The Syndicate

That was the best first game of mafia I could imagine! I really hope I can get in another game of yours someday :-D

Oh. Even though he had me lynched, and appears to intend to do so again, I'm fairly confident that llama is good now. Or at least was, fairly recently.

thellama73 wrote:I don't think FH can be bad since she stuck up for She-Ra so heavily. Snake Mountain hasn't been NKing and the only two inactive people at the time were BF and Ishar. FH says that she thinks BF is good, so it doesn't look good for poor Nevinera today.

Trusting that someone is not bad is very different from trusting that their judgment of another is correct. Now, if you are confident that FH is good, and FH says 'I am extremely confident that BF is good', then that's another story.

thellama73 wrote: FH, I would remind you that we don't know the identity of Moss Man. It is possible he is still among us, and he can never be lynched. Sine he can never be lynched, I don't think it out of the realm of possibility that timmer has the same power, especially due to the cosmic nature of his role.

I'd almost take the *existence* of that character to imply that recruitment is roughly impossible (or at least strips powers somehow). How could the civvies win if there was an unlynchable baddie?

That said, I rather agree about Timmer. If he is Zodac, that character is super powerful in the series - able to take on snake mountain basically solo. It also wouldn't make sense for him to have an objective like "everyone else dies" - the character was not 'good', but he wasn't universally destructive; he had a specific person to kill, and he did whatever he had to to kill that person.

I'm afraid I have no idea.

I now know it wasn't Ishar.. not that I ever really thought it was - he just seemed like a good target since he wasn't contributing anything to our chances.

The more I think about that archer parable, the more it seems like it was pointing the finger at one of your clique of mutual trust. I had thought that was you, because of the description of the period surrounding your first resurrection, but there are a few leaps in that logic.

I've made my peace. But it would be cool if we could lynch a bad guy this time instead.

Epi offered, and it sounded like fun.
I'm completely new though, so go easy on me!

Don't hurt me!!

Flyin' High wrote:I do feel like there is something off surrounding Nevinera v. llama, but if there are no original mafia left then I feel like I'd be guessing between the two of them.

Llama and I know each other IRL, and have played thousands of various games together, including several hidden-role games like Bang! and Sabateur - we've picked up a tendency to treat each other as a threat, because we're both very good liars (though I doubt that admission will help my chances of survival).

I'm willing to suspect him of deception for things that I wouldn't credit most people with being able to pull off, because he's *very* good at playing subtle angles. But I certainly don't have an airtight case against him (even to myself), and there are some things I expect to (not) happen over the next few nights that will answer a few questions for me. Which I will then not be allowed to explain to you.. but still. At least *I'll* know :-)

Or we could lynch Ishar, since there's no downside?

elohcin wrote:I think what llama says here does make sense. Nev, how does this make you suspicious of llama and what makes you say that he may have been recruited mid-game. That is a pretty specific claim when you were not here at the time.

As I understand the rules, I'm not allowed to tell you that :-\

The line between revealing my deductions and revealing the information I must have had to make them is a bit fuzzy to me; I've already been pushing that line a bit, to be honest.

I'm not confident that it would have happened 'mid-game', but his early-game actions don't track with being a baddie at all. He's a subtle player in general; if he had been converted, he would have carefully stayed non-obvious thereafter, relying on his earlier behavior to convince people that he's good, and occasionally doing 'good' things when he thinks they'd be convincing but have justifiably low impact on him. Has that been happening?

At any rate, my logic and honesty will become much easier to follow when I'm lynched, which is presumeably why he flip-flopped after I offered to take him down with me.

thellama73 wrote:If Ishar is the last baddie, then there is not really any time pressure to lynch him, since he is not performing night kills or influencing the discussion in any way. However, if it is Nevinera, it would be dangerous to leave him alive. And since I know him in real life, I know that he is tricksy and not to be trusted. It would be a shame to lynch him if he turns out civ, but we would still have plenty of time to get Ishar afterwards even if that did happen.

You're starting to make me suspicious, llama.. You ought to know who I am, but you seem to be determined to kill me anyway. That makes me think that you might have been recruited mid-game.

If he eventually gets me killed, remember this everyone..

While I'll be happy to argue this out today (and again tomorrow) can anyone think of a downside to lynching Ishar first?

I mean, if I were so 'clever' that I'd give up my night kills to fool you, then you would be under no time pressure. It's not like they can save them up, I assume? Ishar isn't present, so he can't vote with you, so the baddies getting him killed wouldn't affect civvie success probability at all. Even if he turns out to have been a civ, it would give us a bit more information about who could be left.

But instead, we're all going to vote for me, based on incredibly flimsy 'WWED' logic?

Well, lets see if timmer kills anyone this round, at least we can test the 'redirected lynching' theory..

thellama73 wrote: It wouldn't make sense to bring in a substitute this late and fill another civvie role if the only remaining baddie had been inactive all game.

No, it wouldn't. But when I entered the game, shadow-weaver was still alive, and I actually don't think Ishar is the 'last remaining baddie' - I think timmer still needs to fail some objective. But I don't see a downside to lynching Ishar, so I jumped on your wagon.

(voted ishar)

timmer wrote:Nevinera seems pretty bright I wouldn't be shocked if he skipped a kill to put pressure elsewhere. The idea to lynch came pretty quick... my vote will oikeky to go Nevi. Epig wouldn't fill a civ role and leave a lone baddie role unfilled.

Er, that wasn't my idea? I much agree with the logic, but llama thought of Ishar as a good target. I kind of forgot he was still alive >.<

thellama73 wrote:Well, there was no night kill by Snake mountain. That means either they are all dead or the last one is inactive, which would make it Ishar. I say we lynch him and see what happens. I am afraid of trying to lynch timmer again, to be honest.Thoughts?

I don't really see a downside - if he's inactive, then he's not helping us anyway right?

It doesn't look like we're being nightkilled, so there's no urgency to our actions that I can see.

How did he get lynched at night? -.O

Elohcin wrote: Why does it have to be that either you are both bad or both civvies?

I believe you'll find my reasoning in the post you quoted.

Elohcin wrote: I believe that Epignosis would not launch a game that he and the mod did not believe to be balanced. I think that because we had so many players not participate, the game may have become unbalanced. You mentioned that he brought you in as a replacement simply because you wanted to play. I am thinking that IMC was civvie and untamed was baddie and that Epig had to weigh his options. (For the record, we had other inactive players other than the two roles I just mentioned. For example, Dom was pretty inactive and was civvie.) As Epignosis was deciding where to place you, he may have thought to himself, "I have a new player...do I give him a civilian or a mafia role?" As civvies are close to winning, he most likely thought it unfair to give you the civvie role. That would mean favoring civvies. So, he opted to give you the baddie role. Now we must lynch you.

Now, it's pretty obvious that all arguments of this form are fairly weak - trying to predict what Epi would do to maintain a game balance (when we don't know if it's unbalanced, or which direction it might have been unbalanced in) is unlikely to draw any strong conclusions. Now, we are all grasping at straws trying to find something to clue us in to who could be left, and a weak argument is obviously better than nothing. What's interesting is how confidently you are pointing the finger at me based on it! Even if I *didn't* know that you're wrong, that would give me pause. Now I have to spend another hour going back and reading all of your posts to see how often you do that..

That was not the point I was trying to make. If he thought the game had originally been unbalanced, then sure - he might try to balance it back out by adding someone to the losing team. But he's not going to take a game that was essentially fair, but has one side starting to win, and then 'balance' it so that the team that has established its lead loses that lead.

Now, unless you think that *both* of the roles in question were evil, the_untamed having left couldn't unbalance things in favor of the civs - at worst it would make things even again, since IMC also left. It makes much more sense the other direction - IMC and untamed were both civs, and he is trying to balance the game back up by adding one of them back in. Which do you think is more likely - both civs, or both bads?

I would assume because we are *both* civs, and he couldn't give me both roles. Your logic only works if you assume one of the two of us was a snake. As for why he replaced someone so late, it's probably because I really wanted to play.

I certainly don't think he'd try to 'balance' out (read: extend significantly) a game that has been going for so long!

Flyin' High wrote: I think we need to be looking at Aces or Nevinera.
Aces throwing up on the beach is weird. Did he pick a tale? Maybe his tale made him feel ill? But that doesn't make much sense.
Gah, I just wish we had more to go on than simply guessing at this point.

Well, if I'm following this right, we'll know whether or not a snake is still around tonight.. They aren't likely to forego a night kill just to mislead, are they?

At any rate, I feel safe for the evening; no baddie is going to kill the most suspected other player -.-

Do we have any guesses at what Zodac's win condition could be yet? Judging by the character descriptions I've read, it's unlikely to be 'survive until the end' - he had his own objectives in the series, and they didn't align with anyone else's.

Any idea why Ace of Spades would be throwing up on the beach?

Well, I'm not sure I'll be back before close, so I'm voting for timmer now.

Elohcin wrote:Glad you were able to survive, llama.

I think the story of the archer may mean that the person we need to lynch is one the we trust, but shouldn't. Thoughts?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it as allegory. It might just be implying that there was a recruitment, and that none of our logic relying upon old behavior is sound.

I'm not sure how anything I've said could be a "Wine in front of me" argument - could you clarify a bit? My point in the post you quoted was that being the sole baddie would be a stressful, complicated, and intricate position; I don't think something like that would make a very good intro into the game. I mean sure, he could have done that knowing that you would infer that I wasn't bad for this very reason (That *would* be a wifom argument), but that seems a bit thin to me.

I don't actually think that "Epi would ___" arguments are particularly useful, since he has access to a lot more information than we do, and we can't logically predict his actions in any way. My argument was really in response to posts by other people trying to suggest that my replacing the_untamed at such a late date might imply that he had a pivotal role.

I hadn't looked at my predecessors voting history before, but judging by his posts he didn't really have one.. or did he do some silent voting?

I'm actually having trouble figuring out how to defend myself logically without claiming to be anyone specific - I'm not really sure where the line is between logical explication and 'role hinting'. I wish I *did* have btsc with someone, I could really use some tactical advice here.

timmer wrote:About the only hunch I have is our new player. He (she?) sounded pretty on the ball for someone who had to catch up on over 100 pages of game. I wouldn't be shocked if he (she?) had had btsc with DP before he died.

He, and thanks :-)

I wish I had btsc with someone; instead I spent about 3 hours reading the comments-in-thread of everyone still alive (though that took way longer for some of you), and following up on everything you guys brought up when I asked earlier.

I don't have a way to judge how likely various win conditions are, since I haven't looked at any of Epi's past games in depth, so I have no real opinion about you, timmer (though I seem to inexplicably trust llama for reasons I prefer not to explain). I've been spending most of my effort trying to figure out who could still be a snake by tracing past relationships to DP. Haven't gotten anywhere useful with that yet, but I'm only halfway through the thread :-\

I'm a quick study, and I love complicated games.. but I am brand new. Surely our host wouldn't drop a completely new player into an insanely complicated and extended game as the only remaining baddie?

Oh, forgot to say my vote. I voted archer last night - I hope he doesn't tell any stories from the latest season though, cause I'm not done with it yet.

flying' high wrote:We ruled out AceofSpaces because the Horde tried to kill him early on in the game so we figure unless that was a bluff then Aces isn't a threat.

He'd have to be a snake now, so he's not really ruled out at all. Unless I've missed something?

That said, I'm confident enough to join the mob. Voting for DP.

I'm not evil, of course, but I do follow the logic. I think that you should consider though that, this late in such a long game, it would be similarly painful for Epig to drop a civ for inactivity; it wouldn't end the game suddenly, but it would make everyone feel negatively about the experience. "If only ____ hadn't dropped out, we'dve totally won", etc.

Flyin' High wrote:I have reason to believe DP doesn't have any sort of weird vote manipulations surrounding him today. If he survives then I think we're wrong about him being the last mafia this game because if there is no way for the civvies to take out the last mafia, then what's the point of continuing to play?

The problem here is that, since we don't know what the mechanism is, we don't know when (or if) it should run out. It would be unlikely for him to be unlynchable for good, but he could easily have something like "X% chance of being unlynchable", or "unlynchable N times" or even something more complicated, like "unlynchable unless an odd number of people vote for him".

It doesn't help that the only possible Hordie would have a completely secret power, huh? And Hordak lasted for a long time, so who knows what mysterious tech might be in play for that team :-\

Llama's first resurrection doesn't fit with any scenarios that have him on the Horde, unless they got several pretty interesting gadgets.. And I have a suspicion about who he is anyway (though it is based on flavor text, which I recall Epig saying can't be relied on).

Does anyone want to chime in on why they don't think FH is bad? I'm finding people's expressed logic to be very helpful and informative :-)

Flyin' High wrote:I trust blindfaeth, llama, Elohcin, and Timmer. Maybe Aces, we at least think he's not Horde because Horde tried to kill him Night 3. We have reason to think DP is the last baddie in this game so we're trying to lynch him for the second time today. If he survives again, we might just wonder if you're the last baddie!

I am unclear on why his survival would add any weight to that possibility.. Or is this just a 'Vote for DP *or else*' kind of thing?

It does feel like he's trying to pretend to be invulnerable by inviting attack though. I'm not sure how subtle these games usually are - is reverse-reverse psychology unlikely here? (being invulnerable, and pretending to be pretending that it's true).

Hi! I'm completely new, so tell me - who can I trust around here? ;-)