The Syndicate

I hope BWT is bad. I think it would have been wiser to lynch epi, but perhaps we could return to that tomorrow.

Oh, would it? That is interesting.

Who was it that said they were reading recruitment 3. Was that scotty or someone else?

Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.

The question I asked you is 'what is the baddie motive'.

Your response is really clear - that the only way it makes sense for me to say it is if I am a recruiter who has some control over recruitment.

BUT - the whole premise of the conversation was me saying 'why does it make me bad IF it has been well established that recruiters don't have control'.

Essentially, you are admitting yourself that - my post doesn't make any sense from ANYONE. Recruiters or otherwise.

So why does it make you ponder, and why does it make me bad? It's not that hard.

Rey, read your own post.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???

How do you suppose a Scotty with BTSC would have come upon this information? If his BTSC partner told him, how did that player know?

A person who had played RMs before would know.

I don't even understand the point that is being made? What would he have been told in btsc?

@rey - I'm not playing dumb with the details. If anything, I think you are playing dumb with the details, insisting they support your statements when they don't.

You've even played dumb with the details of my own posting this morning, ignoring the bits that don't suit you, like the times I've admitted that my original statement might not be correct.

Doesn't mean I didn't think it was correct when I made it, and you are pointing at a contest for a baddie recruit as the single bit of evidence that I should have known it couldn't be certain.

I've also made it pretty clear multiple times that my point is people would be wise not to try to recruit me on to epi's team.

OK, well why does it make me bad, then?

Because that was your answer last time I asked. I don't hold tightly on to things because I feel like it. I hold tightly on to the reasons people give me themselves. That's the reason you gave me.

Just like with epi, when he originally said his view was one thing but then he changed his mind to something else.

I didn't need to no u you on this. I asked you why it made you ponder. It was an opportunity for you to think about it and realise that what I said doesn't actually make any more sense coming from a baddie recruiter than it does coming from anyone else. If not your original answer, please tell me why you think it makes more sense coming from a baddie than it does to be coming from someone who is neutral.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:Oh, it's been established because there is one contest that I didn't enter?

That doesn't make sense, because if epi wins the contest I'm still not on his team. and I'm not going to be winning it.

Also, the recruiter still has control...

@JJ - I think he perceives a logical inconsistency in my posts where there is none, whereas I actually found a logical inconsistency in his posts which actually exists. I think any indicator that someone can't keep their thoughts straight is an indicator that their thoughts may not be genuine, and I see it as inherently negative.

@rey - having a dialogue with JJ regularly helps me interpret my own thoughts.

Are you serious? It's one specific recruitment, yes..but it sets a precedent. It tells us that the recruiters will not have 100% control over who they recruit every time. Therefore, you cannot be so sure that you will never end up on a team with Epig. FFS man. Are you really going to play this dumb on this?

If I never enter a contest, I can never be recruited by way of one. So it sets a precedent I have entire control over.

I cannot be sure I will never end up on a team with Epi, because who knows what the hosts have in mind, which I already admitted ages ago. I can only be certain that anyone who chooses to recruit me to that team is making a mistake.

The problem here is how you stepped to the next thing - the fact that I said that makes me bad, based on your own assessment that it is 'well established' I won't be able to prevent it.

You still haven't been able to give a good reason for why it makes me bad.

You said it's because maybe I'm a recruiter who has control over it, but that negates your entire premise.

linki @SVS - I'm sure it is. But I haven't played any of them, something that is 'well established' in the thread. So why does rey think it is so 'well established' that my comment is full of shit?

I voted BWT.

@dom - I'm listening. I haven't really noticed scotty this game.

Oh, it's been established because there is one contest that I didn't enter?

That doesn't make sense, because if epi wins the contest I'm still not on his team. and I'm not going to be winning it.

Also, the recruiter still has control...

@JJ - I think he perceives a logical inconsistency in my posts where there is none, whereas I actually found a logical inconsistency in his posts which actually exists. I think any indicator that someone can't keep their thoughts straight is an indicator that their thoughts may not be genuine, and I see it as inherently negative.

@rey - having a dialogue with JJ regularly helps me interpret my own thoughts.

Rey, where has it been established?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.

I interpret him as seeing what he thinks is a logical discrepancy in your content and perceiving it to be a sign of insincerity. I don't necessarily agree with him on that front, but I can understand why he'd take that position. What has he said that has suggested to you that he might be jumbling his thought process?

He said he thinks it shows the mindset of a recruiter who has control over recruiting (ie someone who is certain they can make sure they won't be on a team with epi), while simultaneously saying the original statement is wrong because recruiters don't have control over recruiting (ie I can't be certain I won't be on a team with epi).

I would be pretty ok with the lynch not being stopped.

@JJ - someone who seems like another role (ie they don't come back as themselves when their role card is revealed).

JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.

Well, no one wants to vote epi, who I think has had the most actual suspicious behaviour.

The other votes are mostly on bass, who I think is exactly the same as DFaraday.

I'm not opposed to a BWT vote.

What do you think of Bass's proposed theory re: MP and llama in his most recent post?

I'd lynch BWT before DF.

Bass's theory doesn't register as a ping on bass.

I agree that some hosts would make sure their recruiters would not be someone who is likely to flake. I think there are a lot of people in this game who are not likely too flake. Bass's theory makes it look to me like he is trying to solve the game, although putting it specifically on llama or MP, I dunno, I'll have to think about it.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?

It HAS been established that recruiters don't get to pick a name to recruit every time because of the host post saying as much. That alone should tell you that you can't 100% guarantee that the two of you won't end up on a team. Are you really going to ignore this? You are smarter than that. You know very well that you can't make that guarantee but you continue to pretend like it is a legit perspective.

Rey - read this conversation back. You are contradicting yourself all over. Why does my original statement make me bad?

You say it's because it makes sense if I'm a recruiter.

Look at this:

golden wrote:If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

reywaS wrote:the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event

So which is it - that it's well established recruiters don't have control over the event....

Or that the comment makes me look like I'm bad because it makes me look like I have control over the event...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.

Well, no one wants to vote epi, who I think has had the most actual suspicious behaviour.

The other votes are mostly on bass, who I think is exactly the same as DFaraday.

I'm not opposed to a BWT vote.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.

Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.

If I was a civilian recruiter I would be very willing to recruit Epignosis.

I don't mean he will permanently not be civ. I mean I do not believe his mindset is one of a civ right now.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I think people would have been wise to vote epi, but oh well. Never mind.

Is there a compelling reason beyond the potential that he won't ever be on Golden's team?

Apparently there is no compelling reason.

I switched my vote to DFaraday. I'm actually pretty happy with the candidates for how this lynch is turning out. My original theory on baddie recruiters was that they might pick someone like DF, and I think the fact many others are thinking that way has perhaps suggested that there is something to it in the end.

I think it ironic that the conversation that I had with SVS, that started epi's entire think with me, has ultimately been the same kind of thinking that is determining the lynch in the end.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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

A quick scan revealed nothing striking to me, what should I be looking for? The only curious thing I saw was, if I am interpreting correctly, MM stating his unwillingness to vote BWT because BWT is off-meta. That'd be interesting and MM should talk about that.

The only game I have played with BWT that stands out in my memory is Monopoly Mafia. He and I were two utilities, and the only two members of our baddie team in that game. I just looked back at that game though, and apparently I misrememberd how BWT behaved in that game, so I will rescind my statement that BWT is acting off-meta.

Here is a case that Epignosis made on BWT in that game that got him lynched. It's worth a read if you're interested. I still will not vote for birdwithteeth11 today though.

I subbed in for baddie BWT in Death & Taxes, and so had to become very familiar with his posts in that game. For me, this current BWT reminds me of being on-meta for his baddie self.

linki @JJ - I won't create a rift. I respect epi plenty, and next game will be a new day. It's up to others if they want to call it spiteful.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I will say that I think the chance of Golden deliberately killing his own team mate, even if it's Epignosis, is exactly 0%.

Then you still don't know me that well.

Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.

Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Put it this way, boomslang. Epi being on my team will not stop me killing him if I have the chance. Anyone who chose to recruit us both to the same team is making an error.

I think people would have been wise to vote epi, but oh well. Never mind.

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

Typhoony wrote:Linki: Golden, am I reading through the lines of your post correctly when I say that you'd like to lynch Epi because it would make the game more fun for you? Seriously dude, think about that for a second and then realize that it's not a good strategy to follow.

In a game where 30 of us are still neutral, why is taking out another person who I do not believe is civ and do not believe I will ever be on the same team as a bad strategy?

@bullz - I love that you have time to play. It's good to have you being able to be in the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did very literally no u epi.

timmer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I explained very clearly to SVS what my theory was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, that meme should have had pink font.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

How does Epi know anything?

Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.

But you don't seem to be having any fun.

I am not currently having fun.

You know what's fun? Playing lawn darts midday with a bright sun overhead.

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

It's not about the votes, it's about what's best for the game. I'm not going to panic because someone suspects me, but I don't like to let feuds dominate a thread. I don't think they are helpful.

In King Arthur I felt it was the best course of action for the town to lynch me, so I got them to.

You were in BoB. You will understand the use of ending the LC/golden feud.

@MM - I think JJ deserves the opportunity to contribute. He always tries.

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

How does Epi know anything?

Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.

But you don't seem to be having any fun.

I am not currently having fun.

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

How does Epi know anything?

Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:After I'm gone, lynch epi please. Thanks.

Oddly defeatist.

Epi says its mafia 101 for me to create a false dilemma.

So, what happens if you lynch me today and then I'm not coming back bad. What does that mean? Am I civilian who created a false dilemma? Or...

Epi wanted to 'end this', but when I wanted to end it, he suddenly pushed away from it again. "Everyone vote your conscience" he said. After he had just said he wanted to end it.

He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

I'm considering doing a King Arthur and just asking everyone to lynch me... I mean, it might make for a better game. And honestly, Epi didn't learn from Death and Taxes. I am hoping to encourage behaviour change from epi through early death.

After I'm gone, lynch epi please. Thanks.

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

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Golden wrote:I'm sorry, you don't give a damn about what question was asked? Then why was it the ENTIRE BACKBONE OF YOUR CASE!

No sir. This is the entire backbone of my case. It's not about what you asked, or S~V~S, or any of that. It's not about questions. It's that green and brown colored shit up there.

People can poo-poo it if they like. I think you are a recruiter based on THAT right there alone.

Why? What about that?

Golden wrote:Before, you said it was because I gave four answers to SVS question.

Nope. Didn't say that.

Now you say the question doesn't matter. OK, but in doing so, you are saying the context of the statement is not part of why you think it is bad. So tell me what about it you DO think is bad?

If you say it's because I've given four answers to a question, well... you care about the question, and I will go straight back to asking why you are ignoring the fact that this is a lie, since I did not give four answers to any question.

You realize you already voted for me. So you must realize it is I that can safely ignore your questions.

But, since I am a gentleman:

I think you are bad because your answer to the question was too broad. So broad, it was useless. I've said this twice now.

You didn't give four answers to any question. You gave one shitty answer to one question. You answered poorly on one question and I am calling you out for that one answer. That is all.

I am voting Golden. This needs to end.

You don't care about the question, epi! Don't you remember? You don't care what the question was.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Golden wrote:I'm sorry, you don't give a damn about what question was asked? Then why was it the ENTIRE BACKBONE OF YOUR CASE!

No sir. This is the entire backbone of my case. It's not about what you asked, or S~V~S, or any of that. It's not about questions. It's that green and brown colored shit up there.

People can poo-poo it if they like. I think you are a recruiter based on THAT right there alone.

Why? What about that?

Before, you said it was because I gave four answers to SVS question. Now you say the question doesn't matter. OK, but in doing so, you are saying the context of the statement is not part of why you think it is bad. So tell me what about it you DO think is bad?

If you say it's because I've given four answers to a question, well... you care about the question, and I will go straight back to asking why you are ignoring the fact that this is a lie, since I did not give four answers to any question.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Read this. Golden asked someone about recruitment. That someone was S~V~S.

For me, S~V~S gave a straightforward, believable, and satisfactory answer to the question.

Then she asked Golden the same question.

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

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

That is what I find suspicious about Golden.

I'm sorry, you don't give a damn about what question was asked? Then why was it the ENTIRE BACKBONE OF YOUR CASE!

Well, DH, I have a simple solution.

MM is voting for me, dontcha get it yet?