The Syndicate

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:49 am**

Hey MM, could you describe in brief terms what sorts of criteria you're respecting when you eliminate certain players from the lynch pool?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:50 am**

Ricochet wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:While I do think there's value in discussing potential recruiting strategies, that discussion is probably not going to be the eventual motive for my vote on Day 1. I still intend to push for the lynch of a player who I view as suspicious. Recruitment theories are way too speculative to serve as the basis for a lynch choice in my opinion. The insight there might help people to find people to focus on though in such a large roster of players.
I agree, the recruitement talk (encompassing meta, mechanics, tactics) sounds like something that would happen during D0 mechanics debates and banter, except that in this case it will seep through the game, because it's an essential part of it. Nevertheless, right now, we still have a window of four mafia players to hunt down. It's not really different from starting an average sized regular full (or even speed) game with a four-player mafia team, except that it's perhaps slightly more daunting that it's 4 out of 36.

It's 4 out of 30 recruiters and 2 of them are civs. That in my mind, makes me want to keep 2 of them under the radar. Civ recruters are not mafia.

linkie - JJJ - I'm not gonna lie - I have to vote either before I go to bed, or first thing in the morning. I'm still reading and I'm still trying, but I can almost garentee if I don't see something super baddie in the next pages to come, I'm going to roll the dice and radom.

It's a needle in a haystack and I'm not skilled enough to hunt down that haystack.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:50 am**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think the same general things that [insert player] might view as suspicious in a more typical setup are still applicable in this setup. A recruiter or any recruitee, particularly those designated as baddies, are still more likely to be prone to behavioral quirks and manipulative content usually associated with mafia. On that front I am not inclined to handle my vote preferences that differently from now HOW I normally would.

I certainly acknowledge that there are fewer baddies in play right now than a normal alignment ratio would designate, but I think a sincere effort to find them still has to be made. A smaller minority faction doesn't warrant total randomization -- every vote should be motivated by a distinct something; there's still plenty of room to approach this game as though it is based in the fundamental tenants of the activity we know as Mafia.

EBWOP

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:53 am**

bea wrote:linkie - JJJ - I'm not gonna lie - I have to vote either before I go to bed, or first thing in the morning. I'm still reading and I'm still trying, but I can almost garentee if I don't see something super baddie in the next pages to come, I'm going to roll the dice and radom.

It's a needle in a haystack and I'm not skilled enough to hunt down that haystack.

Time constraints are understandable. My recommendation (which you needn't care about unless you find it agreeable) is that you place your vote on whoever has pinged you the most so far -- even if those pings have seemed trivial. It'll be a little better than random, because at the very least your reasoning will be more easily discernible and you might even have some influence on the final lynch result. A random vote is almost certain to amount to nothing because everyone else is going to vote however they may for anyone at all.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:57 am**

DharmaHelper, you currently rank 6th in post count but you have contributed close to nothing to the continuing conversation. What should I make of this observation?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:05 am**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DharmaHelper, you currently rank 6th in post count but you have contributed close to nothing to the continuing conversation. What should I make of this observation?

I've contributed exactly as much as I've claimed to have contribute. I'm a man of my word. I'll get into the meat and mess soon.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:10 am**

Reading Day 1, with comments as I go.

Russtifinko wrote: I know a civ lynch Day 1 is likely, but it would pretty much be guaranteed if no one could talk or try to form suspicions.

It's actually quite unlikely. An unrecruit is most likely. Aren't about 3/4 of us neutral at this time?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:11 am**

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.

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

lol -your list, tranq's list, my old list. They are all similar.

Nub Dutchies. I came closest first.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:13 am**

Epignosis wrote:
I'll color it above. That's four different criteria. Why is Golden seeking advice for this? What is his purpose? Couldn't Golden use his own knowledge to determine the best recruits?

But why, when asked for his view on recruitment, did he name four different possibilities instead of being direct?

That is what I find suspicious about Golden.

^I like Epig's thinking so far. Golden's chatter about recruiting felt a bit phoney-chatty.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:14 am**

Dom wrote:
nutella wrote:Alright this is getting ridiculous. I don't see much reason to think either Epi or Golden is bad and yet they are insisting we take the bait and take a side in this duel of theirs. I'm not biting. I see some merit on both of their parts and some folly on both as well. Instinctively I trust Golden slightly more, but at this point I think this is friendly fire that's distracting Day 1 discussion from the other 34 players.
OK, I might be misinterpreting what you're getting at, but are you implying that Epi and Golden manufactured this argument for some ulterior motive?

No, I don't think that. They just happen to be the type of players who get deep into headbutting matches, and they're relentlessly butting heads, and I think it's civ-on-civ. (or neutral-neutral. whatever. you know what i mean)

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:15 am**

aapje wrote:
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

It was not from lack of trying that failed to get you on our team last game

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:18 am**

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

^THIS. While I believe Long Con and Black Rock have styled the four factions as Civ 1 &2, Baddie 1&2, namely by having limited BTSC in the civ team but larger numbers, going by things they've said, does it really behoove us to think that way? Are not all four sides ultimately trying to rule this realm? Why can't people embrace the LMS-hybrid quality of this game? Why wrap yourself in the civvie flag when there are 4 civs or so out of 30+ players right now?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:19 am**

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

I know rite? I swear if you played the last game, you would have been on my dream team list too.

That said, I don't disagree with anyone not first picking me. LOL. My whole goal as team leader last time was to make sure I was the most nub member of my team.

I did bring the fun though bts.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:27 am**

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

Furthur to this, why does someone being a recruiter mean anything? If they are one, they might be a civ recruiter, which means eliminating them will hurt the civ cause. There are equal numbers of bad and good recruiters. And once you are eventually recruited to a team, that's your team, so why gun for a potential recruiter when that may end up your own team down the road?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:30 am**

MovingPictures07 wrote:
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 think several people - Golden, Epig, llama, BWT - are trying to act like they normally do but it is often coming across as false because we all know they are at least mostly likely still neutral. Golden's chit chat in prticular sounded like he was playing the part of civ Golden when in fact he likely isn't civ. BWT's posts feel a bit forced as well. llama's feel a bit more natural, as do Bea's, Epig's and SVS's, and yours.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:31 am**

timmer, could you please reference something specific in Golden's content that you think is indicative of his falsely fulfilling his civilian meta?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:33 am**

The exchange of votes between Golden and Epignosis looks to me like the literal definition of OMGUS (I think y'all call it "no u"). I doubt I'll support a lynch of either of them on Day 1.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:34 am**

Bullzeye wrote:
Personally (as usual) I'd rather vote a low poster/no-show than an active participant on day one if nothing more meaningful shows up.

I think this is a good thought process, and I'll second it.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:40 am**

I'm not sure if there's a thread for this sort of thing, so I'll just put it here for now. I think one feature The Syndicate could really use is post links within the post count listings for each thread. That's always the single easiest way to access ISOs of a variety of players without having to find their content in the thread. Just an idea, the site is already quite splendid of course.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:49 am**

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm unnaturally proud of myself right now. I'm eating a granola bar from NatureBox, and I've correctly identified this piece of dried fruit in my mouth as being an apricot. Good day.

apricots are yummy! You sir, are iving the good life!!

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:54 am**

Canucklehead wrote:I like JJJ's idea of having everyone state how they would approach recruitment, and it is veryveryvery interesting to me that everyone seems to be saying some version of "I'd recruit a good player who is generally under-the-radar". That is almost precisely the opposite of how I would approach the task. Here are the main (and possibly only) factors I would consider as a baddie recruiter:
1) Will the person be fun to hang out with/play with in baddie chat?
2) Does the person have a history of/reputation for big moves and skilled play?
3) Does the selection of the person make for meaty WIFOMing? (for example, I would be very likely to pick loud, well-known players over under-the-radar players purely for the WIFOMability; likewise, I'd be veryvery tempted to recruit players that seem antithetical in style to each other or who have a history of rivalry simply because no one would expect it, therefore everyone would it expect it, so no one would actually expect it, so everyone would it expect it.....and on and on into WIFOMy infinitum)

As a CIV recruiter, however, my choices would be based on a different criteria set, mostly because as a civ leader I'd feel more of an obligation to play a smart game since more other people would have their winning chances affected by my recruitment choices. Also, since BTSC wouldn't be a factor (I assume the civ recruits don't get BTSC, and the baddies do..... but maybe that's an unwarranted assumption), my #1 criteria of chatroomfuntimes would be essentially moot, so I'd be more likely to recruit based on perceived skill, track record, and history of not stirring drama (and thus getting themselves lynched).

Lots of linkitis. Posting now, reading after.

^I agree with all of this. 100%.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:55 am**

Update for my own reference if I decide it has any value later on. Again, it's tough to translate people's answers into quantifiable terms, so if you feel you've been misrepresented here just say so.

Spoiler: show

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:02 am**

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.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:12 am**

Dom wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I think it's lame when people come in and criticize other people's reasoning (especially those they don't understand).

Come in Day 1 with your own thoughts and ideas- not knocking down those already made.
As someone who works in theater sometimes, I hate it when a director, designer, or other person gives a note on a performance but makes it a general note when it clearly is not for everyone. "Some of us need to make sure we project more. Remember the people in the back!" they might say. "Can we make sure we find our light? It's hard to focus the lights properly if you're not trying," is something else they might quip. It's irritating because they obviously mean a few people who need to do a better job. If the entire cast/crew had the problem, it would warrant a response larger than a note at the end of a run. Instead of addressing the actors and crew members, the production staff member will simply make a general note-- which the vast majority of the people receiving notes will ignore-- it's not for them.

Now, I'm not implying you are the director, Epig (I would never give you such an ego boost), but the principle is similar. To make a long story short: Who the hell are you talking about?

Golden wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.
How does Epi know anything?
Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.
Let's say he's bad and is on Bad Team 1. How does he know you are not on Bad Team 2?

nutella wrote:Alright this is getting ridiculous. I don't see much reason to think either Epi or Golden is bad and yet they are insisting we take the bait and take a side in this duel of theirs. I'm not biting. I see some merit on both of their parts and some folly on both as well. Instinctively I trust Golden slightly more, but at this point I think this is friendly fire that's distracting Day 1 discussion from the other 34 players.
OK, I might be misinterpreting what you're getting at, but are you implying that Epi and Golden manufactured this argument for some ulterior motive?

nutella wrote:Yay, I am marmot-approved! I much prefer to though. Luckily Oregon's got plenty of both. (I recently turned 21 and went around to some winery tasting rooms, it was lovely!
SAME TBH
We're finally old enough for the DT.

crap. I'm pretty sure I drufnkely tried to chase both of you out of the DT at least once. Now I feel old. QUIT GROWING UP DMANIT!!!

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:14 am**

Canucklehead wrote:
Epignosis wrote: Where's Bob Saget and Dave Coulier when you need them?
I literally ask myself this question at least once a day.

No one needs Dave Coulier once a day. Even Dave Coulier would like a break from seeing Dave Coulier once a day. Bob Saget, though... I'd buy that man a pint any day.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:15 am**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:timmer, could you please reference something specific in Golden's content that you think is indicative of his falsely fulfilling his civilian meta?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:18 am**

I stayed up an extra hour and a half - to read a page about DH's poop.

I'm caught up. I'll take what JJJ says into concideration Imma vote early tomorrow because friday is my busiest day.

Can't say it'll be well reasoned or thought out or explained.

Everything feels like day 1 bullshit. It always does to me.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:27 am**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:timmer, could you please reference something specific in Golden's content that you think is indicative of his falsely fulfilling his civilian meta?

It's more of a sense than anything, but Epig kind of nailed it with his colour coding. The fact is, any of us who have been a part of this group for a long time could have been chosen recruiters/team leaders, and made, in the moment, a decision in recruiting targets that goes completely against the grain of everything people think of us in terms of our gameplay. None of the players who have been around for a long time are so boring that they are blindingly predictable. Golden knows this. So his answer, which Epig coded, feels false. It's like, he's trying to have a discussion and show the different facets of how he would come to a decision when we all kind of know that those facets are weighed by everyone in that position. Golden, in short, made a lot of words string together to make it sound like he was saying something - in more real terms, he was playing the "part" of Civ Golden, which often works for him. But the odds are against him in fact being that.

But as for the lynch, I don't see how this makes Golden a lynch target. We all have to post our thoughts, and say things, and get through this awkward part of the game where we have abilities but no guiding purpose. A clan, but no team. It's a weird feeling, so really, if someone is participating and at least trying to contribute, even if it feels false, it's good enough for me for Day 1. I want this game to be legend, the series' cred demands it, and I'd rather vote for a lame-o non-poster than an active one for now.

@Bea, lol, I was caught off guard by that as well.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:29 am**

Five new pages after a 6-hour sleep?

Five???!

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:31 am**

I am playing like I would as a townie despite the fact that I am not a townie. What does that mean to you, timmer?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:47 am**

I have finally reached the end. And up until last night I was caught up, then the thread exploded today and it took me all evening to catch up. Ugh. I have so many thoughts...

First let me be clear here, I have been quiet not because I didn't have thoughts to share our am flying under the radar, but because I have had technical issues. I tried posting three times in the last two days. Each time were long posts with multiple quotes in them and each time I lost them to the monster that is my iPad. It is out to crush my soul, I tell you. Each time, I ended up throwing my iPad away from me in rage and give up for the moment. Only to return later and find one or more other players have said what I wanted to say. I need a computer, but we just finished paying for a wedding so it will have to wait for the moment.

Now, these are my game related thoughts:

This is not a LMS style game. The Civ factions both share two common enemies, not each other. They are only grouped into two factions because the baddie teams only need the other baddie team and one of the two civ factions eliminated to win. When I read this I thought it seemed kind of silly because if civ team 1 needs baddie team 1 eliminated to win, doesn't that mean that technically baddie team 1 would need them to be eliminated to win? It is not as if they can win together. Their win conditions are mutually exclusive, if I am understanding it correctly. Anyway, my eye is on those who are trying to paint this as a LMS set up when it clearly is not. The host identified two civ teams and made it clear who they need eliminated. It seems like trying to foster a LMS atmosphere would make it easier for baddies to hide. I'm looking at you MP and Timmer...

Regarding what I would look for in a recruit, I would be looking for balance people. People who would bring things to the table I lack, or that I know I work well with. Their skill as mafia would make a difference to me whether I was civ or bad. If i was civ, I would not want the feb players to be recruited by the mafia, and if I was mafia, heck yeah I would want them on my team. But everyone has their idea of who are the really skilled bad players and we have a lot of old timers back and new players, so that muddies the water a bit.

Voting low posters. Really? If you want to vote someone for low contribution, fine, but in this situation there seems like a beck of a lot of other things to consider and I think the discussion of recruit/recruiter reasoning has been an excellent example. If we can locate either a recruit or recruiter it might give us a possible direction to look next. At one point llama made a comment about not thinking low posters are a good lynch option, but if we are going to lynch them today would be a good day. I think that is extremely silly given the fact a recruitment has already occurred, and twice for at least one of the baddies it seems. It didn't give me warm feels about llama, but I read it twice and he did say he didn't think they were the best option, so I kind of out him on my back burner, suspicion wise. Anyway, the low poster people who have masse me last comfortable are MP and bwt. MP listed me in his low poster column, knowing full well what my situation is because he has been witness to my rage against the iPad.

Golden, I trust you. I get what you were trying to say with the "but" statement, and it flowed naturally in my mind as I read it. I don't think you are bad at the moment, but I also don't think sacrificing yourself is really what is best for the game.

Epi, I also don't think you are bad, yet. But I think you are wrong. At least at the moment, players can go from neutral to bad very quickly. It is the nature of the game. Right now I think you are both either neutral or civ.

I don't like people listing who they specifically would recruit. We have no way of knowing if they are being honest or not and basically it seems like a great way to paint targets on people's backs.

Speaking of which, I don't know how the nonsense about MP recruiting me got started but slow me to remind you all of the Champion's game, in which everyone believed I was MP's narrator. They kept falling about how killing me would kill him blah blah blah. And I repeatedly told you there was no way he chose me. He didn't. I know him. I guarantee you that I would not be his first recruit and it is likely he would not recruit me at all. And frankly I would not recruit him either. Enough with that noise, felt like some serous target painting to me. Yeah, I'm looking at you again llama, and was it MM or bwt that jumped right on that train of discussion too? Talk about who specifically someone would recruit once you have some tangible evidence to go on to even know that they did recruit. Until then, you are just blowing hot air. And in regards to me being a good recruit, I played the first recruitment game. I was never recruited, I actually got randomized into a baddie role late in the game to replace aapje I think. So I'm not sure why you think I would be a good recruit but if this were the school playground and they were picking dodge ball teams, I would be the one left standing with the creeper mouth breather. I have never been picked first or early for anything recruitment in nature where mafia is concerned. It would actually make me feel good if someone would think I'm an ideal recruit, feel free y'all.

DH & MM, next time you plan on having a string of posts about granola bars our such other off topic conversation, do us all a favour and OT green that shit, some of us are trying to keep up here and it makes it a heck of a lot easier if we can skip crap like that. Funny as you all are, we can make jokes in OT green too.

Right now the fore runner for my vote is probably bwt. The way he jumped on the JJJ thing about golden using the word but, then back pedaled out of it, followed by him jumping into MP's case for voting a low poster, I'm just feeling all kinds of sketch from him right now.

Did we end up in the position where a lynch stop can be used? I can't recall. This early in the game it might be useful since we are way more likely to lynch a neutral than anything else. Just my two cents. If it is something that can be used anytime we are in that position I can't see a down side to it, unless we feel pretty sure the person we lynch is bad.

I think I covered most of my thoughts, but I had to catch up on so much I gave up on writing things and did this by memory. Anyway, that's all right at this second. I should be able to be more active tomorrow, it's my day off. And I have started using the kindle in place of the iPad, despite it having a more annoying autocorrect and being less convenient to type posts on, art least it doesn't eat them!

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:49 am**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am playing like I would as a townie despite the fact that I am not a townie. What does that mean to you, timmer?

Since I know neither your civ game, your tactics or your tendencies... absolutely nothing. We're all actors in a wonderful, as yet unwriiten story.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:55 am**

Spacedaisy wrote:Right now the fore runner for my vote is probably bwt. The way he jumped on the JJJ thing about golden using the word but, then back pedaled out of it, followed by him jumping into MP's case for voting a low poster, I'm just feeling all kinds of sketch from him right now.

Yeah. If I'm looking for face value indicators of evil, BWT is the frontrunner for now.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:57 am**

Oh! I forgot to say what I would not look for. I don't care about fun or who I like. I'm probably going to have fun with pretty much anyone, I'm pretty easy going most of the time. I would not want someone under the radar, our someone high profile. I'd probably want someone in the middle ground. This is true of either good or bad aligned too. See the same things a baddie had to think of a civ does too. A civ doesn't want to recruit someone that will likely be lynched our night killed either. So while I think these conversations about what kind of player might be recruited are great, they can only be informative when combined with behaviour I think.

One last thing I forgot, Epi in the past I have realized when you have a choice you like to have players on a team you have not worked with before because you think long term, you want to understand a player's baddie game so you can read them better down the road and the best way to do that is to be on a team with them. Don't think I didn't know what you were doing in guess who.

Also, you will learn my baddie game better in a full game, I suck at speed games.So, I found your answer to the question interesting. I'm unconvinced you would choose llama.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:58 am**

timmer wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am playing like I would as a townie despite the fact that I am not a townie. What does that mean to you, timmer?
Since I know neither your civ game, your tactics or your tendencies... absolutely nothing. We're all actors in a wonderful, as yet unwriiten story.

You assert that Golden's content w/r/t possible recruitment motives might have been meant to merely provide the appearance of relevance and involvement. Is this to say then that you don't feel that content flows logically and/or reasonably from his discussion with S~V~S, and that such a discussion -- even when it includes seemingly obvious points -- is inherently likely to appear in the first active day of a game in which recruitment is the entire setup?

Put more simply: what would you expect a more sincere Golden to say in that context?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:26 am**

Epignosis wrote:Question:

Is Day 1 about ridiculing others' reasons for finding suspicion?

OR

Is Day about articulating your own suspicions and following through?

I have always had both done to me and I do both too

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:28 am**

Epignosis wrote:
bea wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
Typhoony wrote:Reywas / Roxy / Bea / any other original baddies from other RM games: Do you remember if you played differently than you normally would've when you were baddie leaders in RM 3?
When I was Jelly King Earl, Supreme Lord of Purpleosity (I think that was my role...but maybe I was just an early recruit to the jelly team? My memory is fucked..) my entire game plan was about fun maximization. I recruited solely based on how funny people's posts were. I don't think my in-thread play differed much (I'm always kind of a sarcastic/goofy asshole)...but I think I was definitely more engaged in the thread than was typical for me at the time
I don't know Typh. You were on my team. Do you think I played differently? I try to play the same from game to game. I do remember that Epi called out what happened with my role (I died early and was rezzed into a secret role.) And for awhlle I was able to brush it off but as more and more civ recruits were rezzed, it was more and more difficult to defend against the truth of Epi's argument. Killing him didn't help anything even though you and Tranq both though it was the right thing to do at the time (if I am remembering correctly). Eventually, I became as close to an outed baddie as I've ever been. So yea, my play was prolly pretty different when I realized there was nothing I could do to hide anymore.

still on like page 16...

I called out Roxy and S~V~S too.

Not before Nutella had called me out first

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:33 am**

Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:I agree it needs to end. I would plead with people, vote me or epi. I honestly don't care which. Either epi loses, or he is proven wrong. Both will be satisfactory.
Nah. Nice try.

Make people think it has to be me or your, and if I'm wrong, then I have to be bad.

False dilemma. Mafia strategy 101. Get out of here with that.

Y'all go on and vote the way your conscience leads.

But he does not say if you are wrong you are bad - why include that bit in your reply?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:36 am**

Roxy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
bea wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
Typhoony wrote:Reywas / Roxy / Bea / any other original baddies from other RM games: Do you remember if you played differently than you normally would've when you were baddie leaders in RM 3?
When I was Jelly King Earl, Supreme Lord of Purpleosity (I think that was my role...but maybe I was just an early recruit to the jelly team? My memory is fucked..) my entire game plan was about fun maximization. I recruited solely based on how funny people's posts were. I don't think my in-thread play differed much (I'm always kind of a sarcastic/goofy asshole)...but I think I was definitely more engaged in the thread than was typical for me at the time
I don't know Typh. You were on my team. Do you think I played differently? I try to play the same from game to game. I do remember that Epi called out what happened with my role (I died early and was rezzed into a secret role.) And for awhlle I was able to brush it off but as more and more civ recruits were rezzed, it was more and more difficult to defend against the truth of Epi's argument. Killing him didn't help anything even though you and Tranq both though it was the right thing to do at the time (if I am remembering correctly). Eventually, I became as close to an outed baddie as I've ever been. So yea, my play was prolly pretty different when I realized there was nothing I could do to hide anymore.

still on like page 16...

I called out Roxy and S~V~S too.
Not before Nutella had called me out first

And I am fairly sure DH called me out first.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:36 am**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what do you suppose might Epignosis's anti-town motives be if he is smearing you deliberately right now?

I suspect that if epi has no alignment, it is no skin off his nose to take out someone he does not want to end up on an opposing team to him. Not that I think he would necessarily specifically target me as that person, but, put it this way...

Where the rest of us might be inclined to vote a low poster because they might end up being a good target for baddies in case we end up fighting for the civs, I think epi is more likely to think of it from the opposite perspective and take out people he doesn't want opposing him should he end up fighting for the mafia.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:37 am**

@JJ - what do you think, specifically, of MM's posts in relation to BWT?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:41 am**

Scotty wrote:
Golden wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.
How does Epi know anything?
Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.
But you don't seem to be having any fun.
I am not currently having fun.
You know what's fun? Playing lawn darts midday with a bright sun overhead.

Golden, I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up, with all this Arthur/Knights of the Round table stuff. You have 1 vote on you.

I can see why he is worked up - been there so many times myself. Being suspected for bs reasons sucks especially if they are using twisted logic - "like it has nothing to do with the question - it is how you answered the question" silly Day 1 stuff as per normal. Honestly would be better off just randomizing a vote.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:42 am**

timmer wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:timmer, could you please reference something specific in Golden's content that you think is indicative of his falsely fulfilling his civilian meta?
It's more of a sense than anything, but Epig kind of nailed it with his colour coding. The fact is, any of us who have been a part of this group for a long time could have been chosen recruiters/team leaders, and made, in the moment, a decision in recruiting targets that goes completely against the grain of everything people think of us in terms of our gameplay. None of the players who have been around for a long time are so boring that they are blindingly predictable. Golden knows this. So his answer, which Epig coded, feels false. It's like, he's trying to have a discussion and show the different facets of how he would come to a decision when we all kind of know that those facets are weighed by everyone in that position. Golden, in short, made a lot of words string together to make it sound like he was saying something - in more real terms, he was playing the "part" of Civ Golden, which often works for him. But the odds are against him in fact being that.

But as for the lynch, I don't see how this makes Golden a lynch target. We all have to post our thoughts, and say things, and get through this awkward part of the game where we have abilities but no guiding purpose. A clan, but no team. It's a weird feeling, so really, if someone is participating and at least trying to contribute, even if it feels false, it's good enough for me for Day 1. I want this game to be legend, the series' cred demands it, and I'd rather vote for a lame-o non-poster than an active one for now.

@Bea, lol, I was caught off guard by that as well.

The odds are also against me being bad golden. I'm not playing the part of civ golden - I'm outright saying I'm not civ. I'm still going to try and hunt baddies. It's what I do when I am neutral too.

I would echo JJ's question - what about it feels like I am trying to make it sound like I am saying something? I think I WAS saying something.

I explained very clearly to SVS what my theory was.

Then I explained what my own motives for recruiting would be.

I explained them both very clearly. Neither of them were in the thread before. Both of them were directly aimed at me trying to solve the game.

Do you think those statements don't actually say something?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:47 am**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The exchange of votes between Golden and Epignosis looks to me like the literal definition of OMGUS (I think y'all call it "no u"). I doubt I'll support a lynch of either of them on Day 1.

I did very literally no u epi.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:54 am**

timmer wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?
Furthur to this, why does someone being a recruiter mean anything? If they are one, they might be a civ recruiter, which means eliminating them will hurt the civ cause. There are equal numbers of bad and good recruiters. And once you are eventually recruited to a team, that's your team, so why gun for a potential recruiter when that may end up your own team down the road?

But you just said that there really are no "civs" in this game we only call them that bc BR/LC told us to. I agree it is a faction game not a good vs evil game.

timmer wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.
^THIS. While I believe Long Con and Black Rock have styled the four factions as Civ 1 &2, Baddie 1&2, namely by having limited BTSC in the civ team but larger numbers, going by things they've said, does it really behoove us to think that way? Are not all four sides ultimately trying to rule this realm? Why can't people embrace the LMS-hybrid quality of this game? Why wrap yourself in the civvie flag when there are 4 civs or so out of 30+ players right now?

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:07 am**

Not much to catch up will stay current while at work today.

Happy Friday everyone!

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:15 am**

Golden wrote:@dom - Lets not get pedantic with the word know.

Sometimes I know people are good or bad. It's not because I have proof. It's because I just know. I believe epi knows I am not bad. OK?

Also, that meme should have had pink font.

So.... is Epig bad or not then?

nutella wrote:
Dom wrote:
nutella wrote:Alright this is getting ridiculous. I don't see much reason to think either Epi or Golden is bad and yet they are insisting we take the bait and take a side in this duel of theirs. I'm not biting. I see some merit on both of their parts and some folly on both as well. Instinctively I trust Golden slightly more, but at this point I think this is friendly fire that's distracting Day 1 discussion from the other 34 players.
OK, I might be misinterpreting what you're getting at, but are you implying that Epi and Golden manufactured this argument for some ulterior motive?
No, I don't think that. They just happen to be the type of players who get deep into headbutting matches, and they're relentlessly butting heads, and I think it's civ-on-civ. (or neutral-neutral. whatever. you know what i mean)

Gotcha.

Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what do you suppose might Epignosis's anti-town motives be if he is smearing you deliberately right now?
I suspect that if epi has no alignment, it is no skin off his nose to take out someone he does not want to end up on an opposing team to him. Not that I think he would necessarily specifically target me as that person, but, put it this way...

Where the rest of us might be inclined to vote a low poster because they might end up being a good target for baddies in case we end up fighting for the civs, I think epi is more likely to think of it from the opposite perspective and take out people he doesn't want opposing him should he end up fighting for the mafia.

Wait... I thought Epig was bad-- according to you? Especially since you said you'd feel uncomfortable voting someone you don't suspect to be bad. I have brought this up twice now and you kind of brush it aside-- why the discrepancy?

SD-- that is a MONSTROUS post.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:51 am**

When the arguments in favor of lynching a specific person include picayune semantics like the use of but or because; or if they turn around fine points such as , did a person actually say something or was he just appearing to actually say something, sorry buckaroos, but I am not going there.

Unless Golden started out on someones short list, or is a recruiter himself, I don't see him applying for baddie positions in the various contests that the host is likely to have, based on prior experience with their games. I also think that, based on odds, he is as unlikley to have started out as a baddie recruiter as anyone else, 2 people out of 30ish? I know that if i was a baddie recruiter, I would not put Golden on an initial 3 person list because he has often said he strongly prefers being a civ, and I would not recruit someone who would be unhappy to be recruited, someone who would have preferred to be on another team. I know not everyone thinks like me, but I will assume that some do. So I think that the odds of Golden finishing the game as a civ or a neutral are somewhat higher than for most people. There are a lot of "ifs" in what I just said, and any of then could be wrong. The weakest link, imo, is the supposition that baddies would be less likley to recruit him. Perhaps if they were not as familiar with him as I am, or if they did not care about his preferences.

But for me, it is enough, and based on this I do not want to vote for Golden at this time.

Work calls even though we have an official flash flood warning where I live, so i am leaving a bit early. I hope not to see updates about DHs poop when I get back tonight

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:57 am**

Dom wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
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.
Did you notice that you just did the exact thing you find BWT ping-y for?
Or nah?

Because as I see it, you just put yourself on the fence on whether you'll vote BWT or not on a moment's notice. . . the exact thing you criticized BWT for.

I think I'm gonna go with "Or nah?". Basically, I find that post of BWT's suspicious. However, it's one post. I don't think that alone is worth turning into a huge case and pushing against him like I'm Epi or something. BWT seemed like he was trying to avoid locking himself into one particular stance on a topic whereas I'm taking a stand here and saying that I currently have some suspicion toward BWT and will keep an eye on him for the foreseeable future but won't be voting for him unless I have more to go on. If today or on day 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc you see me vote BWT purely because of that one post he made, then you know I'm clutching at straws and you should probably vote for me at that point tbh.

Scotty wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.
How does Epi know anything?
I feel like Epi just knows things, dude.

Like, he just sits around and knows all the live-long day.

Ya feel me?

He's good at Mafia (don't tell him I said that) but he's not psychic and he can get things hilariously wrong just like everyone else. See LMS for an example of Epi not knowing anything to the point I was actively mocking him in the thread for his wrongness until it got too annoying and I just wanted to shut him up. Here I don't think he or Golden are actually bad.

timmer wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.
^THIS. While I believe Long Con and Black Rock have styled the four factions as Civ 1 &2, Baddie 1&2, namely by having limited BTSC in the civ team but larger numbers, going by things they've said, does it really behoove us to think that way? Are not all four sides ultimately trying to rule this realm? Why can't people embrace the LMS-hybrid quality of this game? Why wrap yourself in the civvie flag when there are 4 civs or so out of 30+ players right now?

But the civ teams can seemingly win together, and are therefore aligned as one overall civvie unit. Right now we're mostly neutral but later on the game seems like it will evolve into a more complex version of your traditional civ teams vs bad teams.

timmer wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?
Furthur to this, why does someone being a recruiter mean anything? If they are one, they might be a civ recruiter, which means eliminating them will hurt the civ cause. There are equal numbers of bad and good recruiters. And once you are eventually recruited to a team, that's your team, so why gun for a potential recruiter when that may end up your own team down the road?

I don't understand your logic here. Yeah nobody wants to lynch a civ recruiter. But why not go after the bad recruiters? If I think someone's posts indicate to me they're building up a group of evil friends to scheme with then I'll point it out to everyone and vote for that person. Sure they might be hoping to recruit me but they might also be planning to kill me. Better safe than sorry. I guess I'm just playing this like I normally would as a civ rather than thinking neutral?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The exchange of votes between Golden and Epignosis looks to me like the literal definition of OMGUS (I think y'all call it "no u"). I doubt I'll support a lynch of either of them on Day 1.

You are correct on all fronts. I think this is whatever passes for civ v civ in a game of mostly neutrals.

Posted: **Fri Aug 21, 2015 8:04 am**

@dom - Not uncomfortable, but yeah I prefer to vote people I think could be bad. I do think epi could be bad.

But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point. So there is no value to me in epi living past today. I do not think he is civ. I think he has done some things which could mean he is bad. I think there are also neutral explanations for his behaviour. I don't mind seeing him lynched be he bad or neutral.

And, I see why you are confused because my response to JJ looks weird, it's because I read his question wrong. I thought he asked for motives that were not anti-town, hence my response to him about 'if epi was neutral'.

As for mafia motives, can think of two possibilities. One, he was thinking of recruiting me given we worked well together in Guess Who and creating distance first was a tactic to achieve it. Two, he was not thinking of recruiting me and so why not cast suspicion on me.

I'll be honest, I suspect the real reason epi won't back off his suspicion is much simpler. He has been busy with work starting up, lord of the realms, helping Simon with Angry Birds. I think he misread SVS question in the first place. But he is not the kind of person to back off because he misreads (or to admit he read something wrong), and so he just finds other ways to justify his suspicion.

Others can decide for themselves, I just don't have fun when people make up bs to accuse me of being bad. Lynching epi would restore balance to the force, and make the game more fun for me right now. That's my primary motive.

But my secondary motive is that, yes, I think he has given some cause to think he is bad. Particularly the post where he responded to me suggesting that everyone vote for either him or me, just after he voted for me and said we needed to 'end it'. He backtracked something chronic with that post. Called my tactics mafia 101, said I was setting some kind of trap, but wanted everyone to 'vote with their conscience' and not feel they had to vote for me, the person he thinks is bad?

Whatever comes, my original hope for today was that a lynch stop is used so no-one dies. But if epi gets the most votes, I think the lynch should be allowed to go through. Same for BWT. Those two have both given me reasons to think they could be bad.

linki @ SVS - you are completely right that I have made no entry into the contest to be recruited as a baddie and will not do so. SVS has had experience in the past of my warning baddie teams outright that if they recruit me I'll bus them all, which is a pretty effective tool to prevent baddie recruitment I can assure you. In a game called recruitment mafia I think doing something like that is not in the spirit of the game, so I will be the best I can of whatever I will be, but I will be far more excited to be recruited civ than bad.

I'm ok with DH talking about his poop, provided it is in nauseating brown. I understand unfurl's frustration with the lack of OT green.

The Syndicate

Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (End Game)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 0)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 0)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)

Re: Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (Day 1)