The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Perhaps the single moment that most favored town was when G-Man's role was revealed without him dying. That essentially removed him from the suspect pool, and Spacedaisy with him. The only angle the mafia had left late in the game to try and get out of trouble was to perpetuate the paranoia that G-Man might be bad.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I know about your suspicion of S~V~S. Please tell me about the other two.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:The fuck is going on in this game?

I don't know, but who do you suspect most? Please give more than one name.

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:If Wilgy's role is closer to a roleblockers role in that it doesn't protect him, then I don't see how nobody died last night.

I don't think a role is called "jailer" if it fits this description. Either Wilgy is misunderstanding his role card, or Rico withheld a detail intentionally. Everything falls perfectly into place if it's a standard jailer.

Let's hold back on lynching G-Man until we have more information. Vote rabbit with me.

Quin wrote:With that confirmed, I request we lynch rabbit tomorrow.

Posting from uni. Hi. Bye.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Any of them. I mean no offense to those players; I just mean they're newer to this kind of game and may not be as accustomed to cop hunting and the importance of removing that role.

I understand your doubt about Epi. It's holding me back from calling him obviously bad. I don't like a lot about his post history (as he doesn't like a lot about mine), but he is right that the Polo kill is hard to attribute to him. It should be hard to attribute to me too.

I don't think any of those players are new to finding role hints..... If you think I missed it, well then, Okay.

Are you accustomed to it being imperative to remove an alignment checker at the first sign?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Any of them. I mean no offense to those players; I just mean they're newer to this kind of game and may not be as accustomed to cop hunting and the importance of removing that role.

I understand your doubt about Epi. It's holding me back from calling him obviously bad. I don't like a lot about his post history (as he doesn't like a lot about mine), but he is right that the Polo kill is hard to attribute to him. It should be hard to attribute to me too.

S~V~S wrote:I voted for Eloh. Since she appears to be bad for sure, why backburner her?

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:S~V~S and rabbit as team mates also presents an interesting dynamic. Rabbit went right after her as soon as she showed up on Day 0/1.

rabbit also claims he'd have voted SVS on Day 1, but he uses Wilgy's actions as an excuse as to why he voted Vompatti instead of the person he'd been making a case against. It could very easily be distancing.

--

I'd like pretty much anybodies opinions on this hypothetical which might indicate SVS and/or rabbit being bad. I'm referring to the coloured post below.

Spoiler: show

Elohcin wrote:Wow, it had been so quiet in here and then BOOM!

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:Well I never liked you anyway!

Different philosophies, I guess. When I have the option I have pretty much always and will always vote no lynch on Day 1.

Please tell me your philosophy. If I find it disagreeable, I'll surely explain why.

There is not enough information for me, personally. Day 1 is a mix of throwing fingers around aimlessly and hoping you can find something that sticks. There's also a high probability of mislynching, but that's variable on what information is available, but you can't really get that until you have more concrete information.

I see where you are coming from. It is rare that a baddie is lynched on Day 1 due to lack of information. I also think that lynching people is where we get a lot of our information, assuming we get to learn the lynched player's alignment.

Vompatti wrote:I think it would be a good idea to start lynching the mafia before they outnumber the civs.

Yes. This is difficult. B/c if the Day 1 lynch is in fact a mislynch, then we have made it that much more difficult for ourselves as our number is possibly two less including a night kill. But the Day 1 lynch does at least give us an opportunity to TRY to get a baddie.

.....

Welcome SVS. Do you know who you are replacing?

I think your observation about the rules, or lack there of, is interesting. Perhaps if we do end on a post count of 4, 9, 13, or multiple of, then the secret rule #4, #9, or #13 will be there to bite us in the butt.

.....

Epignosis wrote:What about those of us who haven't posted at all?

I was wondering where you were at?

Let's assume that G-Man's accusations against Elohcin are correct. Let's assume that because her posts since the info dump aren't doing much for her civ cred. Following are some assertions and my case.

* Eloh knows her teammates

She knows this, but without BTSC, she is unable to contact them.

* SVS replaces a TBD person

Because of the lack of BTSC, Eloh has no idea whether the person replacing out is on her team or not.

* Elohcin asks SVS who she is replacing

It would be important for Elohcin to be sure of any replacements going on in order to avoid accidentally bussing a teammate.

From here it gets a little more iffy.

None of the players who had posted prior to the replacement showed any indication of wanting or needing to be replaced, so we should assume that (at the time) Elohcin was expecting the person being replaced to be from the pile who had yet to post.

At the time of Elohcin asking the above question, the group of people who had not posted consisted of:

Serge
rabbit8
Polo

In remembering that Elohcin would have wanted to be sure of whether SVS was replacing a baddie, and the insight that nobody who had posted obviously wanted to be replaced, it's likely that Elohcin asked SVS in order to make sure that she knew if one of the three mentioned above were being replaced. That leads me to believe that at least one of the three listed above are bad. I'm obviously dropping Polo because he's confirmed civ...and dead.

My conclusion is that at least one of Serge/SVS and rabbit8 are bad.


Or maybe I just spent an hour writing up this lump of garbage because I'm reading too much into a persons curiousity.

G-Man wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

G-Man wrote:Bitch rabbit I told you so.

RIP INH

2.01.N

This proves JJJ is bad?
Sorry INH. I had no idea, your posts were lacking.

Barely if at all. What I meant was I told you INH was a civ. I dropped a vague hint once already defending him this game. Oh well. Now we're stuck with rehashing Day 2's talking points for another day. Joy of joys.


2.02.N

Epignosis wrote:Gosh guys! Let's go for the people whose posts are "lacking" rather than those who are pretending to be good and failing remarkably at it!

G-Man wrote:Bitch rabbit I told you so.

RIP INH

2.01.N

G-Man wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:I'm voting INH.

Bah! You fool. INH is a vanilla civ!


2.32

G-Man wrote:Better option(s) in mind rabbit? I could vote for JJJ to end the mystery but I'm not 100% sold. Are you more suspicious or less about SVS?


2.30

G-Man wrote:Bullhonkey is going to be at work if we're not careful. JJJ, I understand you voting in self-preservation. Can you explain why you chose INH over every other 1-vote player?

For those joining is, there is no true momentum against INH. I think he's civ for his Day 1 scheme sniffing. Anyone voting or switching to him late will look suspicious to me.



2.29

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:This is post 21. I'll fill it with some GTH reads.

wilgy - civ
elohcin - civ
epignosis - civ
gman - civ
INH - bad
3j - civ
polo - bad
rabbit - bad
scotty - civ
spacedaisy - bad
svs - civ

It'd be swell if you'd throw up a little analysis as time permits for those bad reads.

INH - In my earlier summary where I pretty much just listed everything of interest to me, INH was definitely in my head the most. His aggressiveness in particular towards you is what I'm basing the bad read off. Unfortunately he hasn't posted today (he could be silenced?) so I can't really update my read.

Polo - Firstly, his inactivity leaves him as the only player left to make an impression and so that way, either he's a baddie skirting the sidelines, or he's just an unhelpful civ. It may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm comfortable lynching either. I did originally put my vote down on him because he didn't say why he was voting Wilgy, but an ISO corrected that. Even so, I'm not impressed with his case. On Day 1, his case was just 'he's different than he was in a previous game', and it's not really pushed, nor did he even vote there at the time (he didn't vote at all). Even now his vote is supposedly 'for now' so he's not asserting his opinion very strongly.

I can put SD and rabbit into pretty much the same thought process. I dislike their reasons for voting Vompatti because it feels like they just wanted to lynch someone regardless of whether it was someone they actually thought was bad or not. I'd rank SD slightly higher than rabbit though, because SD addressed me and made a decent case for herself where rabbit just tried to poke fun at my opinion on no lynching.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I did it because I was providing cop cover. sig correctly guessed that himself, and it's a big reason why I thought he might actually be a cop. This kind of thing is so ordinary in cultures where infodumping is legal. Unfortunately I've had to blow that cover over the course of this dialogue, but it is what it is.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also a classic Silverwolfian discredit via the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. Epi's logic is terrible in this game. Make him answer to that later.

My logic is fine. It's making you uncomfortable and you are showing your true colors.

I can only hope everyone else isn't too big a wimp to "make you uncomfortable" when I'm dead. I've noted logical shortcomings in your content and instead of addressing them you've given me curt bullshit. You did the same thing in Turf Wars and The Office.

You provided no such logical shortcomings, and all of it requires the presence of a cop in the first place. It took you ages to address the meat of what I was saying, which I interpret as dancing around the issue until you could explain yourself. You also had no suspicion of me until I came at you first, and now you've scrounged up a pathetic, "He voted INH who had no votes instead of voting Scotty who had no votes, so he could be on a team with them."

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:i'll try again Epi, just in case my points were unclear.

1. Whether there is a cop in this game is irrelevant. There could be, and there are almost certainly some kinds of power roles. When a vanilla civilian provides "cop cover", he or she attracts a night kill thereby protecting the cop or any other non-vanilla civilians.

2. sig's very own posts display a consciousness of cop cover. That's plenty of evidence on its own to suggest he might have had the intent to provide cover himself. Moreover, his staunch refutations of my peeks may have made it look like he had the power to make peeks instead, thus rendering my claim doubtful. That's the proposed method of cover.

3. That his understanding of a cop role differed from mine has no logical bearing on whether he meant to provide cover. You keep bringing this up and it's still irrelevant.

4. That I waited until his death to express my thought that he might be providing cover is a product of not wanting to expose him -- I thought he might actually be a cop. His cover was solid whether he intended it or not.

5. Wilgy associating us as team mates is not sufficient motive for a night kill. If my gambit is to green peek sig as a baddie, I'm smart enough to realize that some people might find that curious and associate the two of us -- especially in this culture where that is foreign. So to say I killed him because I wanted to break that theory is to say I didn't think my peek through in the first place. I'm a very calculated baddie.

6. Killing him does not earn me town credit either (nobody is rushing to hand me any as you can see). Because of our association, any kill on sig is by default going to draw scrutiny to me.

Where is my logic faulty?

G-Man wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

G-Man wrote: Bullsuit and condescend all you want. I know you're wrong. In fact, I think you're now the lazy option for the quiet folk to pounce on today. I'm glad we got this all out of the way early so we still have 24+ hours to make additional progress.


2.20

You've taken a side without saying why you took it. I agree that I'm the easy way out right now and you're currently more guilty of taking it than anyone.

Believe me when I say I haven't made my mind up on you. I have not taken sides. I merely called your bluff.


2.21

Scotty wrote: Rabbit: why DID you vote for Vomps? I don't remember seeing an answer to that.

rabbit8 wrote:I'll vote vomps for now, I might not make it home in time to vote or switch my vote. If the no lynch voters move thier votes I will be moving mine to SVS, unless I don't make it home in time. Apparently there is a lot of traffic today.

Polo wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Polo, if you were playing this Mafia game at a more active pace and another player had the amount of content that you have in this game, how do you think you would read that player?

#certifiedaskerofquestions

I'd be ok with lynching that person for I believe in eliminating inactive people from the game.

It's Friday, finally, and I have some time!

JJJ vs. Epi exchange sounds interesting, and I'm inclined to distrust Epignosis' aggressive style.

Wilgy still bothers me.

More reading to follow.

2.01

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:I agree with you here Epig. Seems JJJ wants to throw shade everywhere right now in his defense.

JJJ that seems odd to me from the last game I played with you.

I said that before I was defending myself.

rabbit8 wrote:I don't know. Sometimes I like to see an argument play out before I comment. Do you usually make a scene? I know you make huge posts but this is the first time I've seen you make a scene. My game pool with you is extremely small thoough.

I'm not talking about the argument, I'm talking about the claimed/withheld red peek.

It's inherently easier to make a scene when infodumping is legal, which isn't generally the case here. It's not unusual for me to try reactive tactics like this though. I did a lot of in Turf Wars recently.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Everyone who has visited this thread without commenting on the matter at hand is more suspicious than before.

Elohcin and S~V~S were around but did not comment on the claimed red peek or the discussion stemming from it.

And?

I know I am not the only person who stays logged in and not hidden throughout the day. Just because people are shown as being on doesn't mean they are engaged on The Syndicate. They could be cooking supper, working up a strong fantasy baseball lineup, or watching bootlegged episodes of Mama's Family in another tab.

So what makes these individuals more suspicious than before?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Everyone who has visited this thread without commenting on the matter at hand is more suspicious than before.

Elohcin and S~V~S were around but did not comment on the claimed red peek or the discussion stemming from it.

And?

I know I am not the only person who stays logged in and not hidden throughout the day. Just because people are shown as being on doesn't mean they are engaged on The Syndicate. They could be cooking supper, working up a strong fantasy baseball lineup, or watching bootlegged episodes of Mama's Family in another tab.

So what makes these individuals more suspicious than before?

Showing up, posting nothing, and leaving is not the same thing as "staying". Elhocin did post as well, just not about this issue.

I think one potential baddie response to JJJ making a scene is to not touch it with a ten foot pole.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If posting a picture wasn't such an ass pain on my phone, I'd post a picture of Marty McFly onstage at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance, everyone staring at him in confusion after he shredded up the stage.

I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet.

rabbit8 wrote:Cutthroat? I made one accusation on day 1.... I was night

DrWilgy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:JJJ what are your thoughts on Elohchin?

Generally I've seen her more in a town light than not. I think in recent memory when she has been bad there has been visible evidence, like in Transistor in her interactions with Matt, and I haven't been terribly perturbed by her content so far in this game. I could say that she has participated at a higher clip than usual; I've been content to attribute that to this being a heist game. She prefers smaller games. What are your thoughts on Elohcin?

She had similar patterns to Sig and that bothered me early game, but what you say is something I've noticed as well. Her baddie game in transistor showed and I would think to see something similar, but they aren't there.

Rabbit is playing cutthroat and I don't know how to react to it, since I don't think I have any baddie rabbit experience. His comment regarding swapping to SVS had it been an option feels uneeded. It pinged me somewhat.

What are your thoughts on him JJJ?

Linki @ Quin - INH and SVS

DrWilgy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

G-Man wrote:Baddies know who the civvies are in heist games. Never forget that.

What is the implication here?

I would infer that i means that you are bad JJJ. I've been thinking it as well.

@Quin because I trusted INH and SVS. In total that makes 3 players that were trusted.

I can confirm that both the players I trusted are civilian.

DrWilgy wrote:Let's kill INH...

If INH isn't bad we murderify JJJ ok?

Quin wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Quin, I was looking at three votes for Vomps, up against four votes for no lynch. I was pretty clear that I thought a no lynch was a bad idea from the time I first came in the thread. Basically I could vote for Vomps to try and get rid of the no lynch direction, or I could have thrown my vote away on someone else. I think the only one anywhere even close at the time was SVS and I didn't feel any more about her than Vomps. So you think I should have thrown my vote to the wind instead? I voted for the result I preferred, even if I was not particularly partial to lynching Vomps specifically. Sorry if you take issue with that, but it is what it is.

As I said I think the way you (and rabbit as well, I'm putting you both on equal turf with this) went about your vote felt like you were voting just for the sake of lynching somebody and avoiding a no lynch. Wanting to lynch somebody without caring who just so somebody was lynched is pingy. You didn't make the 'at least we'll get information from the lynch' argument either so I doubt that was your motive. Why do you think you would be throwing your vote to the wind if you didn't vote for a top lynch candidate?

Quin wrote:Okay, I'm caught up.

I'll address the few people who believe that 3J is the actual cop as opposed to just having a n0 check. He claims to have had a random n0 cop check, which you may or may not believe, but he's made no mention of any continued use of that ability, leading me to think it was just a one-time use (unless I've missed something of course, in which case you should tell me). It's entirely possible that he is actually the cop and the two are separate, but even so I don't see anything I could call a claim unless I'm missing something in his ISO.

I think there are definitely baddies amongst the Vomp voters. Here's what reasoning I perceived from people's votes:

spacedaisy: No lynching is a bad idea - I disagree with the notion, but even so, she voted just for the sake of lynching somebody. To me it doesn't appear as though it mattered who.

SVS: Self-preservation - Totally okay with it.

Scotty: Disliked his reasoning for voting no lynch - I agree with his reasoning here considering he never said why.
Agreed with 3J's case - meh.

3J: Thinks Vompatti was more personally invested in the game than usual - It's a...very grey area for me to interpret but it wouldn't be enough to convince me to vote there.

elohcin: Thinks Vompatti wasn't acting normally - I have pretty much the same opinion as I do for 3J.

rabbit8: No reasoning whatsoever in his ISO. It's just there. His comment about the no lynchers makes me think he has the same mindset as spacedaisy, so my thought process is the same.

S~V~S wrote:Guys, I am so sorry, I completely forgot about this game. Between rl & my recent "mafia break" mindset, I totally lost track.

Will catch up after work, and you always want to lynch me, Rabbit. I am not bad, and lynching me would do no good, although you would not be losing a valuable role with me, either.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think we need to agree on a lynch as a group so we can overcome this abysmal no lynch wagon. I could lynch Vompatti.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Could you guys make make a summary on the current nominees so I could place my vote without reading the thread? I am quite drunk at the moment.

Normally you wouldn't even care enough to make this request.

Quin wrote:This is exciting. Maybe I'll finally get my no lynch result.

Some early observations that I found interesting:

- I'm seeing INH as much, much more aggressive in this game than I have before. He accuses 3J of shutting down any conversations where the other person has a different viewpoint, a point which is easily discredited just by looking at his posts. He also votes no lynch for unclear reasons.

- 3J was pretty quick to town read quite a few people. I get that 'it's never too early to form an opinion' but I think an hour into day 0 is surprisingly quick.

- SVS says things just for the sake of saying it. Feigning activity or just looking to contribute? Find out next time...

- Scotty says some stuff about relying on meta early on, which I agree with. He also twisted 3J's words about 'willing to be lynched' which ...I don't?

- rabbit waited until day 1 began to start pointing fingers, though he was here during day 0 for a very brief period.

- wilgy voted no lynch and i still dont think he's given a clear reason why.

- elohcin voted sig and ignored 3j's testimony that he was civ.

- vompatti votes no lynch for the lulz.


10

DrWilgy wrote:GTH:
Vompatti and Eloh if JJJ is good. SVS is good. Rabbit bad if JJJ is bad. Sig is bad if Eloh is good. I suppose that would also mean that Rabbit JJJ and Sig could be on a team.

Gman is slightly bad... His scumdoodlin is not reliant on other players yo.

@Sig, how about 2 full grown roosters?

@Rabbit, who's on your team?

Elohcin wrote:

sig wrote:

No it didn't alarm me in that sense, I just found it odd that you'd include me with the other names. I guess I did do well in the Scrimmage with no BTSC, but I still found it pingy, but also flattering so thanks.....I think?

Well, I do think you're a good player. Please tell me why I should move my vote off of you an onto someone else. And, who should that someone else be? I am thinking Vompatti. His craziness this game doesn't seem to follow his norm. What do you think? It's almost as he is half crazy, half trying. Which is odd to me.

DrWilgy wrote:Ok SVS, I trust you. I'm civ.

Yo rabbit, why are we bad for voting no lynch?

rabbit8 wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:This may come as a shock to people who know me, but I'm voting no Lynch

Screams baddie to me. You want no lynch, no info. I think it's bad, looks civvie cause, yay I voted to not lynch someone that could be a civ. But we gain nothing from no lynch, IMO.

This goes for Wigly and Quinn as well.

rabbit8 wrote:@INH: Twitch your eyebrow on day 1 is good enough, IMO, to vote for someone. Thus one reason I'm about ready to give SVS a vote. She brought up sig just to bring him up while saying he was just saying something. I really think she was trying to get others to get a twitch from sig.

But you're advocating a no lynch. I don't agree with you. I have to wonder if a baddie is hiding behind the no lynch to look civvie. I will be looking at you three early no lynch voters harder.

@Scotty: I don't think there would be an indy in this game, but you never know. So clarification is good.

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

G-Man wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Negative marks to everyone in single digit posts. More likely to be bad than the rest.

Bite me, angry bear boy. You do realize that, as of this post, your comment suggests that 8+1 of us are more likely to be bad than the remaining 5? That's a net so wide it's silly. Why not just say everyone not named JJJ is more likely to be bad? Or were you being cheeky there?


1.02

All of these imaginary systems that he just keeps coming up with just seem like him posturing to where he can come up with some justification to lynch just about anyone. If I wasn't already committed to voting No Lynch, he'd probably be my top candidate.

insertnamehere wrote:So, let me preface this by saying that I am by no means, an expert at coding. This was the first really big program that I've decided to make. It could work, it could not, I'm going to try and see.

I've created a program that goes into every poster's game history, specifically games where they were bad, and sees what their top phrases or words are. It then contrasts those with the top words or phrases from a persons post history when they were good. It then eliminates the words that were on both lists, leaving us with that person's tells. After that, it goes into this thread, and sees how many times someone uses words or phrases identified as tells. The higher that number is, the more likely chance you are to be bad. This was a bitch to make, and it's something I've worked on for a long time, a bit of a pet project if you will.

Now, of course, because of the limited sample size, the program is more likely to be incorrect these first few days, but, as more and more people post, I know more and more about their role.

To summarize, I'm the NSA now, bitches.

The reason why I find 3J suspicious is because he seems to be doing the same sort of thing that I did in that game, where I was a chaos independent.