The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Leech wrote:I'd like to thank Sock for getting me interested in Steve Reich just by giving me the role. So far this is my favorite piece...

Glad you enjoy his music! Definitely listen to Music for 18 Musicians; that is my favorite album of his for sure. He really is such an important figure in the history of contemporary/20th century composing.

That's one of many things I love about hosting mafia games is exposing other people to awesome music/TV shows/video games/etc. that perhaps they hadn't been fully knowledgeable of before. Of course, there's the fantastic flipside of being the one exposed to new items as well while playing a mafia game. I actually started watching Futurama at the insistence of one Mr. Droopy Cash and because of the recent Futurama game over at RM, for just one example.

Yeah it's really cool, because first I was hoping to get someone I already knew about like Mike Patton but instead I got another artist I can say I'm becoming a fan of.

I'd like to thank Sock for getting me interested in Steve Reich just by giving me the role. So far this is my favorite piece...


Anyway, I'm interested in where this is going, so I'll keep watch, obviously without commenting.

Very, very, doubtful, but if you really were, no hard feelings.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I do think that him breaking his approach to the challenge in defense seems to have made more people look at him, if anything. I'll also say that if he had stayed quiet I would have respected him more for actually sticking to his guns.

I find this at least a more reasonable argument than the self-voting ones, even though I did explain that I found myself in much more danger saying nothing than saying something.

As for vomps, yeah, he only made quite a few of your suspicions way worse for both him and me, which leaves me to believe that he's either a bad civvie or a good baddie. Right now he's on par with Kate in that sense, although I would be surprised if they're on the same team.

vomps
Kate
i
That list may grow in the next half hour. If it doesn't, I recommend civvies check back here once I'm lynched. I will however make it clear now that I don't have strong suspiciosns for most of the people that voted for me, I just see them as misguided.

Yet another story of civvie self-voting. If so many people do it, what exactly was your realization? I understand the point that as lazy, it could implicate that a lazy civvie is a worthless civvie, but when there's no other suspicions (most of the suspicions I developed on others likely wouldn't have started without my self-vote, which ironically helps the civvies if you ask me) and I already stated why I disagree with randomizers, I still think it's the best choice.

Looks like I'm screwed. Yet another thing that turns the eye towards Kate for me is her reasoning behind voting for me. Either a baddie move or a lazy civvie move. If I am apparently just a lazy civvie, she should've voted for BoatsBoatsBoats, who at the time of this post, didn't post once if I'm correct. But she didn't, she voted for me, which makes me think that she felt obligated to retain consistency with her accusations.

If my action that sparked suspicions was in fact dumb, I still retain that it wasn't dumb because self-voting is a baddie move, but likely dumb because it's considered a baddie move. Even after my argument, NO ONE helped to explain to me what exactly about self-voting makes it suspicious. Once it's solid gold that I'm a civvie, I ask all of you to turn your suspicions towards Kate, or if they're already there, increase them.

And if it's not too much, rethink your stature on why self-voting is suspicious.

Illyria wrote:

Leech wrote:I've played about two and a half games total over the span of about two years. I was the Phuncky Feel One.

Riight. Okay. Well Jason from TP was a famous self voter on day one which would have helped me understand your choice but nope. That's not you.

So I am back to..

So a famous self-voter on day one can casually exist, and many people (included bea who you quoted just now) have admitted to self-voting before or at least having considered doing so.

If you're up for it Illyria, what's your case for self-voting as a baddie move?

I've played about two and a half games total over the span of about two years. I was the Phuncky Feel One.

Illyria wrote:

bea wrote:I thought at first Leech's post was typical Jase. I'm not saying I completely agree with the idea behind it - but it's tempting especially to newer players. (And not one I've not contemplated a 1000 times.)

Wait. Leech is JASON from TP??

I don't know who the hell that is, I think bea meant that it reminded her of typical Jase (whoever the hell that is).

Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day?

It was my third post. In fact first let me make it clear that the only reason I'm posting again is that I'm now convinced that not providing an argument could get me lynched, which is a worse punishment (probably) than anything Sock could conjure up. If I had known that post (and the vote) would've sparked up THIS many damn suspicions, I wouldn't have made it. It was my third post, and I didn't want to be the guy that votes without posting. Paranoid? I honestly still don't think so. Like someone said for a different context, it's a Sock game, thus anything could happen. A sneaky trick like the one I mentioned certainly wouldn't be outside the possibility of a game I would ever host, and I don't think Sock's any different.

Kate wrote:if it weren't for I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move?

How do you expect me to respond to this sensibly if you refuse to get into a discussion about random voting? First off, self-voting isn't even random voting in the first place, it's situational, and to me I find it far less suspicious from any standpoint than an actual randomizer. You could make a case that I would agree with that self-voting is lazy voting, but suspicious? Although I've seen a lot of posts saying that my action was suspicious, I didn't read a single one explaining to me how, and instead demanded I make an explanation. If the suspicion stems from me putting myself in a position where I supposedly am shielded from defending myself, for one, I didn't think I would have to defend myself in the first place, and for another, that's now void. I ask you now Kate, how exactly was my move baddielicious. If you still don't want a random voting discussion, then to me you're in the same boat you tried to put me in about attempting to dodge responsibility in defense. That is unless you convince me without a discussion on that, unlikely, because I honestly don't understand why anyone considers self-voting suspicious, especially on Day 1, early, when I have no one else to be suspicious to.

Kate wrote:You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

You're spinning this because "voting a known civvie" carries a bad connotation and "voting for yourself", what I did, doesn't. At all. The reason why is because when you self-vote, you don't make a case for why anyone else should make the same vote, and thus you're not trying to get the civvie lynched. The purpose of self-voting is to just VOTE, when you have no other suspicions. Not only do I find a randomizer not the better option, to me it's a more suspicious action. Two baddies on the same team can claim to use a randomizer and "coincidentally" end up with the same player who's not on their team or a civvie, getting him or her lynched.

I feel like you consciously believe that it's not a suspicious move (after all, a lot of people admitted to considering it (and doing it) themselves after my action became a hot topic), which sparks my suspicions for you. Add that to the fact that there was a good space between my post and yours and no one else found it suspicious enough to say so. You were the first to speak bad about it, and by doing so you created a freak chain of spotlight which sparked other people's suspicions because if I'm not mistaken your "suspicions" of me (that is, again, if you actually find my move suspicious) was the first stated suspicion of anyone there was. Baddie move? I won't make that conclusion this early but it seems very strange to me.

As for addressing vomps' unwarranted defense of me, I've got nothing. lol. Trying to explain why I think it's not weird would only increase your suspicions that we're on the same team, and in addition it would be dishonest, because I do think it was a strange defense, and it brought up a bunch of weird possibilities that to me don't even seem possible for a Day 1 situation, such as the whole forced to self-vote by a Mafia idea, which I don't subscribe to, although I guess it's not for me to say.

You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

I thought the pre-day poll would last longer, poor attention I suppose. My sister's birthday was today and the day before I hung out with friends, so I've been very busy and that's my best excuse. Meh, I can't promise it won't happen again, but I can promise I'll try to avoid letting it happen again.

I posted but if I remember correctly, didn't vote. My apologies. Hopefully it won't happen again.

Although the definite portal is probably the "safer" option, I'm curious how Sock's storytelling will go if we take a "supposed" portal.

Meshuggah overlapping with the Residents and others. Splendid!