about LC. He seemed interested in keys' early idea about actively choosing to not search for partners. And then for him to go and bid/win an auto-find power doesn't tell me if he changed his mind, or is trying to keep others from getting it.

Exactly and thank you for reminding me of his discussion on partners Day 0. Why would he buy it unless he was preventing others of searching? I know he's a good liar in mafia because he fooled me down to the final vote in Monty Python where he kept me tell the end alive. Either way, I think it should be a vote on him today and it seems like a mafia thing to do by going back on his word for searching.
To answer you though on voting today: I do agree we need baddies but it could be a bonus if they are one of the powerful people. I think it's safe to say mafia members would be bidding on these things just like we would to prevent us as well as have powers to stop us later on for doing things. I think LC and Epignosis could be bad, TH I do not think is bad. I only wanted to vote him for being too powerful. So Epignosis or LC today is okay with me, and from the two i would do LC.

zeek wrote:Of course not

I haven't played much with llama really, four cycles in Zelda but I was quite busy and couldn't follow the game fully. Even less with Boogs, she died before I did in that game. I do think the kitty thing is easy to hide behind though. Is this something she does when she's bad?

I'm interested in hearing from keys, as he's been very quiet after the searching debate and not said much about suspicions.

FYI i am a male and have a penis.

RIPIYWG BR. Bummer.

I'm not really going to overanalyze Llama's post. I haven't seen much from him on that front though, IIRC.

If people had to name the first person we should look at today, who would it be and why?

Sorry Boogs, human kitties are often female :P

I don't remember LC being on the side of not searching, so I'll have a look back. If you're right, that's a bit of a contradiction from him and could indicate he's not being genuine.

I don't think we should go after people for buying stuff though. If none of us search, bid on property or try to gain powers we're letting the Mafia win. Some people will want to get a foothold right out of the blocks. If they're civ, we're painting targets on them discussing how powered they are.

I'm not looking at LC, TH, or Epig today.

Boogs wrote:Exactly and thank you for reminding me of his discussion on partners Day 0. Why would he buy it unless he was preventing others of searching? I know he's a good liar in mafia because he fooled me down to the final vote in Monty Python where he kept me tell the end alive. Either way, I think it should be a vote on him today and it seems like a mafia thing to do by going back on his word for searching.
To answer you though on voting today: I do agree we need baddies but it could be a bonus if they are one of the powerful people. I think it's safe to say mafia members would be bidding on these things just like we would to prevent us as well as have powers to stop us later on for doing things. I think LC and Epignosis could be bad, TH I do not think is bad. I only wanted to vote him for being too powerful. So Epignosis or LC today is okay with me, and from the two i would do LC.

Uh, what? "Go back on my word"? That is a misrepresentation of the facts.

If you were mixing me up with keys at the start, then I'd understand. Keys pushed hard for not finding partners. What I did was ask questions and try to clarify exactly how the game would go. I never pushed for staying individual, the closest I can find is saying "I would advocate that, except for these reasons..." and I gave my reasons why that's not a good plan, and I called it lame.

It's Day Three. I'm sure quite a few people out there have found their partners already, I'm not any better than them just because I used the Autofind prize. Are you going to lynch the winner of the AutoAuctionWin tomorrow? 'Cause that's pretty powerful too. You can just go through the game and keep lynching prize winners for their power, and the baddies can just sit back and kill people and gain REAL power with a fistful of properties.

I am not a baddie, I didn't bid for the Autofind to "keep it out of Civvie hands", I bid for it because it's something worth bidding for. There were one or two people bidding for it right alongside me who just happened to have less excellent timing than me, maybe one of them is this baddie you're looking for. Don't punish me just because I played well and won the auction.

zeek wrote:Sorry Boogs, human kitties are often female :P

Now, Snow Dog... THERE'S a Man's Man.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm not looking at LC, TH, or Epig today.

Me neither, although I'm going to surprise you and say I don't think we should go for a low poster/non-participant. The baddies have been sending in their kills, so they are likely around and visible.

Long Con wrote:

Boogs wrote:Exactly and thank you for reminding me of his discussion on partners Day 0. Why would he buy it unless he was preventing others of searching? I know he's a good liar in mafia because he fooled me down to the final vote in Monty Python where he kept me tell the end alive. Either way, I think it should be a vote on him today and it seems like a mafia thing to do by going back on his word for searching.
To answer you though on voting today: I do agree we need baddies but it could be a bonus if they are one of the powerful people. I think it's safe to say mafia members would be bidding on these things just like we would to prevent us as well as have powers to stop us later on for doing things. I think LC and Epignosis could be bad, TH I do not think is bad. I only wanted to vote him for being too powerful. So Epignosis or LC today is okay with me, and from the two i would do LC.

Uh, what? "Go back on my word"? That is a misrepresentation of the facts.

If you were mixing me up with keys at the start, then I'd understand. Keys pushed hard for not finding partners. What I did was ask questions and try to clarify exactly how the game would go. I never pushed for staying individual, the closest I can find is saying "I would advocate that, except for these reasons..." and I gave my reasons why that's not a good plan, and I called it lame.

Alright. I'l go back and re-read what you said, because I don't remember all the details. But if this is indeed the case, then I will take back what I said about you contradicting yourself.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Alright. I'l go back and re-read what you said, because I don't remember all the details. But if this is indeed the case, then I will take back what I said about you contradicting yourself.

So, you're contradicting yourself, BWT?

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Alright. I'l go back and re-read what you said, because I don't remember all the details. But if this is indeed the case, then I will take back what I said about you contradicting yourself.

So, you're contradicting yourself, BWT?

Not really. I remember (and still think) that LC latched onto the keys idea of "nobody search for anybody so we all stick together". I haven't had a chance to read back on it yet though. So I can't confirm or deny if that was the case or not.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Alright. I'l go back and re-read what you said, because I don't remember all the details. But if this is indeed the case, then I will take back what I said about you contradicting yourself.

So, you're contradicting yourself, BWT?

Not really. I remember (and still think) that LC latched onto the keys idea of "nobody search for anybody so we all stick together". I haven't had a chance to read back on it yet though. So I can't confirm or deny if that was the case or not.

I agree, I thought he latched on with keys. I could be wrong as well but I thought LC made comments.

My spreadsheet shows 2 different winners than Boogs. I'll double check them before i put them up here and that will give people time to tell me not to if you think this info shouldn't be shared with the baddies and just be kept to ourselves.

Boogs wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Alright. I'l go back and re-read what you said, because I don't remember all the details. But if this is indeed the case, then I will take back what I said about you contradicting yourself.

So, you're contradicting yourself, BWT?

Not really. I remember (and still think) that LC latched onto the keys idea of "nobody search for anybody so we all stick together". I haven't had a chance to read back on it yet though. So I can't confirm or deny if that was the case or not.

I agree, I thought he latched on with keys. I could be wrong as well but I thought LC made comments.

I don't understand how you thought LC made comments in agreement with keys... in my quick read of the thread, even I did not get anything of that impression.

I believe both of you are mistaken.

Alright. Here's the first LC post on the idea that keys originated, and FZ also pushed for too:

Long Con wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:Players don't have to be in the union, I ain't forcing anybody, but just remember that if you are looking for your teammates, you're saying to the rest of us that you intend to kill us down the line. You intend to be no-good mafioso and murder us civilians. And the civilians in the union will have the numerical advantage over you and your measly one or two teammates in the lynch.

So if your teammate finds you (assuming you are Civ), will you try to lynch them and avoid acquiring their card, in order to keep yourself Civ?

Sounds to me like he's questioning a major flaw in the idea.

That's the only statement I've found from LC on keys' idea. So yeah, I'm not sure if I imagined it or if I confused LC with someone else. But nevermind, LC. I take back what I said about you contradicting yourself.

BWT, what do you think of Boogs?

juliets wrote:My spreadsheet shows 2 different winners than Boogs. I'll double check them before i put them up here and that will give people time to tell me not to if you think this info shouldn't be shared with the baddies and just be kept to ourselves.

Without polls ending times, I went 10 mins before each post from Boo and got those results. Day 2 was the one I got beat on so I remember looking at 9:59 being the end time.

MovingPictures07 wrote: I don't understand how you thought LC made comments in agreement with keys... in my quick read of the thread, even I did not get anything of that impression.

I believe both of you are mistaken.

Here you go, MP.

Long Con wrote:I am having a lot of trouble reading the dark blue host colour on the dark grey background.

The game definitely seems geared toward turning the general Civvie population into a bunch of baddie groups. Selfish greed over common good. I would advocate, as keys said, that we all just don't send in search PMs, and win together as Civvies, but for two reasons: a) that would go against boo's intentions for the game, and carve out a good deal of fun for us all, and b) there ain't no way that most people would go along with such a plan anyway.

If we did implement such a plan, then we would want to start lynching the winner of the last dead property auction on the following day, as they would obviously not be going along with the plan. That sounds lame too.

So, what do we lynch people for? Instead of lynching players for suspicion of being a Railroad or a Utility, will we lynch a player we suspect is becoming too powerful and rich?

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 367#p96367

It's equivocating, but at least mildly in agreement with Keys' point.

Ah, thank you, Llama. I didn't recall that one. I do recall LC saying something of the opposite later, so that's interesting.

What do you make of this, Llama?

MovingPictures07 wrote:BWT, what do you think of Boogs?

I'd say he's gone from civ to big question mark for me. I can understand wanting to keep an eye on people who are winning a lot of bids, acquiring lots of properties/powers. But I think it's a dangerous idea to want to lynch people solely for that reason. I can see civ and bad reasons for thinking that, but I feel like a civ would want to find in-thread reasons for pointing to someone being bad other than "Oh look. Player X is winning a lot of stuff. Let's lynch him!".

So yeah, not 100% committed on how I feel about Boogs yet. But I'm definitely less sure about him than I was before.

Linki: Interesting, llama. I'm not sure how I miss that post honestly. Especially given that I searched through just his posts in this game. Out of curiosity, I wonder if your LC post came before or after the one I posted.

However, it doesn't change the fact I think LC finding a teammate shouldn't be off the radar. If a team gets all members, they MUsT eliminate players to win. While the rest of us have a 1 in like 20 some chance finding a teammate, I doubt very few have even found a teammate yet with only 2 attempts. Now LC and his teammate have double chances to find the third piece and then start killing us along with mafia? Don't know about you but I don't like a team of 2 utilities, 3 railroads, and a possible 3some having votes uniting to take and kill people in lynches and or nightkills.

BWT or I am a Civ who has no teammates yet and it fighting to stay alive and stop mega powerful teams from getting me first.

Thanks, BWT. He's a question mark for me too.

I'm not totally sure where to look yet, so given my quick read of the thread to catch up initially, I will be re-reading it today in between multitasking on PhD work.

Alright. =Llama's quote from LC came on Day 0. My quote came on Day 1. I guess one could view that as an early contradiction.

Does it mean LC contradicted himself, or that he changed his mind on keys' idea? Not sure yet. But it's interesting findings for sure.

Linki: Boogs, you latching onto the FZ vote the way you did was what made me feel you were a civ. I guess I don't understand how you think you might have a target on your back, or that the baddies would want you dead. If you think there's a reason why though, I'm all ears.

I guess I'm not terribly concerned about certain players being uber-powerful when it's only Day 3. I don't think anyone can be uber-powerful yet. At least, not until full teams find each other and start building houses and hotels on their respective properties. So I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with you there.

The way I read Long Con's post he's telling keys and us what is wrong with the idea. Are you guys saying what he says is in support of keys?

Also, Boogs I show TH winning the extra die which he then used on Day 2 if you look at the board movements.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks, BWT. He's a question mark for me too.

I'm not totally sure where to look yet, so given my quick read of the thread to catch up initially, I will be re-reading it today in between multitasking on PhD work.

I look forward to your insights then. Mostly because I'm not totally sure where to start yet. Outside of the discussion we've generated so far this morning.

juliets wrote:The way I read Long Con's post he's telling keys and us what is wrong with the idea. Are you guys saying what he says is in support of keys?

Not sure honestly. My answer would depend on if he is contradicting himself or if he simply changed his opinion on the issue with more time. And LC is the only person who knows which of those is right. So I think it's something to keep an eye on, but not enough for me to vote him for just that reason.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. =Llama's quote from LC came on Day 0. My quote came on Day 1. I guess one could view that as an early contradiction.

Does it mean LC contradicted himself, or that he changed his mind on keys' idea? Not sure yet. But it's interesting findings for sure.

Linki: Boogs, you latching onto the FZ vote the way you did was what made me feel you were a civ. I guess I don't understand how you think you might have a target on your back, or that the baddies would want you dead. If you think there's a reason why though, I'm all ears.

I guess I'm not terribly concerned about certain players being uber-powerful when it's only Day 3. I don't think anyone can be uber-powerful yet. At least, not until full teams find each other and start building houses and hotels on their respective properties. So I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with you there.

Not saying I do have a target, im saying I have a disadvantage with a lot of players because they have powers or possible teammates now. I have yet to find a teammate after 2 attempts. And I keep trying to say LC won something and does have a teammate most likely. When they get 3, they have to turn on CIVS to win. I'd rather go after him today before he can do that and if he bluffed and took it to screw with the Civs finding someone then we still get a threat to our games.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

juliets wrote:The way I read Long Con's post he's telling keys and us what is wrong with the idea. Are you guys saying what he says is in support of keys?

Not sure honestly. My answer would depend on if he is contradicting himself or if he simply changed his opinion on the issue with more time. And LC is the only person who knows which of those is right. So I think it's something to keep an eye on, but not enough for me to vote him for just that reason.

LC can you tell us about this seeming contradiction in the thread? If you changed your mind, what was the thought process behind the change?

MovingPictures07 wrote: What do you make of this, Llama?

LC is civilian. I'd stake my reputation on it.

Thanks, Llama. I'm currently working on my thread re-read, but I'm curious: Where should we look today then? You said where we shouldn't look, but I don't think you've named a suspect yet.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks, Llama. I'm currently working on my thread re-read, but I'm curious: Where should we look today then? You said where we shouldn't look, but I don't think you've named a suspect yet.

I think we should grow some balls and vote LC just to be honest. But I'm open to listen to people. Think he deserves my vote though still.

Boogs wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks, Llama. I'm currently working on my thread re-read, but I'm curious: Where should we look today then? You said where we shouldn't look, but I don't think you've named a suspect yet.

I think we should grow some balls and vote LC just to be honest. But I'm open to listen to people. Think he deserves my vote though still.

Can you summarize succinctly why LC deserves to be lynched?

I searched for LC last night, bee tee dubs, and sadly it appears we aren't color groupies together. I have recently come around to thinking he's a civilian, but I suppose at some point we'll have to turn on each other.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Boogs wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks, Llama. I'm currently working on my thread re-read, but I'm curious: Where should we look today then? You said where we shouldn't look, but I don't think you've named a suspect yet.

I think we should grow some balls and vote LC just to be honest. But I'm open to listen to people. Think he deserves my vote though still.

Can you summarize succinctly why LC deserves to be lynched?

Certainly, sockatron9000:

A monopoly set wins together, just like mafia and cares less who else dies. LC is now one set ahead with one of his teammates (assuming his is a Civ) while the rest of us are majorities that have not found teammates. Now that he has, he and his teammate have a chance wtch night to find the third piece where we still have 1 shot in 20some players. Why let him continue then get his monopoly to have 3 votes to pick us off? We already have utilities and railroads to worry about. We could be seeing a bluff like I said from LC just like Monty Python and he is NOT seeking teammates and is bad himself. I see a win/win to vote him out now.

And TH to be honest i targeted you in the forum because I searched you and was distancing in case we were a color match. You still concern me having 2 powers though.

You're making a lot of assumptions, Boogs. I don't think those are fair to make, nor are they strong enough to lynch LC; it basically boils down to you wanting to lynch him for the Autofind win.

That said, I think I may have found something notable. I'll let you folks know as I continue procrastinating on PhD work and finish catching up. :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:You're making a lot of assumptions, Boogs. I don't think those are fair to make, nor are they strong enough to lynch LC; it basically boils down to you wanting to lynch him for the Autofind win.

That said, I think I may have found something notable. I'll let you folks know as I continue procrastinating on PhD work and finish catching up. :P

Just saying, why wouldn't he have used it and have 2 chances to get the third piece tonight? Assumptions or facts is what you have to figure out. This game is different than a normal game and if you want to keep him around to let him get more strong and win more things along with his teammates winning to eliminate us, you be my guest. Me on the other hand, I don't trust him. Disagree if you want, but it's logical to vote him and people need to grow balls. FZ was lame and I went along to try to win extra money for the card. I'm confident in this one.

Boogs wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:You're making a lot of assumptions, Boogs. I don't think those are fair to make, nor are they strong enough to lynch LC; it basically boils down to you wanting to lynch him for the Autofind win.

That said, I think I may have found something notable. I'll let you folks know as I continue procrastinating on PhD work and finish catching up. :P

Just saying, why wouldn't he have used it and have 2 chances to get the third piece tonight? Assumptions or facts is what you have to figure out. This game is different than a normal game and if you want to keep him around to let him get more strong and win more things along with his teammates winning to eliminate us, you be my guest. Me on the other hand, I don't trust him. Disagree if you want, but it's logical to vote him and people need to grow balls. FZ was lame and I went along to try to win extra money for the card. I'm confident in this one.

Hold on.

I got something.

Let me finish catching up to see if I note anything else, but I seriously believe I have something here.

Everything LC's saying now aside, he did seem to agree with me earlier that for those of us that are in 3-player sets, it would be beneficial to find one of those players, but leave it there and remain civilians. Lc - you actually said that lynching players that win auctions was lame - and I never said we should do that.

And for the record, since I saw it quoted and never responded to it directly, I don't think my idea of a union "carved out" what Boo had planned for this game. I was playing within the rules of the game, and within the theme of the game, too. I might be wrong but I feel like Boo deliberately set up this game so civs would consider the ramifications of their actions and come to a Nash equilibrium ( Llama), or in other words, figure out what their best move is, so I doubt he feels like I've attempted to circumvent all the fun he's planned for us.

I hear you Boogs, but at this point there's still a chance that LC never finds his third partner (what if it was SVS1.0?) and so he'd remain a civ with one BTSC partner. I think having LC around in the short term is worthwhile since he can hopefully help us lynch baddies. But I understand your concern. He's an obvious lynch target in the future, IMO.

Today I'm more interested in getting a railroad or utility.

linki: Uh oh I wonder what MP found

Boogs: A male cat with a penis who still needs to grow balls.

First of all, that "discovery" of a post of mine on Day 0 was underwhelming to me, since I referenced it in my last post:

Long Con wrote:If you were mixing me up with keys at the start, then I'd understand. Keys pushed hard for not finding partners. What I did was ask questions and try to clarify exactly how the game would go. I never pushed for staying individual, the closest I can find is saying "I would advocate that, except for these reasons..." and I gave my reasons why that's not a good plan, and I called it lame.

There's no contradiction. I never said, like keys, that we should go ahead with that plan. It's an idealistic plan, and if we could be sure everyone would do it, it might work to get a tighter Civvie win. I made that post in order to give two major reasons why such a plan would not be a good idea: It would go against boo's concept of what Monopoly Mafia is about, AND there's no way everyone would go along with it.

Not to mention that, in the next paragraph, I presented what the fallout would be from such a plan, and called that lame.

There's no contradiction here, I was involved in the discussion about the no-search plan, and I came away from that discussion with the same opinions I have today. In the interim, I also put forth that it is beneficial to the Civvies to find ONE partner because Civvie BTSC makes it harder for the baddies.

I used the Autofind, and now I am in contact with one member of my group. Even if we end up finding the third member and go rogue, which may never happen, we still won't have a kill. We will still be dedicated to lynching baddies. The baddies still need us dead.

We still need to focus on killing the baddies, who are growing in power all the time by default. The rate at which they grow in power will only increase over time, when we start seeing more people getting access to multiple properties. Suddenly, a 3-member RR team is targeting a player who has three properties... it's just gonna get messy.

Please don't lynch me just because I bought the Autofind. The baddies are probably going to kill me anyway because I got the Autofind, so let's not do their work for them. Let's try to lynch a baddie today, not me, ok Boogs?

Who're you looking at today, Con?

1 PM and LC defects from the civs. Fact. That's if he was a civ to begin with. Or if he was in a 3-player set and not a 2-player set.

keys56000000000 wrote:1 PM and LC defects from the civs. Fact. That's if he was a civ to begin with. Or if he was in a 3-player set and not a 2-player set.

To the contrary, I believe it's 0 PMs.

So I found something very interesting.

This is Day 1 Llama:

thellama73 wrote:I am voting for Long Con, being an early proponent of the tactic that I think will hurt the town, and I don't believe him.

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:Black Rock, speaking of hunting down baddies, do you have any suspicions at this point?

A general remark. I don't believe him about anything. I don't believe that Long Con would like a civvie victory.

Contrast this with Day 2 Llama:

thellama73 wrote:Guys come on. Long Con isn't a baddie. I think if anyone can read him, I can. I know I voted for him yesterday, but his gameplay since then has not been baddie like in the slightest.

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama's trust surprises me.

I am a very surprising man. It's what makes me so dangerous.

I think I will place my vote on Lorab for now, for asserting that we can't disagree without implying the other person is stupid.

And he continues defending LC hard into Day 3:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: What do you make of this, Llama?

LC is civilian. I'd stake my reputation on it.

Quite the turnaround, no?

Consider how badly LC wanted that AutoFind last cycle. There could be genuine civvie reasons for it. However, consider the following likely scenario based on the quotes above:

I strongly believe that Llama and LC gained BTSC Night 1. This explains Llama's incredible 180 on LC (I can't see any other reason Llama would do this, as his language was strongly against LC and now strongly for him, and he cites no in-thread reason for the turnaround) as well as why LC wanted that AutoFind to utilize during Night 2.

Assuming Llama and LC are BTSC-mates, which is a more than fair assumption, this means they are now either an LMS property group of three, along with someone else due to the AutoFind, or railroads with three-way BTSC. Consider that Llama was a huge proponent of searching for his teammates and LC's thoughts on the matter as well. Either way: They're bad news now after Night 2.

I think Boogs's thoughts on LC are either mere paranoid speculation not strong enough for lynching or contrived thoughts to build a case against someone to appear civvie, as I've said. However, when you consider the facts together (1: Llama did a complete 180 on LC from one cycle to the next; and 2: LC particularly wanted the Autofind, and presumably used it N2) seem to indicate to me that, despite it being an unlikely possibility, LC and Llama have formed an impressive but inevitably non-civvie team already.

I will therefore be voting either LC or Llama today, unless someone can indicate something incorrect with this analysis. I realize there are other interpretations, but I believe it seems incredibly likely that either of the above two scenarios (LMS or railroad) is true, making LC and Llama primary threats to the civvie cause.

I also realize that there are other possible baddie candidates we should be discussing, especially if LC and Llama are now LMS instead of railroads, but the strength with which this analysis indicates that are bad news regardless means they need to go, and they need to go now IMO. If they are LMS, the fact that they have likely formed a monopoly means they can start building houses and hotels. If they are railroads, well, they control a kill and some serious cash.

I'm sad because I really was reading them both as civvie and wasn't considering them until I saw this (and echo TH's sentiment about LC being a good civvie to have around), but much more so glad because I really think I've found a threat.

Long Con wrote:Boogs: A male cat with a penis who still needs to grow balls.

First of all, that "discovery" of a post of mine on Day 0 was underwhelming to me, since I referenced it in my last post:

Long Con wrote:If you were mixing me up with keys at the start, then I'd understand. Keys pushed hard for not finding partners. What I did was ask questions and try to clarify exactly how the game would go. I never pushed for staying individual, the closest I can find is saying "I would advocate that, except for these reasons..." and I gave my reasons why that's not a good plan, and I called it lame.

There's no contradiction. I never said, like keys, that we should go ahead with that plan. It's an idealistic plan, and if we could be sure everyone would do it, it might work to get a tighter Civvie win. I made that post in order to give two major reasons why such a plan would not be a good idea: It would go against boo's concept of what Monopoly Mafia is about, AND there's no way everyone would go along with it.

Not to mention that, in the next paragraph, I presented what the fallout would be from such a plan, and called that lame.

There's no contradiction here, I was involved in the discussion about the no-search plan, and I came away from that discussion with the same opinions I have today. In the interim, I also put forth that it is beneficial to the Civvies to find ONE partner because Civvie BTSC makes it harder for the baddies.

I used the Autofind, and now I am in contact with one member of my group. Even if we end up finding the third member and go rogue, which may never happen, we still won't have a kill. We will still be dedicated to lynching baddies. The baddies still need us dead.

We still need to focus on killing the baddies, who are growing in power all the time by default. The rate at which they grow in power will only increase over time, when we start seeing more people getting access to multiple properties. Suddenly, a 3-member RR team is targeting a player who has three properties... it's just gonna get messy.

Please don't lynch me just because I bought the Autofind. The baddies are probably going to kill me anyway because I got the Autofind, so let's not do their work for them. Let's try to lynch a baddie today, not me, ok Boogs?

Who says you wouldn't go rogue? You just admitted you have the second teammate. The powers anyone can buy, so who is to say your team can't eventually get kills yourself or a special power forming monopolies or the set besides you as well? Not to mention, when you have a set complete the rent is more AND you can buy hotels and houses making US pay more which results we die. So do we die by NKs or by going bankrupt by people like you who have your set complete?



See the dangers everyone????

Linki great find Mp. He could have the whole set now which can triple the amount we pay and also can buy houses and hotels. They can make us go bankrupt which kills us JUST like nightkills.

NOT to mention Llama is steering us not to vote LC which if they were teammates makes sense. LC needs to go because llama didn't win powers plain and simple.

I'd like to see if anyone can poke holes in that assessment, but it seems very likely to me.

I'll be back, since I need to stop procrastinating on PhD stuff, but I am 99% sure that I will be voting LC or Llama.