The Syndicate

Bump. There's plenty of time before the day is over so I would really like to know...

a2thezebra wrote:What do you think of FZ, Diiny?

FZ. wrote: This is bullshit. I think I've made it pretty clear why I'm choosing to trust Wilgy. I think that all your theories make no sense, and it makes no sense for him to make something like this up. The more we discussed it, the less it made sense for him to fake it. His last two posts gave me a little scare, but his last one made me feel better again. Unless he's a crazy bastard, I don't see how this is fake, hence I'm following his vote.

You on the other hand, I have no idea what you're doing.

linki: Yeah, I'm an eager to buss baddie, you caught me

Again, you're (deliberately) wrong on two fronts. One, I am not saying Wilgy is making this up. I'm just not saying he isn't making this up, either. Two, I am not saying that you are bad for thinking he is genuine, I am saying that you are bad for putting your faith in him when you yourself are not only open to the possibility that he is lying, but open to the likelihood of it. "Either he's telling the truth or he's not." This theory makes sense because aside from your unwarranted faith in Wilgy's claim, you have a complete lack of interest in Diiny being bad (or good for that matter, because as I've said, you're quite waffly on this player that you are voting for) otherwise. Wilgy himself knows what I'm "doing" so you're not helping yourself by pretending that what I'm arguing makes no sense.

DrWilgy wrote:Does this mean the baddie team is Diiny, MP, and a eager to bus FZ?

Not sure about MP, but regarding the other two, I'm heavily leaning towards yes.

Okay FZ, I was reluctant to call you out on misrepresenting my argument when it comes to what exactly I think Wilgy is doing in this game in the last post I made, because I feel like I call people out on that too often when it's not true and/or warranted. But this is just too much. Let me go back and take a look at your magnificent concoction of assumptions and straw man arguments.

FZ. wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

FZ. wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:And I need to make it clear and more vocal that there's a difference between being wrong for being wrong and being wrong for being bad.

WTF does that supposed to mean?

You're only trying to justify your Diiny vote as being based on Wilgy's claim because it's easier to pull off as genuine than faking a reason why you think he is actually bad or at least inconspicuously parroting everyone else that does.

This is ridiculous. Either Wilgy is telling the truth or not. If he is, then I find trusting him to be the best thing to do. Since you're not voting Wilgy, I'm assuming you think he's lying about knowing for a fact Diiny is bad. If that's the case, you should be a lot more worried about him than you are me, but don't let logic confuse you.

Alright, so your assumption (and you even admit, it is in fact an assumption) that I think Wilgy is lying stems from me not voting for him? I could write a piece that Ayn Rand fanboys would appreciate based on how illogical that assumption is, but I'll move on instead.

FZ. wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:This is most likely because he's your teammate but it's still a valid hypothesis even if he's somehow not.

I must be really dense today, because I swear to god, I'm not understanding half the players this game.

Two options I've seen brought up:

1. Enrique: Wilgy and Diiny are bad. The former is throwing the latter under the bus by fake claiming something that the real cop knows is not true.

2. Zebra: Wilgy is lying, and taking the most stupid risk I've ever seen someone take (it's not like he can use some excuse that his actions got redirected or whatever) which will be discovered the minute Diiny is lynched, and I'm following him because it's easier to show I'm trusting him instead of finding a real reason to suspect someone.

I'd like to call at least one of you bad, but these theories seem so far fetched that I can't possibly think a baddie would be that crazy to try and pin them on people.

So to recap, you've gone from an assumption about one of my hypotheses based on me not voting for a particular player, to representing that assumption that you have made as an "option" that you've seen me brought up. Calling this misrepresentation wouldn't even do this justice anymore. This is lying, plain and simple. I don't think Wilgy is lying and I don't think he's telling the truth either. As I've already made clear earlier, what Wilgy is doing is pure WIFOM to me that could go too many different ways to make any assumptions about, which makes it all the easier for baddies such as yourself to use a fake perspective on what he is doing to your advantage. And you are not following him, you are faking following him. If you can't see that aspect of my argument then that means you've most likely been caught red-handed, because bottom line, that IS the argument itself.

FZ. wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

FZ. wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:And I need to make it clear and more vocal that there's a difference between being wrong for being wrong and being wrong for being bad.

WTF does that supposed to mean?

You're only trying to justify your Diiny vote as being based on Wilgy's claim because it's easier to pull off as genuine than faking a reason why you think he is actually bad or at least inconspicuously parroting everyone else that does.

This is ridiculous. Either Wilgy is telling the truth or not. If he is, then I find trusting him to be the best thing to do. Since you're not voting Wilgy, I'm assuming you think he's lying about knowing for a fact Diiny is bad. If that's the case, you should be a lot more worried about him than you are me, but don't let logic confuse you.

It is not ridiculous, and you demonstrated why my suspicion of you is warranted in this very post. Your trust in Wilgy is an act. If I disagreed with it and nothing more then that's what I would be talking about, but I'm not talking about that. You say that if Wilgy is telling the truth, then trusting him is the best thing to do. Right. If he's telling the truth. It doesn't make sense to trust someone if you're not sure whether or not they're telling the truth, yet not only do you trust him, you're not even trying to make the case here that it's more likely that he is in fact telling the truth than not. Sure there's been discussion that you've been a part of as to what his motivations could be, but at the end of the day you're willing to admit that you don't know. I agree; either Wilgy is telling the truth or not. I'm undecided on the matter, and as I mentioned earlier, I'm not interested in the wine overload. If you were saying that you're willing to trust Wilgy because you think he is telling the truth, that would be different. If you were saying that you're not willing to trust Wilgy because you think he isn't, that would also be different. But you're putting your trust in him despite not knowing that he is being truthful or not, and that's scummy. Here's why.

FZ. wrote:Whoa, you people managed to talk a lot while I was sleeping. It's a good thing it's internet pages and not real paper. So many trees would die...


I have no idea what the hell Diiny wants from zebra. At some point, I lost interest in that conversation. I'm not sure I find Diiny suspicious for that, but this whole Wilgy Diiny craziness is interesting.

DrWilgy wrote:Also, for those of you who think I wouldn't use my check on Diiny vs someone else, Diiny killed me in TH. That was my reason for the check.

Ok Diiny. Since you can't get the fact that I checked you, what do you think of MP's plan?

Last game I was the cop and MP didn't ask me who I wanted to target on day 0, I just got a name and alliance. This is a MM game, so I'm not sure they work the same though.

But if Wilgy is the cop, I can't see him outing himself so blatantly, unless he figures that one in the bag is worth the risk, and if he tries to hint with subtlety, the mafia will know who he is anyway. This way, if there's a doctor out there, he'll know who to protect.
Not sure I buy this theory myself, but the other possibility is that Wilgy is just trying to stir the game and encourage conversation. In any case, I like it a lot better than the Diiny-zebra back and forth

This is your first post. You express a lack of interest in my back-and-forth with me and Diiny as well as some waffliness about whether his responses are alignment-indicative...the same ones you lost interest in. Right. This pinged me a bit, but by itself it's far from damning. I think what's more worth noting is that this is the only post where you even mention Diiny until your fourth post where you decide for vote for him based on Wilgy's claim, and even in this post, you openly express seeing more value in analyzing Wilgy's big bowl of WIFOM. Considering that you're trusting Wilgy enough to vote for Diiny, you would think that you would at least show some amount of interest as to why and how Diiny might be bad, yet you are not only disinterested in this apparently confirmed scum's content, you are actively ignorant of it. And then there's the post that more or less confirmed your alignment:

FZ. wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:I did say he is my night 2 check didn't I?

Sorry, I missed that. I'll be voting Diiny for now. It sucks to go out this way, so I feel for him if he's really mafia, but I think this is a chance we need to take.

Even after your unwarranted trust in Wilgy, you still express waffliness in Diiny's alignment as you vote for him. A chance we need to take? That's what this boils down to. You're trying to give the impression that your faith in Wilgy is justified not because you actually think it is, but because that justifies your otherwise completely unjustified vote.

This is most likely because he's your teammate but it's still a valid hypothesis even if he's somehow not.

FZ. wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:And I need to make it clear and more vocal that there's a difference between being wrong for being wrong and being wrong for being bad.

WTF does that supposed to mean?

You're only trying to justify your Diiny vote as being based on Wilgy's claim because it's easier to pull off as genuine than faking a reason why you think he is actually bad or at least inconspicuously parroting everyone else that does.

And I need to make it clear and more vocal that there's a difference between being wrong for being wrong and being wrong for being bad.

Votes are changeable.

FZ. wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

FZ. wrote:And yes, I admit that other than Diiny's weird back and forth with zebra, which I just didn't get where he was coming from with it, but wasn't nearly enough for me to think he's bad, the only reason I'm voting him is Wilgy's word. What's wrong with that?

Everything.

If this is the kind of game where info dumping is allowed, then by all means, you bet I'm going to use that information.

FZ.

FZ. wrote:And yes, I admit that other than Diiny's weird back and forth with zebra, which I just didn't get where he was coming from with it, but wasn't nearly enough for me to think he's bad, the only reason I'm voting him is Wilgy's word. What's wrong with that?

Everything.

i could give less of a fuck about caps lock

What do you think of FZ, Diiny?

FZ. wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:I did say he is my night 2 check didn't I?

Sorry, I missed that. I'll be voting Diiny for now. It sucks to go out this way, so I feel for him if he's really mafia, but I think this is a chance we need to take.

You're bad.

Epignosis wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm voting Floyd. He said he wouldn't be playing Mafia for a while- yet here he is.

I haven't played in two weeks, that's still a good amount of time. Also, how does this interfere with whichever role I am?

You can say that again.

Two (superb) pun posts and three posts concerning Floyd. Epi, what are your thoughts on the other shenanigans today?

DrWilgy, stop trying to intoxicate us with the wine por favor

@Diiny While I appreciate that you elaborated on your (supposed) thought processes with those posts I mentioned, I still don't buy it. Sorry. Bedtime for me too.

I wouldn't say Mac's suggestion that you were at least in the process of framing Floyd is too far-fetched. I say this because your perspective on him is already inconsistent. Content highlighted red shows a hesitance and reluctance to jump to conclusions...

Diiny wrote:

Enrique wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:I gotta ask, MM, what inspired you to base this around trees?

Yeah, of all the off topic stuff this one pinged me the most. I don't know why. It might be because this is already seriously reminding me of floyd's previous game where he was scum combined with that being his only game. Might be because it's an interaction with someone who isn't playing; it's more timid.

Floyd, say something game relevant please

Diiny wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Yay game!

Who wants to throw out peeks?

What do you think of Floyd?

what do you think of floyd?

Diiny wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Diiny wrote: Floyd, say something game relevant please

Because this is surely game relevant.

Diiny wrote:If a tree wins a poll in the forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it get lynched?

Dinny

Did you read the post you're quoting? I said that I was pinged because of more than it being an OT post. Everyone makes OT posts, they mean almost nothing when they're wrapped cosy in a warm blanket of content.

...while the bit there highlighted in blue indicates that you are much more confident in your suspicion of Floyd than you initially let on. It doesn't help that the post in between is flat-out dodging a question that, if answered, might make this inconsistency seem a bit more genuine.

I don't design posts. I type some nonsense and hit the submit button. Doing just that and nothing more provokes some interesting and dare I say revealing reactions more than you might think. Also, I'm not convinced that you can't remember the extent to which you understood me at any given point. I think you knew what you were doing the whole time and it didn't go in the direction you wanted it to, so you are now trying to redefine where your thoughts were in our initial back-and-forth to make them seem more justified and less manipulative. I don't buy it.

I love you Mac

Diiny wrote:If I was trying to make him look bad I'm perfectly capable of actually sounding like I've made up my mind. If you feel like it's weak, Mac, it's because I'm not actively trying to make him look bad. I don't know why you've assumed I have.

I'm really enjoying your allegations of 'double crossing' (?) zeb and making her look bad that don't actually deal with what I said, keep 'em coming. I'm apparently collecting day 1 votes anway

First of all, if I'm scum (and yes, I know we may play differently) and I'm trying to make someone look bad, the last thing I'm going to do is give off the impression that I've made up my mind. I try to throw shade and point everyone else in a civilian victim's direction while trying to make it as forgettable as possible that I was the one who pointed. Second, and more importantly, you seem nervous.

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:How is me gauging reactions not applied generally, but instead applied to a single post...where clearly I have gauged some interesting reactions? In other words, you're misrepresenting the issue and even if you weren't, you would still be mistaken.

Because I explicitly brought up that specific post in particular during the discussion. That's what I was concerned with. Me prodding you on it leading me to an answer I didn't feel made sense given the contents and nature of the post. THAT post. Specifically. You can't gauge reactions to your fourth posts because it doesn't demand them nor does it provoke them. As I've said. I really don't think I'm misrepresenting anything here, but you may be misunderstanding me.

You haven't gauged anything particularly interesting but that doesn't mean you haven't turned up the heat.

My answer wasn't regarding that post, and I even made clear with my initial response that gauging response is what I do generally, therefore shifting the back-and-forth away from that one example. You may have been talking about it initially but as the person who posted it, I am well aware that it was one piece of a larger puzzle. I tried to inform you of this but I didn't make it clear enough. Maybe. And I'm surprised that you still don't see how blatantly wrong you are regarding the reactions. Your own reactions, the very posts that you are making here, prove that it did in fact provoke reactions. Demand, probably not, but I'm not a demanding player. You may disagree that your very own reactions here are worth analyzing but to me that only makes your intent even more questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I haven't gauged anything interesting...to me (in a game like this) that's exactly what turning up the heat is.

After seeing DrWilgy in TH, Pet Sounds, and the ongoing Star Wars as well as this game, I've concluded that DrWilgy's play style is to never have the same play style twice. I wish I had the audacity to attempt such a meta as that.

How is me gauging reactions not applied generally, but instead applied to a single post...where clearly I have gauged some interesting reactions? In other words, you're misrepresenting the issue and even if you weren't, you would still be mistaken.

Diiny wrote:It's your 4th post, isn't it?

I see what you're saying, my fourth post mentioned that too. Yes, I stand by that.

I'm sorry, were we talking about a specific post this whole time? I didn't get that.

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Diiny, that is not what I am telling you. I told you I am gauging reads with my actions; I did not tell you that I would be basing my conclusions off of any conversation. I'm curious; are you genuinely confused as to what I'm doing which is only a single instance of the foundation for my entire play style, or are you having me spell it out so explicitly so it will be less effective and the baddies I'm trying to discover will no longer have their guards down? Help me out.

Feels to me like you're playing off what you posted about paradigms as some way of catching scum out and gauging reactions when it's just a milquetoast, objective statement of game fact that's barely relevant. I appreciate what it is you're telling me you're doing but I don't believe your post about paradigms is a good example of it.

What you did do very well, though, is get the thread going like you said you wanted to. Nice juicy day 1

That is the beginning and end of what I am doing. I'm not sure what my first post even has to do with it, that was just banter.

I meant the paradigm post we've been talking about, the one about #4. Not your first post.

Um...that was my first post.

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Diiny, that is not what I am telling you. I told you I am gauging reads with my actions; I did not tell you that I would be basing my conclusions off of any conversation. I'm curious; are you genuinely confused as to what I'm doing which is only a single instance of the foundation for my entire play style, or are you having me spell it out so explicitly so it will be less effective and the baddies I'm trying to discover will no longer have their guards down? Help me out.

Feels to me like you're playing off what you posted about paradigms as some way of catching scum out and gauging reactions when it's just a milquetoast, objective statement of game fact that's barely relevant. I appreciate what it is you're telling me you're doing but I don't believe your post about paradigms is a good example of it.

What you did do very well, though, is get the thread going like you said you wanted to. Nice juicy day 1

That is the beginning and end of what I am doing. I'm not sure what my first post even has to do with it, that was just banter.

Diiny, that is not what I am telling you. I told you I am gauging reads with my actions; I did not tell you that I would be basing my conclusions off of any conversation. I'm curious; are you genuinely confused as to what I'm doing which is only a single instance of the foundation for my entire play style, or are you having me spell it out so explicitly so it will be less effective and the baddies I'm trying to discover will no longer have their guards down? Help me out.

For the record, I am not remotely pinged by Floyd's post.

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:attempting to start conversation about currently barely-relevant game mechanics on day 1 seems like the opposite of a meaty day 1 to me and has a record of being pretty scummy behaviour.

but yeah, it could.

Who said I was attempting to start conversation at all, let alone about something as silly as that? I'm starting the action itself (indirectly of course, but you better believe I will take full credit), and given that I have triggered the first mention of "scummy behaviour" in the game, it seems to have worked.

I'm glad you agree it's silly and glad to know you weren't trying to get the thread talking about it. Why'd you post that, then?

To gauge reactions, and not just from you. I think baddies are most vulnerable at the start of the game, so I'd like to raise the chances of catching them in the awkward stage before they've adjusted to the temperature.

It's like they're slowly dipping their feet into a cold pool and my job is to run up from behind and shove them in.

And how does what you posted about the setup raise the temperature for baddies?

It creates more opportunities for them to accidentally reveal opportunistic/staged/disingenuous behavior. Case in point, why are you so interested?

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:attempting to start conversation about currently barely-relevant game mechanics on day 1 seems like the opposite of a meaty day 1 to me and has a record of being pretty scummy behaviour.

but yeah, it could.

Who said I was attempting to start conversation at all, let alone about something as silly as that? I'm starting the action itself (indirectly of course, but you better believe I will take full credit), and given that I have triggered the first mention of "scummy behaviour" in the game, it seems to have worked.

I'm glad you agree it's silly and glad to know you weren't trying to get the thread talking about it. Why'd you post that, then?

To gauge reactions, and not just from you. I think baddies are most vulnerable at the start of the game, so I'd like to raise the chances of catching them in the awkward stage before they've adjusted to the temperature.

It's like they're slowly dipping their feet into a cold pool and my job is to run up from behind and shove them in.

Diiny wrote:attempting to start conversation about currently barely-relevant game mechanics on day 1 seems like the opposite of a meaty day 1 to me and has a record of being pretty scummy behaviour.

but yeah, it could.

Who said I was attempting to start conversation at all, let alone about something as silly as that? I'm starting the action itself (indirectly of course, but you better believe I will take full credit), and given that I have triggered the first mention of "scummy behaviour" in the game, it seems to have worked.

#4 is the only paradigm where all civilians are vanilla. This could become crucial later on.

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:If a tree wins a poll in the forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it get lynched?

I don't know, Diiny.

Don't worry, we'll find out soon enough. You got something to prove right off the bat, zeb?

Not at all, I just want Day 1 to get meaty as soon as possible.

Diiny wrote:If a tree wins a poll in the forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it get lynched?

I don't know, Diiny.

Well I'm positive this is one of the paradigms featuring a vanilla civilian in it.