The Syndicate

wow what a clusterfuck

Voting for DF again. I don't feel any better about him, in fact worse, after how the last lynch went down.

Well I explained my reasoning for voting llama when I voted, here. Pretty similar to SVS's reasons. His only justification for voting Sorsha was as blindly following Quin because he trusted him. I don't think that's ever a good reason for a vote. If the person you trust makes a decent case and you decide you agree with it, fine. But llama gave no such reasoning.

Dom wrote:nutella-- I would love to see a response in the style of SVS.

what does this mean

I suppose I can see some merit in that analysis, but I'm not so sure what it tells us. I voted for llama because I thought he was suspicious.

RIP Quin.

G-Man wrote:Feeling pretty confident that there is a baddie in the Llama voters. So ladies, talk me out of voting for you, starting... now!

Can you explain why you think that? If there is, it's not me. Can't speak for the S-ladies.

Don't even try to tell me whether that should have been a "which" or a "that", lol. That's one of the few little quibbles I never quite figured out. Another being "toward" versus "towards." Is there a difference? Who the hell knows?

That's not what I said. I said that prescriptivism (as a general attitude) has racist and classist overtones and consequences. I obviously don't mind the use of what is considered standard or "proper" grammar; it is the insistence that everyone use it at all times which bothers me.

I agree that it's just a tool, but it's one that's deeply ingrained in societal institutions and many people are raised to accept it as divinely, indisputably "correct" rather than a tool to use and adapt to different contexts. It would take a lot of work to undo the widespread biases that prescriptive attitudes toward grammar perpetuate, but it's spreading this kind of work that much of the field of sociolinguistics seeks to accomplish.

Then there is the whole concept of linguistic register, as in the different levels of formality of speech that a single person might use depending on the context. So in a job interview, for instance, you would probably try to adhere to the most standard grammatical forms, whereas in a casual chat with a friend you might not really give a shit. I suspect playing mafia falls somewhere in the middle, but surely has a varying range across players.

So much of mafia is linguistic analysis, really. Especially meta. I bet it would be interesting to do a corpus study of players on this forum to see each player's trends in word usage, phrase structure, etc. And I'm pretty sure what some of my patterns would be

(A lot of hedge-y/noncommittal words for sure. It's interesting that those are almost always seen as suspicious, when that's just the way some people tend to talk.)

G-Man wrote:Forgive me for veering off on a tangent, but is this prescriptivist vs. descriptivist concept akin to an article I read recently that asserts that grammar is racist?

Probably, yes. The general idea is that there is no right or wrong way to use language as long as it seems natural to the speaker and is effective communication in its context (there's a lot of deeper clarification to into regarding what linguists consider "grammar" in that languages have structural "rules" that speakers just don't break even in informal speech because it just wouldn't make sense), and insisting on "correct" grammar can devalue dialects such as African American vernacular, Southern English, and countless others, which are all valid and effective ways that people can and do successfully communicate despite not necessarily being "properly educated" in grammar. So that's why prescriptivism is associated with racial and socioeconomic elitism, and often does negatively affect opportunities such as employment for people with non-standard linguistic backgrounds.

linki: I'd be interested in that paper if you still have it or if not the general idea of it. We should probably move this discussion elsewhere though

Dom wrote:
nutella wrote:As I said earlier, he's usually a much lower poster, though I suppose he does occasionally get invested in discussion (I don't specifically remember any alignment-based meta differences tbh). Something about his engagement in this feels insincere and/or overblown.
Rob outlined this nicely, but what are you talking about here? You know words are important. "Something about" tells me nothing. It tells DFaraday nothing. There's so much room for manipulation and skewing of your intent.

nutella wrote:Hm, I wonder if Juliet is a regular civ this game or not. In season 3 she pretty much started out as one of the bad guys and then defected to the losties. My instinct is to trust Epi and assume Juliet is a civ role, since it would be a weird/less "safe" role to set up as a fake claim.
And you don't actually make any sense of a stance here. You say Rob could be bad. Or good. Whatever.

GMan described this as "two way". I describe it as leaving your options open for when you have to make a stance that's expedient for your agenda.

I believe I was clear enough in my response to G-Man. I don't want to have to repeat myself. Read my response to him. I don't deny that I consider both options, because that's just how I post in mafia (often working out a thought process while writing and concurrently forming/constantly adapting my opinions), but I also clearly said that I decided to trust that Epi was more likely civ.

As for the DF thing, I don't really know what more you want there. I have described multiple times now why I've found him suspicious. Technically I guess you could take out the "something about" and leave the sentence as "his engagement in this..." and it wouldn't really change my meaning, but that's just how I talk. Sorry you don't like it.

linki @ Epi: I will not tolerate prescriptivism in any form. It is racist and classist and disrespectful of linguistic diversity. If you don't understand someone, ask for clarification and I'm sure you will find some mutual ground for effective communication. Otherwise just let people speak how they speak. Don't be such a goddamn jerk.

What kind of linguistics did you study that didn't teach you not to be a dirty prescriptivist?

RIP Trev. How anyone thought you were bad is beyond me.

Dom I don't even want to dignify that with a response. Rude tbh. Having studied linguistics does not automatically mean I should write perfectly. Sometimes I use vague or hedgey words, that's just how I am. Sorry for not living up to your expectations. But you still didn't even point out what specific vague language use you were referring to. I really don't think I've been very vague at all this game compared to some other games I've played. Show me specifically what bothered you. Also, you didn't even acknowledge the point of what I said about that not making me bad.

Spacedaisy wrote: Are we looking at a Dom/DF/speedchuck baddie team here?

I'd believe that tbh. I've got the shiny foil hat to show for it.

(We need a tinfoil smiley lol)

I-- what? None of what you just said makes any sense. I was clueless in Currents and you mislynched me. Why are you pursuing the same course that led you to that result just a few days ago? I'm utterly baffled.

Epignosis wrote:I'm voting nutella. I think she's reproducing her clueless behavior and I disapprove of her DF vote because of "something."

I have described to the best of my ability why I suspect DF. He is not playing the way he usually does, and he comes across as more aggressive in a way that does not feel genuine to me. I don't know what you mean about "reproducing clueless behavior."

Dom wrote:For a linguist, nutella didn't choose her words carefully

First of all, I don't know what you mean by this or why you think this. Second of all, if you think this, do you think that means I'm bad? Or do you think I would be more careful about words if I was bad?

As I said earlier, he's usually a much lower poster, though I suppose he does occasionally get invested in discussion (I don't specifically remember any alignment-based meta differences tbh). Something about his engagement in this feels insincere and/or overblown.

I think I'm getting a worse feeling from DF than from trev in this exchange. He seems opportunistic and heavy handed in a way that doesn't feel normal for him. Idk, maybe he's onto something and I'm picking the wrong side, but I'm putting a vote on DF for now because he just doesn't feel right.

It is none of those things. It was me reacting to Epi's role claim and thinking through its implications.

G-Man wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
G-Man wrote: Hey, being bossy is fun. Maybe we should let Jack and Locke hog all the fun from now on.
That's so Season 2.

Also, why did you vote Nutella?
For her potentially two-way post:
nutella wrote:Hm, I wonder if Juliet is a regular civ this game or not. In season 3 she pretty much started out as one of the bad guys and then defected to the losties. My instinct is to trust Epi and assume Juliet is a civ role, since it would be a weird/less "safe" role to set up as a fake claim.
Sorry Quin, my vote had bollocks to do with you.

It may be two-way in that I expressed a kind of internal dialogue but within the post I settled on thinking Juliet/Epi is more likely civ.

Hm, I wonder if Juliet is a regular civ this game or not. In season 3 she pretty much started out as one of the bad guys and then defected to the losties. My instinct is to trust Epi and assume Juliet is a civ role, since it would be a weird/less "safe" role to set up as a fake claim.

Quin wrote:we really are vompatti'ing this game aren't we

nutella, have a vote. I want your a conclusive statement of your thoughts on Dom.

I noted that he disappeared and I figured that it was most likely due to RL being busy/he forgot to come back to the game, and now he's responded and more or less confirmed that. As for what that signifies to me about his alignment, it's almost neutral but moderately leaning to vanilla civ because if he had BTSC or an important role he'd probably be more invested and remember to check in.

Get rekt Widmore lol
RIP-in-a-neutral-way INH

Dom never showed up again yesterday did he? He was there at the beginning chatting about the show but never really participated in game discussion and instead seemed to disappear/maybe forgot about the game?

Golden wrote:A tie?

The island is disappointed. This is not what you were brought here to do.

All participants in the tie have been marked by the island for death.

DF
Quin
Epignosis
llama
S~V~S
sorsha
nutella
spacedaisy

You are all eligible for death.

...wut

sorry llama. one of my favorite characters too

see you in another life brotha

Also @llama at this point I assume you're trolling but Lost is neither Australian nor obscure, lol

Gman, might you think the same of Sun and Jin? It was the case in season 1 (Sun was an impostor and Jin was civ). I know Jin is civ this time too (repeat role draw woohoo!) but the question is whether Golden would repeat an impostor.

G-Man wrote:
speedchuck wrote:
nutella wrote:I could probably just as well vote for speed since he has the same problems as llama. And his only attempt at hinting has been multiple references to the smoke monster. Not sure what's going on there.
Me neither. Should I claim my character?

Sorsha wrote:
speedchuck wrote:
Sorsha wrote:Put my vote on llama for now. I'll change it later if saving myself is a possibility.
Where would you change it to?
Wherever I'd be able to tie or put someone else in the lead
Ah, so you'd change your vote to save yourself.

Okay then.
From your comment about spitting up sand, my thoughts are you could be Paulo or Vincent. I don't recall anyone else being around sand to the point it was in their mouth.

You all... You all- You all, everybody...

Lol, nice.

If he's Paulo and Quin is Nikki it feels somehow fitting that both of those characters were given to players who haven't watched the show

Filthy redshirts

speedchuck wrote:
nutella wrote:I could probably just as well vote for speed since he has the same problems as llama. And his only attempt at hinting has been multiple references to the smoke monster. Not sure what's going on there.
Me neither. Should I claim my character?

It is highly encouraged. Almost everyone else has.

Though tbh it probably doesn't actually matter if the baddies have roles to fake-claim as I believe was the case in the previous games. We can theorize as to which characters Golden might have left out of the civ pool this round, but based on season 1 I don't recall it being based on any predictable pattern.

So actually I kind of take back my inclusion of lack of claiming as a reason for suspecting llama and speedchuck as I don't think it really means anything (except perhaps the fact that it has been highly encouraged and they haven't gone along with it). But I still find them both suspicious based on their sorsha votes.

I just realized the marmot isn't playing this one. Can't remember the last time he wasn't in a game I played and I've gotten used to his presence being more or less a constant (ha, Lost reference unintentional). Feels weird, man.

Epi voted for Sorsha? I didn't see an explanation.

thellama73 wrote:Quin is the only one in this game talking any sense, so I am following his vote on Sorsha.

Huh? Why? He literally said there was no reasoning behind that vote. Why follow it? I think Quin is civ, but that doesn't mean I'll blindly follow his vote. Do you have reasons to suspect Sorsha? I don't.

But I have reason to suspect you.

*vote llama*

Also, have you hinted at your role at all? Even if you haven't watched the show you should be able to find a quote or something from your character (just the superficial information Quin found about his character was enough for us fans to deduce who it is). I may have missed something though.

On another note, I don't think I've ever seen DFaraday this active on a day 1, lol. Maybe it's because he's especially interested in the theme and the roleplaying/references, but it still feels unusual coming from him. But I do agree with his assessment of speedchuck's vote. I could probably just as well vote for speed since he has the same problems as llama. And his only attempt at hinting has been multiple references to the smoke monster. Not sure what's going on there.

nutella wrote: Nah, I think Nikki and Paulo are probably about as vanilla as they come.

Well, probably not in the sexual sense.

G-Man wrote:Flipping my vote to Quin momentarily. Nikki and Paulo were horrible people and I wouldn't put it past Golden to fuse them together to cover for a Godfather that can survive their first brush with death.

Spoiler: show
95% of Lost fans hated Nikki and Paulo.

*Quin*

You all... You all...

Nah, I think Nikki and Paulo are probably about as vanilla as they come. But I could be wrong.

As I like to say on day 1 when I'm *cough* look Epi *cough* a clueless civ... anyone could be fooling me at this point.

you disrespect my accent I disrespect yours k

only uzzers never watched lost

uzzers screwed up my emoticon code

Uzzers??

Uzzers!!

....oh it's a flashforward

Hello

Wait, Charlie died at the end of Season 3.

*nosebleed*

Search found 42 matches