The Syndicate

Snow Dog wrote:

Quin wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:Would you agree Quin that we are not team mates?

I would.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I will not vote DDL, Epi, Sig as I view them as town.
I am resistant to voting Nacho and Marco (the later because it will tell us nothing).
I have no strong opinion on Son and MP.
I suspect Zebra but as nobody has mirrored these feelings, I suspect it is more culture clash than anything.
I suspect Daisy and especially Eloh for what looks like vague or poorly thought out arguments not taking the full thread into account.

One of those bottom five will get my vote today unless I see a damn good argument for why it should be elsewhere.

Snow Dog wrote:Although zebra's argument for me saying i hadn't read my role was wrong I think her argument was sound for all of that. It is certainly something i might do for the reasons she gave.

Long Con wrote: I think Quin is bad based on his behaviour, and the point Sorsha made is good as well.

Nachomamma8 wrote:Long Con's role analysis here: Golden, I'm looking for your input on this specifically; I was impressed how you looked at his Monkey Island role spec and came away feeling great about it (and was even more impressed when I agreed with your conclusions). I was expecting you to comment on it here because I thought that it was significantly weaker here than it was there (in particular, the part that stood out to me there was his analysis of baddie roles there but I thought it lacked the same depth here); do you not usually comment on his role analysis/do you think this one was particularly neutral/did you decide not to comment on it just so I'd call you out about it later?

Spacedaisy wrote:So far I don't find anything suspicious in DDL, he reads extremely civ to me. But I am going to finish it to be sure it doesn't change my opinion.

Epignosis wrote:I don't feel like this Day was used effectively, but I can't begrudge anybody that. I'm voting Dom.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:What are you talking about zebra?

insertnamehere wrote:2 hours to go, and only 6 out of 25 players have voted.

this is gonna be a fun EoD

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I'm going to disagree with your summary of my read on Zebra as "genuine."

I do not view the way she went about that as "genuine."

She saw a very weak attack on a player, mischaracterized the severity and completeness of the reasoning of said attack, put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defense of what was probably a joke and then didn't answer multiple questions regarding her posts.

I don't view that as a townie trying their best.


@Snow

What did you think of Zebra's initial defense of you?

Yes, sorry, that was more clear after your clarification.

Well, I disagree very strongly about the characterisation that both you and soneji have put forward about zebra. I'd say zebra looked much more flexible than those around her. In particular I'd say that

1) The attack that you and DDL put on Snow Dog, far from being weak, was very strong and way overdone for what it related to. You said outright you wanted to lynch him. So did DDL. You claim the idea of it being town lying was so unlikely that it deserved outright dismissal. DDL argued for a policy lynch and said there was a 99% chance Snow Dog was bad if he was lying. To me, the attack was strong and sustained far beyond what is reasonable from anyone with a town mind set - DDL was worse, but I do not like your content much in the exchange either, particular after zebra weighed in.

2) I do not think zebra ever mischaracterised either the 'severity' or the 'reasoning' of said attack. To me, as I read it in real time, she responded to the only reasons that could be reasonably implied from your posting. If you had reasons in your head that you didn't write in your posts, it's not fair to expect people to infer that and characterise your reasoning as something you haven't said.

3) "Put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defence of what was probably a joke"... a: you didn't consider it a joke at the time, b: zebras defence makes perfect sense, what about it is nonsensical? and c) Two people were bearing down hard on another person for literally nothing, and you call the defence unnecessary?

4) What possible motivation would zebra have for making an 'unnecessary and nonsensical defence' of Snow Dog?

Having said all of that, I don't suspect you. I find your thinking a bit no u/omgus, but the first time I ever played with Zebra I tunnelled her into the ground on day one for suspecting me because she does come across (to the person being attacked) as someone who ignores the facts that don't suit her and seems to hone in only on the bits she wants to. I was wrong, and I think I've been wrong every time I have suspected Zebra for those reasons. I guess I now see it as one form of her town game.

I do suspect soneji, because his vote to me seems to be, in essence, 'I'm making a statement for playstyle - Jack is like me. Therefore, voting zebra', which is a terrible reason for a vote. Plus he was laissez faire with an unchangeable vote.

I officially suspect Golden for this post.

You don't think Jack is bad, but you're going to lecture him every which way from Sunday. What is the point of that?

a2thezebra wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

But Jackofhearts and DDL don't seem to care that he might not necessarily be bad for it. Don't you think that makes them look bad?

I think they're making the mistake of confusing styles of gameplay that they find counter-intuitive and actual scumtells.

I should know, I've made that exact mistake many a time as a civilian. In fact, that's my biggest difficulty as a townie, usually.

But they can't be making that mistake, because both of them have acknowledged that Snow Dog not reading his rolecard is not in itself alignment-indicative. Both are not arguing for a lynch based on alignment but rather a policy lynch. If I felt they were making that mistake then I would give them more credit, but they clearly understand that what they're advocating for is the killing of a potential civ for reasons that aren't alignment-indicative and they still advocate for it anyway.

insertnamehere wrote:

Scotty wrote:Day 0 reads: JoH is bad and INH is his teammate.

Do I win?

You win the medal of wrong-ness.

Get it?

It's because you're wrong.

insertnamehere wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

But Jackofhearts and DDL don't seem to care that he might not necessarily be bad for it. Don't you think that makes them look bad?

I think they're making the mistake of confusing styles of gameplay that they find counter-intuitive and actual scumtells.

I should know, I've made that exact mistake many a time as a civilian. In fact, that's my biggest difficulty as a townie, usually.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Snow Dog has no alignment. All attempts to read him are pointless. There is no way to call him a civ or bad, because he has no winning condition. He has no intention to win for either side. He is not playing the game.

Why should he be kept alive?

Every lynch is a policy lynch. We take down people who don't contribute to town's cause, for reasons we decide at the time. This guy is the least contributive a player can possibly be.

Every statement within this post is false. For one, Snow Dog does have an alignment. Whether he knows what alignment that is is up for debate, but he does have one. All attempts to read him are pointless only operating under the assumption that he is playing without reading his alignment, which even then doesn't make it pointless to read him because not knowing your alignment doesn't automatically dictate whether or not you are going to attempt to genuinely contribute to the town cause. Not reading one's role card is a bold unorthodox move, if we are willing to acknowledge that why are we unwilling to consider bold unorthodox explanations for this move? Saying it's a bad move has no bearing on whether or not it is alignment-indicative. He does have a winning condition. We don't know what his intentions are. He most certainly is playing the game.

He should be kept alive so we can figure out his intentions and decipher if he in fact has read his role card, and what his alignment is.

Snow Dog's decision to not read his role card, or at least his claim that he hasn't, has sparked more discussion than anything else so far in the game. And yet you have the nerve to say that he is the least contributive a player can possibly be? Either you are being disingenuous or downright stubborn. No, not every lynch is a policy lynch and no, we do not take down people who don't contribute to town's cause. We take down people who do contribute to the anti-town cause. The difference is monumental and you seem to be choosing to pretend that it isn't. My eye is on MM, Jackofhearts, and you, but especially you after this post.

Town's cause is to lynch scum.
Scum's cause is not to lynch scum.

Town is active. Scum is passive. Scum plays by stalling and not actually doing things. If someone is not trying to scum, they are more likely to be bad. Because that's the bread and butter of bads.

I concede that Snow Dog could help civs, if say, he decide to scum baddies despite potentially betraying his own team. I still argue that he is 100% unreadable, though. Because there is zero connection between his alignment and his posts. And if he is 100% unreadable, how are we supposed to trust him. How can we make the call to leave him alive. It's basically lottery.

We should either investigate him and hope someone manages to hint through the role reveal ban, or vig him. But leaving him alive and unchecked is leaving the game to pure chance. And I don't like games of pure chance.

insertnamehere wrote:I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

Glorfindel wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:North, one of the greatest movies of all time.

Zebs!!!

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Snow Dog has no alignment. All attempts to read him are pointless. There is no way to call him a civ or bad, because he has no winning condition. He has no intention to win for either side. He is not playing the game.

Why should he be kept alive?

Every lynch is a policy lynch. We take down people who don't contribute to town's cause, for reasons we decide at the time. This guy is the least contributive a player can possibly be.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

In this game, I will defend Snow Dog to the death.

Why?

I drove him a bit loopy in the last game we played together so I am indebted to him. This transcends alignment, you see. But for what it's worth I do believe he is civ from what little content there is to go off of so far. I don't think he would have drawn a target on himself if he were in fact bad.

You believe Snow Dog is a civvy but Snow Dog doesn't even believe Snow Dog is a civvy so forgive me if I totally write off your read.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

I don't like going after newcomers, but this post feels very disingenuous to me. For starters, you cover three possibilities with line breaks to give the impression that you're considering every scenario regarding Snow Dog's alignment. Truthful town, truthful scum, and lying scum. Yet you leave out lying town! Have you not considered that Snow Dog has in fact read his role and made that statement to see how people would react? Or have you considered that but it didn't contribute to your opportunistic behavior here?

I did consider it and dismissed it. Townies generally shouldn't lie but may do so for the greater good. I see no greater good in this.

Saying complete bullshit that makes yourself look bad just to get a reaction? There are better ways to get reactions that don't involve making yourself look bad.

The reason you see no greater good in this is because your perception of what qualifies as effective, innovative scum-hunting tactics is clearly a much narrower perception than mine (which many would say speaks better of you than of me) because I love it when townies make themselves look """bad""" to fish for eager opportunistic baddies. It strikes me as odd that you claim to have considered the possibility I brought up, because given that you considered the three other possibilities and included them in your previous post as well, it doesn't matter that you dismissed this one because the reasons you give for dismissing it are similarly negative to the reasons you gave for dismissing the other three which you included in the post. Why omit this possibility because you dismissed it? Because it doesn't contribute to your narrative I believe.

a2 wrote:Second, you seem awfully eager to bite down on a lynch option. It isn't even Day 1 yet! Aren't you interested in looking at other options or at least seeing what interactions might produce more content you could find suspicious? It appears to me that you are prioritizing finding someone to tunnel over actually finding baddies.

I am always interested in all of my lynch options and I am always interested in producing more content.

Snow Dog is way out in front for basically only saying something that I consider pretty antitown while most everyone else has said nothing at all. That doesn't mean that I will ultimately vote for Snow Dog. One post saying "I like you for a lynch" does not tunneling make.

I'm going to take the above to be a mix of honest misunderstanding what I meant when I said Snow Dog would be a good Day 1 lynch and your desire to defend Snow Dog regardless of alignments and not you trying to make me look bad. That's the impression I'm getting from you.

I never go out of my way to make anyone look bad. Even when I'm bad myself I try to look for things that I find genuinely suspicious, pretending that I'm good if I have to. With that said, I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is. You confirm in this response that you are in fact interested in a Snow Dog lynch, disregarding that future content could change that even while claiming that you are interested in more content. It doesn't seem believable to me for one to be interested in "all of my lynch options" while at the same time only having one lynch option.

a2 wrote:Third, it isn't true that if he is town and being truthful that such a move only hurts his performance. If he is a power role this is true, but if not then the mystery as to whose side he is on will instigate a more genuine pro-town performance than if he were knowingly town and the pressure was on.

He is a power role. Did you read the setup?

I'm not sure I follow the "if he's not a power role" bit. You're saying this move will generate a more genuinely pro-town performance from....Snow Dog? From others? How so?

When you know you're town you know that you have the responsibility of being town. If you end up in a LyLo (Lynch or Lose) situation the pressure is on you to make the right decision or cost town the game. This pressure can effect your performance; your judgment, your actions, how you choose to come off to other players. This pressure isn't there when you don't know whether or not you are in fact town, but your play still defaults as a town performance because you are used to pretending to be town even if you are bad. All in-thread performances are either genuine town or false town performances, so by emulating a town performance without having the pressure of town responsibility you may actually have better judgment in deciphering who is bad and who isn't.

a2 wrote:With all that said, welcome to the Syndicate and I am only attacking your alignment and not your character.

Thank you.

I would expect no less.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I'm okay with policy lynching Snow Dog.

Or rather, policy vigging him. A player who doesn't know their alignment is a waste of a lynch.

I strongly disapprove of this post with all due respect.

Noted.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I'm okay with policy lynching Snow Dog.

Or rather, policy vigging him. A player who doesn't know their alignment is a waste of a lynch.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

Do you at least know if you are good or bad?

Scotty wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

Heheh yeah he's probably lying.

Or not.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

In this game, I will defend Snow Dog to the death.

Why?

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

If we lynch you, do we get to read your role?

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.