The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:I'm here, off and on. Based on what I've read and been thinking about, I'm most likely to vote fingersplints. Personally, I think all this talk about DFaraday is a distraction and seems too easy again, but I'll read the stuff on him over again anyway.

Soooooo....if DFaraday is a distraction, who is doing the distracting? Shouldn't that be where your vote is going?

I quite like your thinking here Canucklegoose.

I quite like you remembering to call me Canucklegoose,

nijuukyugou wrote:I'm here, off and on. Based on what I've read and been thinking about, I'm most likely to vote fingersplints. Personally, I think all this talk about DFaraday is a distraction and seems too easy again, but I'll read the stuff on him over again anyway.

Soooooo....if DFaraday is a distraction, who is doing the distracting? Shouldn't that be where your vote is going?

So I have long promised to look back at Roger Rabbit to see if there are actually similarities between Ninja's posts there and her posts here, or if I've been misremembering/making false correlations.
I won't quote lots of posts here, or go into too much detail (but I do encourage you to glance at her posts there if you're interested in my thoughts here), but the basic story is this: Ninja was bad, I was able to basically "role check" her, and then I attempted to get her lynched by building a "case" on her by looking back at her posts with 20/20 hindsight since I knew her role.
THISwas Ninja's response to my "case", and to the subsequent and kind of out-of-nowhere (in her opinion) pile-up of votes on her. Though I didn't succeed in getting her lynched (fickle civvies! *shakes fist*), I think Ninja's frustration level in that post is reminiscent of her irritation here and now. Also similar is her resort to disparaging what she sees as a lack of sufficient substance in the reasoning behind the votes for her, and her implicit accusations of groupthink/bandwagon. Additionally, if you read through many of her other posts in that game, they are similar to this game in that her tone is overwhelmingly jolly/nice/cheerful (which is probably just her awesome personality! And which is super appreciated!), but then suddenly irritated when the heat gets on her.

However, what DOESN'T fit the pattern from that game is that Ninja's defense here is much more proactive (actively building cases, giving people the opportunity to question her and push her further, etc) whereas in RR she mostly just complained about people voting for her for no reason, then (once the lynch was evaded) went back to posting innocuous/OT/don't-rockl-the-boat type posts.

Overall, I think that this comparison between RR and this game leads me to believe Ninja is more likely to be civ than I previously thought, or she's done some cleaning up of her baddie game. The similarities between her posting in both games can easily be accounted for by consistent personality (everyone gets irritated when accused for what they perceive as thin reasons) rather than consistent alignment. I'm not convinced she's civ, but I'm definitely back on the fence.

nijuukyugou wrote:
Do you not see this? Doesn't anyone else see this? This is the kind of BS that's been happening for DAYS. I could go through and pull so many quotes of people either totally disregarding any defense I have made, or actually agreeing with my defense but then backtracking and saying "but that totally doesn't make her good." What does that even mean? So you agree that I did a good job proving I was civ, but I'm not civ? That you came in at the last minute and tried to bandwagon on me? I didn't use "pretty words" to attempt to fool my audience - I used both logic and articulation to prove that I am a civ the best way that I could. (BTW this isn't directed only or necessarily at the people quoted above given missed votes, etc. but it applies to many.)

Now, Ninjarjarbinks. You're being just a tad disingenuous here. Acknowledging that your defense was good (i.e. well-crafted) does not mean I "agree" with it or that you've "proven yourself civ", it just means that you have ably employed language in order to present a picture of yourself that ticks certain boxes on a "How to Sound Like a Civ" checklist (you summarize the checklist quite well later on in your post, so I needn't repeat it here). Being skillful at sounding like a civ in no way makes one a civ, it just makes them a good mafia player. So, in response to your question, at least in my case "it" means I think your defenses have not made you seem MORE suspicious, and have done a good job of opening up doubt in my mind... which, obviously, in no way approximates actually "proving" that you are good. No defense, short of some massive info dumping, can do that. Such is mafia.
The thought processes you're so frustrated at are not "backtracking". They're logical.

That being said, I agree with both you and JJJ and SVS that we need to be talking about more suspects.

^^ That was directed at AngryNinja ( ) because I actually want to listen to an answer.

What do you make of Golden's long-ago theory that the baddies, seeking to cover all their bases and maximize their chances at advantage, made sure to have voters in both the Boubil&Schonberg night poll options? Does this seem plausible to you? If so, who do you think of the limited pool of Les Mis voters is most likely to be bad?

nutella wrote:God damn it


@Scotty: Can you explain why this makes you think either I or splints is bad? I don't understand the reasoning there. Suspecting Bass doesn't make me bad, it makes me a civ who misguidedly wanted to lynch someone who was acting suspicious as hell. But if you have legitimate reason to suspect Splints I'd be happy to pursue her further.

I am also happy with a Niju lynch tomorrow. I think it is likely that her teammates piled onto the Bass vote.

How many teammates do we think are left to be accomplishing these "pile ons" and "bandwagons"?
I mean, I agree the ninja is a good suspect for tomorrow and I will likely be voting there (if I can remember to actually fucking vote for once), but I'm not sure I buy the rationale that Bass was lynched in a Ninja save attempt.

Fuck, sorry I missed it. Was out witz my curling team adorer pué GLORIOUS VICTORY and celebrating our new rims as league champs. Drank too much must sleep. Joe.

I keep promising to look at Ninja's RR posts (where she was very Bad Baddie and would totally have gone undetected if I hadn't essentially had a role check on her) and try to articulate what it is about them that her posts in this game are reminding me of. I don't think I have time to do it today..... maybe tonight if the insomnia is happening? Maybe tomorrow? Ugh. I'm such a slacker in this game.

SVS, I am absolutely willing to listen to your fresh perspective. I agree with you that the Big Talkers (that's a compliment, not an insult) have some pretty well established suspect pools that they have been perusing doggedly, but just because they are the most vocal does not mean they are the only thoughts out there. I, for one, am generally clueless at this point, and am VERY willing to look outside of the names that have been focused on thus far. I understand how you might feel like a voice in the wilderness, since voices like mine have been pretty silent..... but I'm reading and listening and hoping to be more actively involved (no promises though.... it is ME after all )

Also, re: nimblebobo, I was definitely one of the people who thought her defense post was "good", but that doesn't mean I'm willing to remove her from suspicion. Like you said, she is a player who perhaps more than any other is fully capable of dressing up an otherwise so-so defense in a "so calm and reasonable and light-hearted that I couldn't possibly be bad!"- tone in a way that can be very convincing. So, while I *did* find her post reasonable and balanced (generally qualities that I associate more with civ than with mafia) she is not entirely exonerated. For instance, I still think the (relatively minor) point that Golden raised a loooong time ago about baddies wanting to make sure they have members in each of the night poll options was very very astute, and that is one major mark against Ninja that she can't sweet-talk her way out of; it just is what it is and I need to make up my mind about whether that piece of evidence is significant or not.

Totally spaced on the poll ending tonight. Would have voted Bass, not because I particularly think he's super bad, but mostly because I didn't like the "case" on Cobalt

I actually think that was a pretty great defense by Ninjigglypuff.
But now I don't know who to vote for.

IM SO CONFLICTED

BR, I'm sorry that you're frustrated with being continually bandwagoned. I haven't played the last few games, so I didn't know that was a continuing trend. In light of that, I think I would interpret your posts differently (I.e. As genuine frustration and irritation, rather than manufactured ire). I'm going to move my vote to ninja for now, while I reconsider my position on you.

Fingersplints and Nutella would be my picks.


Mostly because they're two people who I currently think are civ, but if pressed couldn't actually give a reason WHY I think they're div.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting BR's tone and reading into her posts a manufactured and hyperbolic frustration that isn't actually intended (and I'm sure she will correct me if that's the case), but that's how they come off to me.

BR's responses to Timmer's case have been overtly dismissive ("all your little theories don't mean jack", etc.) and disproportionately angry ("The whole thing is giving me a headache", etch). The level of indignation and the attempts not the address the case but rather to belittle it do not seem like the responses of someone who has nothing to hide, but rather like the responses of someone who is backed into a corner and attempting to bluster their way out of it and scare people off from taking the case seriously. I don't think a div BR responds so dramatically. That's why she's getting my vote.

Imma vote for BR.

Cobalt wrote:@Metalmarsh - why the sudden turn on me in the last couple phases?

How can something that has lasted/taken shape over "the last couple phases" be described as "sudden"??

Re: ninja: I point out earlier that I was getting a similar vibe from her posts as I got in RR (a game in which I caught her as a baddie). I have yet to do the work to determine if that has any merit, but I think her being in the Les MIS group is a concern, and I'm interested in looking closer at the sig/gam connection Sloo has been musing on. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do it before the end of Today's lynch (heading out the door in a few minutes), but that is my first order of business for tonight/tomorrow.

Sloonei wrote:@Scotty, what do you think of that thing I said?

This is my favourite post in the whole game.

Reading up on these last few pages has solidified for me my earlier read on Cobalt (I don't think he's bad), and my mistrust of TB (I think she's bad and drowning. Her most recent post is seemingly just dripping with forced optimism and a fake air of "No worries! Aw shucks, I'm just happy to help the good ol' Civs! Cuz I'm just an innocent wittle civvy-wivvy!" *blink-blink* *doe eyes*. I don't buy it. I agree with Epi's last post that TB is more likely to be on Team LC, but I'm perfectly happy to find her on the other team, too.
I'm not sure how long I'll be around today, but I'll vote now. If I get a chance to come back in later, I'm willing to switch to either BR or Ninja if that's necessary.

Golden wrote:It does make sense Canuck. Entirely.

All I will say is that my personal feeling that Cobalt is bad is not based on his thread activity, and in that sense I actually would probably come around to your perspective.

Except that I still think he is TGG's teammate because of TGG's quit - its the reason I called out G-Man, and if that half of my argument was correct (he quit because epi came back) I think the second half has to be too (he quit because epi had called out one of his teammates). And when I read epi's posts from day one, I don't see who else but cobalt fits the bill. So from my perspective, my cobalt suspicion is about logic, not about cobalt's actual behaviour.

Thanks for reiterating that. I know you've talked about that connection a million times, but in the midst of people making Cobalt reads based on his posting/not posting, I'd forgotten that the main strike against him was tied up in your TGG theory.

Golden wrote:@canuck - I know some players (like you) generally won't contribute a lot as a civ until numbers get a bit lower, and I don't know Cobalt at all. But this is the guy who was bragging about how many of the baddies he caught in his last game and how amazingly super-civ he was...

But I think that's kind of feeding into my point. If as a mafia memberyou come into the thread with as much braggadocio as Cobalt did, then surely you do so fully intending to play that "character" for the full game. I don't think a mafia reasonably uses the strategy of "I'm going to be super loud and obnoxious for two days, and then I'm going to disappear". Thus, my reading of Cobalt's bravado cum silence is to take it at face value: he got the result he wanted from LC, didn't get the kind of adoration/revulsion he was fishing for with his over-the-top day 1 attitude, and as a result his level of engagement dropped. From my armchair psychologizing of Day 1 Cobalt, that dude on a mafia team doesn't get disengaged. He's too tempted by the ability to make a big splash......

Does that make any sense?? I seem to be having trouble articulating why I don't find his non-participation ping worthy at all, and in fact find it quite the opposite...

That said, I agree with Sloonei that calling him out is probably a reasonably effective method of goading him into actually participating

Scotty wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Earlier in my catch-up I was feeling that Cobalt was deffo bad, but the fact that he hasn't yet lived up to his promise to be more engaged actually makes me less suspicious of him (contrary to Sloonei's opposite thought). I just think the impetus to clean up your image and contribute is much stronger for the mafia (especially if you've got a chat room full of buddies counting on you to do so), while civs who are feeling disengaged/uninterested in the game have no real push to get back into it.

Yes, except Cobalt hasn't been taking any heat in the past few days, so what impetus does he have to clean up and be more engaging? Not really until last night, honestly, have we (Epi, then I) brought him back into suspicion. When he posted explaining he was playing lazy the last few days, I expected that was on account of the fact that he could just skim. He was already pretty ambiguously aligned. Wouldn't a civ try and contribute at this point?

The longer he sits away from the game, the more suspicious I grow of him.

I dunno. The "wouldn't a civ try and contribute at this point?" argument never really works for me, because in my own experience, I contribute VERY little as a civ (as you may have noticed! ) unless I have an awesome power (see Roger Rabbit) or until the number of players remaining are of a (to me) manageable number. That's just how I work. Maybe Cobalt is the same: once his vendetta against LC was taken care of, his interest level dropped I'm not trying to defend him, just pushing back against the "drop off in activity = baddie" assertions that seem to be swirling around him. If he had been a low-poster/no-show from the beginning (*cough* DREAM *cough*) I'd be more willing to look at his lack of participation as a tactical/strategic thing, but in this instance it really doesn't make sense to me that his posting style/circumstances is indicative of a known (? is Cobalt known? Or is this his first game here?) aggressive/vocal player with teammates. I could, of course, be wrong.

nutella wrote:Canuck, what do you mean about a link between Bubbles and me?

It's honestly just a really little thing that I noticed, and is entirely dependent on my suspicion of Bubbles, and is so little that it's not worth pursuing unless and until Bubbles turns up bad. For now, my suspicion of you is no higher than it is of any number of people that I have a neutral or null read on, so I'm keeping my focus elsewhere for the time being.

In other news, I agree that Bubbles is sounding rather scrambly, but there's also a link between her and Nutella that I want to look into if Bubbles were to turn up bad. I also think ninja needs looking at (it's about that time in the game where I inevitably suspect her for being blendy), but her play this game is reminding me a LOT of Roger Rabbit. If I get a chance later on I'll pull some posts and be more specific about what I'm talking about, but I actually am more likely to vote Bubbles or BR (based on Timmer's thoughts, which I need to look over more closely) today so I think ninja can wait since it's a less substantial suspicion. Earlier in my catch-up I was feeling that Cobalt was deffo bad, but the fact that he hasn't yet lived up to his promise to be more engaged actually makes me less suspicious of him (contrary to Sloonei's opposite thought). I just think the impetus to clean up your image and contribute is much stronger for the mafia (especially if you've got a chat room full of buddies counting on you to do so), while civs who are feeling disengaged/uninterested in the game have no real push to get back into it.

Those are my thoughts at the moment.

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:Only West Side Story and wildhorn, other than the one you and scotty got.

what's the gist of the west side story role?

It sounds like a massacre.
If I were a Jet, I'd shark the hell outta dodge.

linki- I've deciphered the thing, Sloonei, but go ahead and give a whack at it. I think it's a good thing for us to know, but (like Golden) not necessarily share.

Wildhorn can corrupt the plays Whistle, Merrily and Primrose. In whatever capacity that means.

Whoa. Is this the first time this specific info has come up?! If not, why not?! This seems like information that we could have used to try and protect those players from corruption.

(If this has come up before and I just missed it because I'm a lazy reader, apologies =! My bad. Carry on :P )

Golden wrote:Only scotty, nutella, FZ and sloonei, you say...

I would have thought the interests of the mafia would be in making sure they had someone on each side of the poll.

Astute, my friend. Very astute.

Do you think BOTH mafia teams made sure they had a hand in each pot, or do you think one of them might have been clever enough to be scared off by the low numbers on the Les Mis (?) option?

TinyBubbles wrote:I read it, i'm just sort of amazed, i am sure my posts couldve been interpreted differently it's like you took a deliberately negative stance on them. and you would have been the obvious choice for recruitment by mafia :/

This post pings me up, down, and sideways.

Golden wrote:

Sloonei wrote:i do not know why there is an angry taunting face next to dragonucklehead's name.

It is because your Freudian inner voice thinks canucklehead is a meanie.

Not possible. My username is cleverly chosen to ensure that people only associate me with niceness, maple syrup, and eternally affable actor Paul Gross. There is no possible way that anyone could ever think I'm mean. It's been proven through careful scienterrific studies.

FZ. wrote:Not much point discussing Sloonei until he gets here.

I totes disagree with this. Discussing people's thoughts of other people is always relevant, whether the person-in-question is around to refute/contribute or not. Getting other people's thoughts on Sloonei (or any player, really) is super important. I learn very little about people through their direct responses to my thoughts on them. I learn much more about people through the way they talk about others.

My paranoid side reallyreallyreally wants to jump on the "Sloonei's been recruited" wagon. Like REALLY. Mostly because I'm personally pretty convinced that the Wildhorn team has a recruitment/"corruption" mechanism, and because Sloonei is 100% exactly who I would recruit if I was on a baddie team with that power. Not only did he have MondoSuperExtraDuper Civ cred in the thread prior to the hooded dudes night, I'm also very, very confident that Sloonei is capable of pulling off the delicate balance of being a recruit (maintaining civ cred in the thread, not altering behaviour, able to cogently explain away any possible suspicions of corruptedness, etc). I think Sloonei would be the obvious and ideal candidate to recruit, and I think that if a team has the ability to recruit and a choice in when they get to do it, it's almost always the right move to recruit early. The only reservation I have about Sloonei being the recruit, is that the whole hooded figures high five thing would seem like a pretty leading element to include in a night post, and I'm not sure whether or not Dom would give us that much info. Perhaps because the roles/abilites are unknown this game he'd be willing to do so? But putting that much heat on a player because of a host post is an interesting hosting conundrum. Not sure where Dom would stand on that.....

Of course, there's also the fact that all this is pure speculation. It's not enough to go after Sloonei yet, but I am definitely watching him very carefully from now on, and definitely have the possibility of corruption/recruitment firmly in my mind when reading his posts (once he can talk again, that is....)

That was a lot of rambling that didn't say much, I know.

Also, I don't think that "everyone jumped on it". I did, and nutella said it was "interesting" (poking the lion, there nutella? ).......but I don't think anyone else even mentioned Epic's theory in their votes for G

linki: Hmmmmmm.....I didn't vote in the night poll, so no idea if it was connected. As for why E thinks it's specifically Mafia 1? That is a very good question... and one I did not consider, so eager was I for an excuse to put my vote on someone and avoid missing the poll again.

Golden wrote:

nutella wrote:I had figured out that the vote thing alternated so that they're changeable every other day, but I hadn't considered that it could be linked to one of the mafia teams. Interesting.

And I'm not sure why it would be honestly. It's a theory without much evidence from epi, why is everyone jumping on it?

Because this is a game that is built upon taken very little evidence and making extrapolations and guesses, and then acting?
I don't see why Epic's explanation is any less reasonable than assuming that it's a random game mechanic external to role abilities.

G-Man wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Epignosis wrote:At this point, I would say one of the powers of Mafia 1 is to have changeable votes.

I agree. And I think all of G-Man's "Oh noes! How will I make my spreadsheets with all this DASTARDLY VOTE CHANGING! I am so shocked that VOTE CHANGING EXISTS! I am unexpetedly inconvenienced by this VOTE CHANGING!" is an attempt to do some pre-distancing for when we inevitably figured it out.

My vote is on G-Man for today.

Erm, no. I am genuinely frustrated about changeable votes because I can't rely on these odd-numbered days' vote records as gospel. I like to know who voted for whom and when. Changeable votes screws that up because the poll system reassigns the vote numbers. Someone may have voted early in the lynch phase but changed their vote at the end of the day, making them look like the last vote. I like my data pure. Changeable votes taint data.

Also, this is the first time in a very long time that I've encountered changeable votes. I remember it could be done back on SpoilerTV but we were pretty prehistoric there and didn't have fancy poll functions to register votes on. I can't remember how it was early on at Lostpedia. The point is, after years of perfecting my spreadsheet analysis, changeable votes booger things up and leave me squirming. I am incapable of getting over it.

I am legitimately considering moving my vote off of you because you used "booger" as a verb, which is a diction choice for which I have the utmost admiration and respect.

Epignosis wrote:At this point, I would say one of the powers of Mafia 1 is to have changeable votes.

I agree. And I think all of G-Man's "Oh noes! How will I make my spreadsheets with all this DASTARDLY VOTE CHANGING! I am so shocked that VOTE CHANGING EXISTS! I am unexpetedly inconvenienced by this VOTE CHANGING!" is an attempt to do some pre-distancing for when we inevitably figured it out.

My vote is on G-Man for today.

Sorry I missed the vote! No excuse, just forgot.
Good job, LC hounders. Of the two, I would probably have vote G-Man, I haven't really been too convinced by any of the LC cases, but obviously I've been wrong. Whoops.

G-Man wrote:

Merlin the Wizzard

OMG Merlin the Wizzard! I remember that dude!




I really miss the Piano.

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Link: OMG Epi just pulled out some legit Stunk & White jams.
Sidenote: my autocorrect changes "Epi" to "Epic".

You truly have a Smart Phone.

It's unfortunate what it did to poor Strunk though.

Golden wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Golden wrote:Honestly, I'll save you all the pain and just ask dom to find a replacement.

Whoa! Where did this come from? My lighthearted joke about melodrama? Don't quit, Golden. It's just mafia, friend!

Nah, people are not lighthearted about it. They genuinely want me and LC to let it go, you included, so lets not pretend otherwise.

I can be both genuinely lighthearted about the situation AND genuinely want you both to let it go. I contain multitudes.

Seriously, though. I (and everyone else in the game) am perfectly capable of ignoring what's not interesting/relevant to me, and anyone who knows me knows I'm pretty stellar at remaining lighthearted about pretty much anything. It's no skin off my nose if you want to continue your back-and-forth. Bad attempts to make fun of the melodrama of Broadway aside, I am (like you said) free to not read whatever I don't want to read. The reason I want you both to let it go is that neither of you seem able to maintain that same lightheartedness in the context of this discussion. And that's fine. You're both big boys and can choose to engage/not engage in whatever you want. But I don't want either of you to quit. For realizes.


Link: OMG Epi just pulled out some legit Stunk & White jams.
Sidenote: my autocorrect changes "Epi" to "Epic".

Golden wrote:@canuck - I don't care whether I'm right or not, honestly. Go ahead and tell me what my fallacies are about LC.

The most pertinent one I see is that you insist he's lying about feeling frustrated. That seems to be what keeps fueling LC's fire. Conversely, LC seems unwilling to accept that while you may not have explicitly stated in minute detail how you were connecting him to your TGG suspicions, that in context it was reasonably clear how you were arriving at your conclusions. That's what I meant by the "fallacies" that you are each claiming against the other. Fallacies is probably not a great word, but it's what I stuck in there anyway.

Awesome work on the sig digging, Sloonei. I've only glanced over those two posts so far because I can't devote my full attention atm, but on first pass it looks like lots of things to mull over and look into there. Should be good fodder for tomorrow's discussion.

Golden wrote:Honestly, I'll save you all the pain and just ask dom to find a replacement.

Whoa! Where did this come from? My lighthearted joke about melodrama? Don't quit, Golden. It's just mafia, friend!

FZ. wrote:LC, why are you calling me Splints? Is that a joke? If so, I missed it. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on, that's it.

Canucklehead wrote:Two things:

1) Whackadoodle tinfoil hat theory time: What if LC and Golden have some sort of curse/posting challenge that they have to engage in an insane, over-the-top, uber-melodramatic argument (we are in a Broadway-themed game, after all), with one of them winning some sort of prize (or one of them incurring some sort of punishment), and the whole thing really needs to have no bearing whatsoever on our broader baddie-hunting? I am in favor of this theory because a) it explains why neither of them will just let. It. the. fuck. GO. Already., despite the fact they're both just saying the same thing over and over again and completely talking past each other, and b) it gives us permission to just ignore them both and get on with finding baddies. I, for one, am going to operate as if this were the case for the foreseeable future. I encourage anyone who values their sanity and a productive application of their valuable reading time to do the same.

2) This is kinda OT, and probably better fodder for another thread (Shameless plug: I recently created a thread where precisely this kind of thing might better be discussed!) but.....


[quote="Neverwhere"]This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I am possibly posting this too late, in which case just read it as a reminder...but I feel like some the things that have happened in this game or some of the ways people have been talking are a little disrespectful to Dom and all the effort he's put into making such a great game. Let's just keep that in mind.

While I (maybe? It's hard to tell) might agree with your general sentiments here, I honestly don't think vague, non-specific "reminder" (translation: passive aggressive "call-out") posts like this are all that useful in the moment at halting whatever it is you're taking issue with. While general "things are yucky, let's talk about it" discussions can totally work on a site-wide scale, if specific things in a specific game are happening and you want them to stop, SAY WHAT THEY ARE! Otherwise, how the heck are the perpetrators ever supposed to fix them? Conversely, how the heck are people who share your feelings ever supposed to realize that they are not alone?

In my experience, if you don't call out specific actions as they happen, and instead make vague gestures towards a mysterious set of "things that have happened", then those who have done those elusive "things" will inevitably assume it doesn't apply to them, while others who haven't will inevitably take it personally and think you're referring to them. I fully support people calling out exactly what it is that they find bothersome or offensive (though always, it goes without saying, in a respectful manner) in the spirit of open and honest dialogue..... but we as a community can't fix or take action on things that are only vaguely implied or hinted at. Unnecessary vagueness and generalizations - by increasing the levels of misunderstandings and miscommunications - actually contribute to the problem more than fixing it. If you're going to make a public announcement of your disapproval (and don't get me wrong, I fully support doing so, as long as it's done respectfully) it's honestly not super useful to do so in a way that simultaneously implicates everyone and no one. /PSA[/ot]

By all means, ignore it, and tell me who you think is bad.[/quote]
Ignore what?

Golden wrote:I will say this to everyone not named LC as well.

I don't expect any of you to read the whole back and forth between LC and I. You can if you want. I know that by having such a feud, you lose any influence you might have even by succinctly explaining why you think the other is bad.

However, I'm really not a fan of 'it's probably civ on civ' comments because they usually are indicative of someone who really hasn't wanted to read any of the substance of the feud and so I don't think such posts are informed points of view.

I have read the entire feud thus far. As an objective outsider, my view of it is actually potentially more "informed" than yours. I think reading the exchange as "possibly civ-on-civ" is a perfectly valid reading, since most of what we're reading seems to be two egos clashing and two individuals insisting on being "right" and refusing to accept basic premises of the other's argument, rather than *roles* interacting. The level of nitpicking, and refusal to concede anything on either side is, imho, no way indicative of alignment, and therefore it is entirely possible for both of you to be civs.
From my vantage point, I am able to see where each of you is coming from regarding your basic issues of contention. Because I can see each of your sides as possible, I am therefore able to see each of you as genuine. This particular argument is not a zero-sum game, in which one must be bad so the other can be right. I honestly think (and I say this in love and admiration of both of your incredible mafia personalities) that you each are in your own ways unable to see through your need to be "right" about the apparent fallacies of the other.

Two things:

1) Whackadoodle tinfoil hat theory time: What if LC and Golden have some sort of curse/posting challenge that they have to engage in an insane, over-the-top, uber-melodramatic argument (we are in a Broadway-themed game, after all), with one of them winning some sort of prize (or one of them incurring some sort of punishment), and the whole thing really needs to have no bearing whatsoever on our broader baddie-hunting? I am in favor of this theory because a) it explains why neither of them will just let. It. the. fuck. GO. Already., despite the fact they're both just saying the same thing over and over again and completely talking past each other, and b) it gives us permission to just ignore them both and get on with finding baddies. I, for one, am going to operate as if this were the case for the foreseeable future. I encourage anyone who values their sanity and a productive application of their valuable reading time to do the same.

2) This is kinda OT, and probably better fodder for another thread (Shameless plug: I recently created a thread where precisely this kind of thing might better be discussed!) but.....


[quote="Neverwhere"]This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I am possibly posting this too late, in which case just read it as a reminder...but I feel like some the things that have happened in this game or some of the ways people have been talking are a little disrespectful to Dom and all the effort he's put into making such a great game. Let's just keep that in mind. [/quote]
While I (maybe? It's hard to tell) might agree with your general sentiments here, I honestly don't think vague, non-specific "reminder" (translation: passive aggressive "call-out") posts like this are all that useful in the moment at halting whatever it is you're taking issue with. While general "things are yucky, let's talk about it" discussions can totally work on a site-wide scale, if specific things in a specific game are happening and you want them to stop, SAY WHAT THEY ARE! Otherwise, how the heck are the perpetrators ever supposed to fix them? Conversely, how the heck are people who share your feelings ever supposed to realize that they are not alone?

In my experience, if you don't call out specific actions as they happen, and instead make vague gestures towards a mysterious set of "things that have happened", then those who have done those elusive "things" will inevitably assume it doesn't apply to them, while others who haven't will inevitably take it personally and think you're referring to them. I fully support people calling out exactly what it is that they find bothersome or offensive (though always, it goes without saying, in a respectful manner) in the spirit of open and honest dialogue..... but we as a community can't fix or take action on things that are only vaguely implied or hinted at. Unnecessary vagueness and generalizations - by increasing the levels of misunderstandings and miscommunications - actually contribute to the problem more than fixing it. If you're going to make a public announcement of your disapproval (and don't get me wrong, I fully support doing so, as long as it's done respectfully) it's honestly not super useful to do so in a way that simultaneously implicates everyone and no one. /PSA

Long Con wrote:Wow, sorry that was so big.

That's what she said?

Forgive me, LC! It was my autocorrect. Stupid American computer brain.

I really think that promising a day full of spamming the thread with insanifier gibberish is not exactly the solid Comedy Gold Funtimes pitch you think it is...

No interest in actually playing the game? Dealing with the suspicions on you? I know you can't answer for TGG's actions, but you can do a fair amount to counteract them by helping out and contributing.

Your desire to be insanified, and your strange insistence that this would be the peak of hilarity and silliness, are troubling not only in regards to your alignment, but also in your understanding of thru workings of humor :P