The Syndicate

i think everyone would prefer an outside player as a sub when possible, but sometimes it isn't possible. bringing someone back for round two is better than a modkill.

good game y'all, congrats winners. thanks for hosting Dom and letting me take part.

I agree that I don't deserve a pass. I'm actually not sure why some people trust me under the circumstances, maybe I'll look into that.

As long as you address my defenses satisfactorily, I have no beef Marsh.

Marsh, you should respond to my defenses against your prior case if you're going to maintain your suspicion of me.

Welp, I suck. We suck. This sucks.

Time to go to sleep.

First time a lynch has gone my way this game. Hopefully it pays off.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:@MM - yes, I can see the possibility that Jay is bad. I don't think he is, but he could be (eg Webber, jekyll, there are options there). I don't think he is the phantom.

I did not say that I think he is the Phantom. I said I think he controlled the chandelier.

Who do you think killed Epignosis?

What is the implication if I control the chandelier but am not the phantom?

Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter which member of the team you are if one (living) team member can send in another team member's action. Bullzeye may have been absent, but that doesn't dismiss the possibility that he had an active teammate who was having him kill every time.

Does the active team mate do my killing for me too?

For you? If you are bad, I don't know how the inter workings of your team would proceed, but I do think you were willing take Epignosis on with the idea that he was going to die that night.

What I'm saying is, you just insinuated Bullzeye may have been the phantom while his active team mate sent in the kills for him. If I'm Bullzeye, then I must be the phantom. By your own theory.

How can I be Webber? You assert I could be either one.

Golden wrote:But honestly I don't know if either of them will show up, and if neither do then the lynch is already decided.

My money is on Sloonei being here watching this thread right now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:@MM - yes, I can see the possibility that Jay is bad. I don't think he is, but he could be (eg Webber, jekyll, there are options there). I don't think he is the phantom.

I did not say that I think he is the Phantom. I said I think he controlled the chandelier.

Who do you think killed Epignosis?

What is the implication if I control the chandelier but am not the phantom?

Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter which member of the team you are if one (living) team member can send in another team member's action. Bullzeye may have been absent, but that doesn't dismiss the possibility that he had an active teammate who was having him kill every time.

Does the active team mate do my killing for me too?

This here is a pretty sexy EOD. That's more like it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:@MM - yes, I can see the possibility that Jay is bad. I don't think he is, but he could be (eg Webber, jekyll, there are options there). I don't think he is the phantom.

I did not say that I think he is the Phantom. I said I think he controlled the chandelier.

Who do you think killed Epignosis?

What is the implication if I control the chandelier but am not the phantom?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I also refuse to be lynched without a proper case.

You especially Jay, you have reread every single player but me. I wouldn't expect it tonight of course, but at some point, yes.

My vote is already elsewhere, so I should be able to comply with this request at some point.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Jay did the math earlier. There are 13 players alive. There are possibly two baddies from Team Webber alive, two baddies from Team Wildhorn alive, and three independents alive. That would mean that 7 out of 13 (more than 50%) of the remaining players are not to be trusted.

That's absolute worst case scenario. It doesn't seem likely that none of the night kills has been non-town.

To be honest I still feel good about my vote. I don't really see a townie in Neverwhere's post history. I think the case for Marsh is also a good one right now. With all the possible baddies remaining they might both be the right answer.

Anyone else that votes for Neverwhere had better want a Neverwhere lynch and be prepared to explain why.

Golden wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I've been sitting on my MM suspicion for a couple of days. Couldn't do anything useful about it when silenced. I'd like to put it there, but Neverwhere is ok if it has to be.

It doesn't. There are enough votes left in the field that literally anyone can still be lynched.

nijuukyugou wrote:MM voted ages ago.

oh yeah, derp.

I guess that's how seriously I took that vote.

Golden, Sloonei, niju, Daisy, and Marsh are all votes still in the air that are likely to be dropped on someone. This lynch is not decided yet. Everyone keep making your cases. That includes you splints, I need to hear an explanation for that vote.

I voted early in part to make myself go to sleep. But here I am still. I hate this game.

fingersplints wrote:Fell asleep and almost missed the poll.
voting Neverwhere
MM's has some interesting points on JJJ but I am not sure I buy it.

Why Neverwhere?

What points of MM's did you find interesting, and why aren't you sure you buy it?

Spacedaisy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I voted for Neverwhere. This thread is dead, maybe someone will care.

I care. I would like to lynch MM, but if the group feels Neverwhere is our best move, I am willing to go along. Quite frankly MM's actions continue to look like abaddie trying too hard to pull the puppet strings and I fail to see why no one else feels as strongly about him as I do. I don't really have any feelings about neverwhere so if those I believe to be civ have strong opinions about needing to lynch her I am willing to listen to that.

There's some momentum against MM right now. Read the thread immediately after my post you just quoted.

If you want him lynched it can still happen.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Another question about Syndicate norms: When mafia issue a kill, is a specific killer supposed to be given to the mod by the team?

i.e., could Webber simply tell Dom: "[Phantom] kills Player X"?

It's possible, and it's possible it doesn't point to any single player. But with sig and G-Man dead earlier, I still believe that my logic holds even if that is true - it just means that either webber or the phantom is one of those three. Or to be more precise, that team could not have executed a kill on every odd night unless one of those three is on it.

This seems like sound thinking. It might be worth noting that DFaraday seems to have been around the whole game (unless I'm missing something). He's barely posted in recent memory, but those posts have been pretty evenly spread between the cycles. And if I'm choosing between splints and Marsh, I think I go Marsh.

Another question about Syndicate norms: When mafia issue a kill, is a specific killer supposed to be given to the mod by the team?

i.e., could Webber simply tell Dom: "[Phantom] kills Player X"?

Golden wrote:But given MM went out against JJ, it had me legitimately thinking maybe MM is the real culprit.

I think this possibility can be reduced to a pretty simple question:

Marsh suggested I might have control of the chandelier and thus be the phantom. With this in mind, which is more believable?

1.) Marsh's continued focus on death-post flavor is indicative that he is town and is employing a distinct strategy to explain night kill trends and build theories about them (including the one about me).

2.) Marsh is mafia, thus giving him default knowledge of when his team gets night kills, and took advantage of the JJJ/Epi argument to set up a frame attempt in-line with his proposed death-post flavor theories.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I voted for Neverwhere. This thread is dead, maybe someone will care.

Disappointed that you already voted. Understand why, I was away for a while.

I really wanted to read through all of this and discuss it with you first.

Unfortunately I can't be awake for the rest of the phase. I have to get up early and host a philosophy society meeting (I'm a nerd). So the vote had to come soon anyway. I'll be here for another half hour or so; discussion is still plausible even if a vote change isn't.

Hi niju!

nijuukyugou wrote:I like my previous findings and feelings about splints, and am likely to vote there, as I have been for a few days now. Others have been dissuaded from doing so, so I'll ask before I jump the gun - why not splints? I'm also hesitant because while I usually like what my gut says, it hasn't been as great in the latter half of this game as I'd like.

The easiest response would be that for me, splints boasts a similar attribute to you -- she performs well on the tone test. The deeper into the game we go, particularly after so many bad lynches, the less confident such a read should be. If you could summarize your suspicion of splints in a couple sentences, how would you do so?

I voted for Neverwhere. This thread is dead, maybe someone will care.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:What are you thinking about Golden?

I'm thinking about whether or not JJ is going to turn up and talk about whether he really thinks you could be bad and setting him up or not. I'm very interested in what he has to say about that.

It's a possibility I've mulled over. There's no good way to evidence the notion, so it really must remain speculative -- that doesn't mean it's wrong. Like I said earlier: my argument with Epi presented a pretty easy opportunity to frame me by killing him. So when I perceive the game now with that notion in my head, it has to be a consideration for the only player to bring it up -- Marsh.

I do think it's believable that he is employing his death-post flavor to describe his theory (chandelier dropping being under my control), that's consistent with his mindset in recent phases. I do think he has misrepresented me quite a lot in this discussion though which would support a deliberate smear theory.

I want him to answer to my points before I pursue this notion further. I'd rather lynch Neverwhere first or DFaraday second.

Golden wrote:I'm also thinking that one thing I did in economics was make a case on TinyBubbles when I was nightkilling her, because that kind of thing can be a decent play for cred.

In that game you perceived Bubbles as a threat (theories about her role). Not long before my argument with Epi I had listed him as a town read and had generally left him alone. If I'm mafia, that should indicate that I'm trying to pocket him -- not set him up for this awkward argument-then-kill strategy. He didn't do anything in recent phases to suggest he's the sort of threat that Bubbles was in Economics. It's all WIFOM though so I understand your suspicion.

I think I addressed everything. If not, or if clarification is desired, please say so. Anyone.

URL code fail in there. Should be:

Reminder.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:An observation about Jay's voting record.

DAY 7 - Jay makes a case and votes nutella, the day that Black Rock is lynched. But he votes off from the main lynchee Black Rock, and doesn't comment on her. Not much later Jay backs off on his nutella suspicion due to her responses.

On Day 7 I was completely clueless. This is a complex setup and a lot of weird shit had already happened in it prior to my subbing in. I had no idea what was going on, and had to kind of just pave my own way. I examined nutella and saw some cause for suspicion, so I voted for her. I didn't know anything about Black Rock. Frankly I expected to be the lone nutella voter, I didn't think two other people would follow behind the guy that had just joined in an was flailing around for information (Scotty and Hedgeowl). They were both town so it's all good, but without their votes there my vote would look much more meaningless -- which was what I wanted. I wasn't qualified to make a significant vote that impact the actual lynchee so early in my part in this game. I wasn't caught up at all.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:DAY 8 - The day Cobalt is lynched, Jay says early on that he'd rather vote Bass over Cobalt. Still, Jay offers several thoughts for Cobalt's potential to be mafia (here, here, and here. He also offers a point for the suspicion of Bass here. However, his point was disproved by Scotty, so Jay quickly turned his attention to fingersplints. Then, after ISOing fingersplints, entertaining Cobalt being a baddie, and having his reason for Bass being bad disproven, Jay votes for Bass anyway just to keep things from being a landslide? So again, Jay votes off from the main lynchee Cobalt, who flips civilian.

I said if it was between Bass and Cobalt, my preference would be Bass. I didn't insinuate it had to be one or the other. You're right that Scotty showed me a good reason to dissociate Bass from team Wildhorn (I hadn't seen it yet in my efforts to catch up with this madness). So I acknowledged his point as valid and moved on.

You misrepresent me badly when you say I "quickly moved on to splints". I ISO'd splints next because Scotty asked me to in the exact same post you just linked. You misrepresented me again regarding my content about Cobalt that phase -- you linked three posts, only one of which was distinctly suspicious of him for anything. If you're going to reference my content to support a theory against me, that content has to support the theory.

I voted for Bass in the end because the phase was trickling down so quietly to that easy Cobalt lynch. No matter what the result was going to be at that point, I hated that. I always hate that. Calm, non-pressure EODs are mafia's best friend in every game no matter who is being lynched. So I tried to do something about it. And that became a trend me -- I did the same the next phase when Bass lynched. I generated late pressure on ninja, and the result was a much more active thread with much more useful content than would have otherwise been present.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:DAY 9 - Now that Jay acknowledges Bass could be a landslide vote, he decides to look more into Bass (after already voting him the previous day). Jay mentions in the same post that the lynch of Cobalt went to easy. Jay never dissuaded it.

You're right that I could have done more to dissuade it. I wish I had. At the end of that day phase though, nobody was around. I was basically talking to myself. Had it been a more active thread (like the kind you see during a non-landslide higher-pressure EOD scenario), then maybe I'd have been better able to pursue that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:On the other hand, Jay brought some ideas forth to support the lynching of Cobalt, and even entertained voting for him. Anyway, Jay does an ISO of Bass, suggesting that he is a valid lynch.

I entertained cases against everyone. I'm thorough. There were valid reasons to suspect a large number of players. I even endorsed the Bass lynch myself. This is besides the point -- even if I had been on those wagons I would have raised suspicions about the other people on them. Only so many of us can possibly just be wrong. Someone in the mix seemed likely to me to be enjoying the easy breezy EODs for Cobalt and Bass. So I thought it was a great to look for some mafia.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:At this point, Jay addresses his strategy here of voting off the "bandwagons". I don't understand this strategy. If Jay will discuss all day on Day 8 the possibility of Cobalt being bad, and does the same thing with Bass on Day 9, why should he be calling these 5 players suspicious for their votes just because he decided to vote off?

I've explained the strategy numerous times in this game and again in this post. My votes off-wagon during the Cobalt lynch and Bass lynch weren't as much about trying to lynch someone else as they were about making the EOD a living breathing thing. I wanted any mafia players engaged in this thread during those situations to feel a little more pressure than they otherwise were filling. Cobalt was lynched too quietly, and I wanted to remedy that on the next day. Bass was winning the tally by a landslide, and I was able to generate enough attention for ninja to at least make it close -- and it was probably the most active EOD this game has seen since I joined it. Those situations are a lot more revealing and useful to townies who like to go digging like Sloonei and I than EODs in which nobody posts anything.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:DAY 10 - Jay is silenced this day. He votes DFaraday, again voting off from the main lynch of Hedgeowl. Though in his defense, he did clear Hedgeowl from his suspect list on the previous night.

Hedgeowl was the lynch I criticized the most loudly because she was the only player I had labeled a town read. It felt like a waste to me. Oh well.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:DAY 11 - Again, Jay mentions that several players should be seen as suspicious for their participation of civilian lynches. Again, the problem here is that Jay is looking at strictly vote patterns with this accusation.

Is that a problem? Aren't voting records a viable means of finding people suspicious? Of course they're not the only thing that matters, but they are important. Over the last couple phases I have shifted away from that mindset more, but it's not an invalid mindset. When four consecutive townies (at the time three when I was most vocal about it) are lynched, that's a cause to be suspicious of the participants in those lynches. This isn't some wild theory I'm espousing -- it's the most fundamental concept in mafia.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Upon closer inspection, Jay may not have voted on a single lynch of a player, but as I mentioned before, Jay lightly pushed the lynches of Cobalt and Bass on the respective days of their lynches. Jay should be held just as accountable.

If you wanted to, you could find things I've said to "lightly push" the lynches of everyone I've talked about in this entire game. When I analyze people, I tend to find at least something I don't like. That doesn't mean I'm pushing lynches, it means I'm being objective.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:One more thing to add, and that is that Jay did not help with the lynch of Black Rock on Day 7. I realize that he had only joined the day before, but he still did state that he does not find her suspicious before she was lynched.

Again, if you're going to reference the post then you need to be fair about that reference. In that very post you've linked, I asserted I didn't find Black Rock suspicious because I didn't find anyone at all suspicious. I was too new to the game at that point to have any real opinion of anyone. Frankly it'd be more suspicious if I somehow pretended at that point to be capable of suspecting Black Rock. How was I supposed to know anything?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Jay later goes on to vote for Neverwhere, again voting off the main lynch of nutella (one of his previous, and actually still current suspicions). Jay states here that there is valid reason to vote for both players, and also that there is valid reason to suspect inactive players in the game (can someone point to me where Jay offers a strong point to suspect inactives aside from mere probabilit?).

When I said there are valid reasons to suspect inactive players, I was referring specifically the content you have generated on that front. You've paid the closest attention to night kill flavor and I've stated before this point that I am willing to trust your insights on those things. Moreover, if you're to assert that Neverwhere was my suspect merely because she was inactive, then you're misrepresenting me again. Remember the massive post I made explaining why I found Neverwhere suspicious for the things she did post? Reminder.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Again, Jay analyzes all of the players who voted for nutella, focusing the magnifying glass on them as if only the voters matter, and not the perpetrators.

You're misrepresenting me again. That "analysis" you're asserting I made to assert "only voters matter" -- Sloonei asked me exactly for that! He asked me how I'd rank the people who voted for nutella, so I answered him and explained why I ranked people the way I did. I absolutely did not suggest that they were the only suspects or that voting for nutella was the only possible suspicious act. For you to honestly make this assertion would require that you completely overlooked the question Sloonei asked me. I am quite skeptical.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Addendum: Jay has pushed the lynch of 3 of the last 4 civvies lynched, not voted in their lynches (nor has he voted on a single lynchee's wagon this game), and lightly pushed suspicion in the directions of the players who have voted on these wagons. Thoughts?

Linki: Whoa, that's a lot...

I absolutely tried to get Neverwhere lynched. If Epignosis had chosen her to break the tie, then I'd been on the wagon of the lynchee. I clearly wanted it too. You've accused me of stating some degree of suspicion both for the players lynched and for the players who voted in those lynches.

You're right. Because I've stated some degree of suspicion about everyone save maybe for Sloonei.

I'm going to revisit my argument with Epignosis one post at a time and try to show you where my mind was.
This post started the argument. When I said this, I was referring specifically to this comment by Epignosis:
My intent wasn't to make a scathing accusation. I noticed what seemed like a discrepancy between this comment by Epignosis and his eventual vote in the nutella/Neverwhere tie (for nutella, the active player). This inconsistency warranted a question at least, so I brought it up and asked him "what gives?". I really didn't anticipate this becoming the argument that it became, but Epignosis isn't the predictable sort.
Epi responded by suggesting my question was brushing with a broad stroke. I thought this was an understandable perspective, but I also thought it'd be pretty difficult to paint with "narrow" strokes about a player who had been intentionally vague or evasive in the face of nearly all questions he'd fielded since I joined the game. So I said as much in response. By this point, it had become a legitimate exchange of words between Epi and I. And he doesn't strike me as the sort to leave things alone, so I thought it was an opportunity to get some kind of meaningful, readable posts out of him. I continued poking him with that in mind (as can seen in the last post quoted above.

Continuing...
He answered my question with more vagueness typical of him in this game (asserting he chose nutella as his vote because of "predetermined criteria"). This wasn't satisfactory to me, so I poked him again. Harder. To be honest, I was really trying to speak a language here that I thought might generate meaningful responses from Epignosis. I don't think he gives a crap about my standard methods, so I didn't use my standard methods. I got aggressive, and I behaved more assertively -- hoping he'd at least respond in kind. I think that was successful at least:
This is where he started trying to get under my skin. He wasn't accusing me of doing anything particularly suspicious -- he was ribbing me for failing to generate the Neverwhere lynch that I clearly wanted. I think he can tell by now that I try to play with the mantle of leadership. It's important to me to deliver convincing cases that influence people's votes. I take pride in that. And he took the opportunity to point out that I was unsuccessful in that regard with my attempt at getting Neverwhere lynched instead of nutella.

That he chose to try to get under my skin instead of validly answer my question in a non-vague manner struck me as a non-town response. Even for Epignosis, in my limited experience playing with him -- I struggled to see a townie mindset inspiring that behavior. This became increasingly clear to me, even if in error (who knows), when he suggested his efforts during that lynch were "successful" merely because he broke the tie like he said he wanted to. As if the alignment of the player lynched primarily by his hand was irrelevant to him. Again: I struggled to see a townie mindset there. That led me to say this:
"Your objectives and mind are not going to work together."

This is me, quite literally, suggesting that he was not pursuing town interests. That he felt his efforts were a success, combined with his get-under-JJJ's-skin approach to argument, suggested to me that whatever his alignment, Epignosis was not playing for the same goals that I am playing for. As a townie trying to eliminate threats to the townies. I don't know if that would indicate he was an independent or a mafioso, but either way his motives were a problem. If he was a townie, then hopefully he'll explain where his mind was after the game.
Again, he tries to get under my skin, this time more aggressively. He makes fun of my methods (rainbows and ISOs) and seemed to be insinuating that he placed no value in them. That's fair if it's his perspective -- but it's not a logical response to the questions I'd been asking him. I thought he was deflecting everything back at me without concern for context or fairness -- anti-town behavior.
Here he finally responded to my original question in a substantive way -- and in a way that included suspicions stated of me. I didn't have time to answer to this before night ended and he was dead (he died 2 minutes after this post was posted). I tried, but I failed:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:What he said, I think he killed him because Epignosis has been difficult to comprehend this game, and due to that late argument with him.

Two things:

1.) Is a player who is "difficult to comprehend" (which I would agree could be a valid description for Epi 2.0's play) by nature a threat to either mafia team as opposed to some other player who is more comprehensible? What point are you making here exactly?

2.) The late argument I had with Epi may legitimately have influenced his being killed. I don't know for sure, but I don't struggle to imagine a mafioso observing that exchange and seeing an opportunity to lay a pretty obvious frame on me. I was making it clear that I thought Epi needed to go. So it isn't hard for anyone now to see that exchange followed immediately by his demise and play WIFOM.

JJJ said he wanted Epi dead, and then Epi died. Connection???

I'll explain in a separate post exactly what mindset I was employing in that exchange with Epi and attempt to show the townie behind it (me).

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also, I think Jay was distancing himself from the kill with this post.

That post was irrelevant to Epi being killed, it was solely relevant to the flavor text (like I said). I was referring specifically to the content given by the singer. I think the "lyrics" of the singer's song on that particular night should be of special interest to Sloonei. So I directed his attention there. I agree that he's probably silenced right now and thus cannot speak about it.

I'm home. Bear with me, because it'll take some time to pull up all of the thread evidence relevant to Marsh's accusations. He's said quite a lot. I'm working on it now.

I can't log in to this site on work computers, it's blocked (RYM isn't). I can only post from my phone, which I am not allowed to carry on the work floor.

I'll have things to say when I am able. This comes to you from a toilet stall.

Or he set it up to make that vote. Meh.

I'll discuss it after work.

Probably thinks I killed Epi after arguing with him. Doesn't make much strategic sense.

I think Gumshoes and SVS 2.0 are the only players left that I haven't thoroughly examined yet. Hopefully time and energy will permit that effort tomorrow.

I'm back at work since Monday after two weeks of vacation and it has sapped all of my energy. I haven't been up to the task in this game this week, I readily acknowledge that.

I've suspected DF as long as I've been in this game, so I've no major beef with that notion. He's posted maybe twice since I last spoke with him here so my feelings haven't changed.

Would you be able to produce a rainbow or some other sort of reads list at the moment, Golden?

This kinda stinks, because my favored method for approaching a game after numerous bad lynches is to interrogate more than analyze. But with so many players absent I feel pretty stunted in that regard.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sloonei, I want you to read the flavor text in Dom's post with the Epi kill and then report back how it has affected your perspective of the game.

Just sloonei?

The thing I have in mind is specific to Sloonei yes, but if you have any commentary then by all means share it.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:General question for Syndicate regulars: roles with the ability to resurrect others, are they typically civilian? associated with a more exotic independent role? or anything else?

You might want to think of other potential explanations... like what happened in the thread not so long before Sloonei was rezzed.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, and I am considering that. I just don't want to throw all my marbles in that basket without educating myself better about standards on The Syndicate.

Because on RYM, resurrection is so extremely rare that nobody ever even thinks about it.

Is there any reason to assume the holder of the singer role must be civilian?

I'm trying to work out a few things that might help me either eliminate suspects or overhaul my perspective of this setup.

fingersplints wrote:Usually civvie, but I've seen rezz/recruit situations before

Would this mean a player is resurrected by an anti-civilian faction and immediately recruited into their ranks? Such a theory would seem consistent with both the resurrection-friendly and recruitment-friendly personality of this setup.

General question for Syndicate regulars: roles with the ability to resurrect others, are they typically civilian? associated with a more exotic independent role? or anything else?

I'm alive.

Sloonei, I want you to read the flavor text in Dom's post with the Epi kill and then report back how it has affected your perspective of the game.

Hedgeowl's back in the tally. Has this been a game-long trend (dead players appearing randomly in the poll)?

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Yep. I asked you a pretty simple question that I didn't think you'd struggle to answer. Instead you didn't attempt to answer it, and instead decided to try to get under my skin with irrelevant crap like that right there.

Your question was, "What gives?"

From someone who said this minutes before the lynch end:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:There are valid reasons to suspect nutella. I have suspected her for most of my time in this game. I don't vehemently oppose her lynch.

You hardly have the moral high ground to ask me "What gives?" as though lynching absent(ish) people was at the foremost of my intentions, as though I should have voted with you simply because Neverwhere was less here than nutella.

I never claimed to have any moral high ground, and there is clearly no such implication in the question "what gives?"

I have asked a thousand questions of a great many people in this game, and that was one for you. You had previously stated that you had a desire to lynch players who are inactive, and when given a chance you chose otherwise. I didn't call you mafia or insinuate it was some terrible maneuver. I asked you "what gives?"

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Whatever your alignment, you clearly don't have town interests at heart.

"Clearly" is an adverb- one of the most dangerous ones. It assumes something is true without knowing all the facts, whilst subtly attempting to get others to believe that something is true when they also don't know everything.

It's a more sinister cousin to "obviously."

You think my methods are stupid, and I think your methods are stupid.

Cool?

linki: fitting end to that discussion.