The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Hello everyone, my name is DrWilgy and I am most definitely not a doctor. I'm analytical 10% of the time and lazy 90% of the time. I like memes and hope that we all have fun playing together. Perhaps no one will lose their life this time.

@Svs, did you really think you'd get a yes or no answer out of that from Dom?

No, hence my reply:

S~V~S wrote:Thanks Dom, I did not expect an answer to the info question, but I had to ask.

Also, thanks for the clarification about the role list. I waffled a bit about PMing you that it was still there or just posting it.

It never hurts to ask.

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:If Cobalt doesn't reappear, lynch him.

INH, how long will you take until you begin to policy lynch no shows/wallflowers?

for me it's not really a thing of how long, it's more of a thing I'll do if there aren't any better options.

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:If Cobalt doesn't reappear, lynch him.

INH, how long will you take until you begin to policy lynch no shows/wallflowers?

for me it's not really a thing of how long, it's more of a thing I'll do if there aren't any better options.

I feel that AoT mafia turned out the way it did because of this mindset. Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree, because my "logic and facts and stuff over playing with your gut" mindset lead me, the one civilian with a one-time use NK, to suspect and kill you, one of the baddies. You were the only baddie killed the entire game.

So, if anything, AoT just reinforced this mindset for me. Sorry that this wasn't the answer you were fishing for.

S~V~S wrote:You?

S~V~S wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

S~V~S wrote:You?

Nah, I'd target you SVS, not Matt or Bea! Silly SVS!

Well, since Matt is dancing around me, and I made a pointed post at Bea, my thought there was that you were hoping they would say "SVS". Feels kinda framey to me, tbh. Although kinda too obvious, too.

Are you trying to frame me WIlgy?

Quin wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

S~V~S wrote:You?

Nah, I'd target you SVS, not Matt or Bea! Silly SVS!

Well, since Matt is dancing around me, and I made a pointed post at Bea, my thought there was that you were hoping they would say "SVS". Feels kinda framey to me, tbh. Although kinda too obvious, too.

Are you trying to frame me WIlgy?

Nah, framing you this early might get the cops involved.

I actually didn't realize that both the players I asked had interactions with you (i've been skimming). I still look forward to thier responses nonetheless. Hey INH and Quin, if someone were to target you right now, who would that person be?

That depends on what I'm being targeted with.

Epignosis wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Hmm...

I think Quin and INH are on a team. I also think INH and Matt are on opposite teams. I also don't think bad Matt woud gimmick this early, unless he is strictly copying another game. He compared this point system to transistor, but I don't think he's copying what he did there.

Why is that question strange bullz? Feep free to answer the question yourself.

All of this sounds like somebody who needed something to say coming in and saying something. Why do you think these things? What posts brought you to these conclusions? Why are you defending Matt?

insertnamehere wrote:My reactions are in smiley format.

DrWilgy wrote: Why would have I needed something to say Epi?

INH put too much effort in his mockery of Matt's point system. Thus I think they are on opposite teams. The reason why I'm defending Matt is because of this. If INH is bad, then Matt is probably good.

Regarding Quin, I have no justification for why I think they are on the same team, thier patterns feel similar though.

In summary, your entire case is a crock of something that doesn't look like something I'd like to eat. This is you acting almost exactly like you did in AoT Mafia, making brazen NO U's, trying to interrogate people, and just making up bullshit justifications instead of following anything approaching logic.

Honestly, before this post, I was honestly thinking this was just Wilgy being Wilgy. Now I'm pretty sure there's more going on here.

Epignosis wrote:This is a soft accusation. What you are really saying is that you think insertnamehere is bad, but you couch that accusation in a conditional statement. Is this to imply that if Matt is bad, you think insertnamehere is good?

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: Hmm? Did I stutter?No, but it would be funny if you did. Me inserting "hmm?" is an expression of thought. Things that I'm building up or pondering in my head will be responded to by a "hmm?" When did I make a no you? When you accused me and Quin out of nowhere for no reason.I gave my reason for my suspicion on you INH. Your thoughts on it (referring to it as nonexistent) is interesting. Also, it's true that I'm playing like I did in AoT. That's on purpose. Why is this alignment indicitive? Because you were bad in AoT Mafia.So? I've been bad in other games with other styles as well.

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: Hmm? Did I stutter? No, but it would be funny if you did. Me inserting "hmm?" is an expression of thought. Things that I'm building up or pondering in my head will be responded to by a "hmm?" Hmm.

When did I make a no you? When you accused me and Quin out of nowhere for no reason. I gave my reason for my suspicion on you INH. Your thoughts on it (referring to it as nonexistent) is interesting. Because I made a sarcastic jokey post about Matt, who I haven't actually said that I suspect, me and him must be on opposite teams, and we should lynch me to see if Matt is bad? That's based on such loose false reasoning that it just screams "I want to vote this guy, but I have to find some BS reason first." There's no actual logic or genuine thought behind it, so in my mind it registers as nonexistent. Why are you twisting my words now INH? Yes, I do think you are on opposite teams. I didn't read your humor as a teammate interaction and it was too in depth for it to feel like it was coming from a civilian.I never stated anything about lynching you to see if Matt is good or bad. I just think you are on opposite teams and I think that you are bad. It's actually really odd that you you stated that I wanted to lynch you. I didn't state that, nor have I even voted for you.

Also, it's true that I'm playing like I did in AoT. That's on purpose. Why is this alignment indicitive? Because you were bad in AoT Mafia. So? I've been bad in other games with other styles as well. I'm sorry, I don't have any knowledge of your other games because I've only played with you once. So I'm basing my suspicion on what I know, rather than making great leaps. Also, you basically admit that you're playing the same exact game as your baddie AoT game, and you expect people to not see that as suspicious? What?Yup. Being in AoT mafia, you should know based on how I fooled Zebra that I purposely skew and force meta reads. Not relating these events is odd for someone analytical enough to catch me in a past game.

insertnamehere wrote:

Matt wrote:What's with everyone being anti-reaction baiting btw? It's DAY ONE (and ZERO) peeps, what else should we be doing? "Hey guys what's your favorite ice cream flavor?"

Seeing as I've played in many games where reaction baiting wasn't a thing, and there was still discussion on Day 1 and 0, so your assumption that reaction baiting is a natural part of mafia is just patently incorrect.

Plus, it's just unhelpful. Let's assume you're civilian, which is where I'm honestly leaning towards with you, picking on a random someone Day 0 just to see reactions is reckless in that you could be targeting a civilian, and people could find your false suspicion suspicious, and then vote for you. Even if you lay a trap and get somebody over semantics, there's still a very good chance all of this aggression is civilian versus civilian, simply because of how little you're basing your own suspicion on. Plus, it's sooo ridiculously easy for a baddie to find an excuse to try and lynch a civ by trying to trap people he knows aren't on his team. Plus, spreading misinformation and confusion in the thread even if it's ostensibly to find a baddie, is still detrimental to the civilian cause.

To summarize, reaction baiting is unnecessary, unhelpful, easily exploitable by scum, and downright harmful to civilians with its tactics.

Now, does this mean that I think you, Matt, are scum? No, not at all. Disagreement over playing styles isn't = to suspicion. However, Wilgy is someone I know has used these tactics as scum before and is using them in exactly the same way, which he admits! Right now, that's where my vote will most likely be headed.

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Why not just vote for me then INH? Are there other options you are thinking of?

insertnamehere wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and vote Wilgy for reasons I've already gotten into.

Do I need to make that red or bold or something or other?

DrWilgy wrote:@all, I'm unsure why everyone thinks that I am speaking with confidence. I haven't even voted yet... If a suspicion rises that is more so than INH I'll vote there. The more INH and I exchange the worse I feel about him though.

I know that feeling, Wilgy.

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: Hmm? Did I stutter? No, but it would be funny if you did. Me inserting "hmm?" is an expression of thought. Things that I'm building up or pondering in my head will be responded to by a "hmm?" Hmm.

When did I make a no you? When you accused me and Quin out of nowhere for no reason. I gave my reason for my suspicion on you INH. Your thoughts on it (referring to it as nonexistent) is interesting. Because I made a sarcastic jokey post about Matt, who I haven't actually said that I suspect, me and him must be on opposite teams, and we should lynch me to see if Matt is bad? That's based on such loose false reasoning that it just screams "I want to vote this guy, but I have to find some BS reason first." There's no actual logic or genuine thought behind it, so in my mind it registers as nonexistent. Why are you twisting my words now INH? Yes, I do think you are on opposite teams. I didn't read your humor as a teammate interaction and it was too in depth for it to feel like it was coming from a civilian.I never stated anything about lynching you to see if Matt is good or bad. I just think you are on opposite teams and I think that you are bad. It's actually really odd that you you stated that I wanted to lynch you. I didn't state that, nor have I even voted for you. Funny. You just voted for me, using the cheap useless reasoning that I didn't answer all of your questions, and therefore I = bad. This is another example of you concocting pointless traps that give you false easy justification to lynch civs.I gave more reasoning than that. Continuing to state that I'm providing nothing isn't advancing this discussion. Please adress your twisting of my words.

Also, it's true that I'm playing like I did in AoT. That's on purpose. Why is this alignment indicitive? Because you were bad in AoT Mafia. So? I've been bad in other games with other styles as well. I'm sorry, I don't have any knowledge of your other games because I've only played with you once. So I'm basing my suspicion on what I know, rather than making great leaps. Also, you basically admit that you're playing the same exact game as your baddie AoT game, and you expect people to not see that as suspicious? What?Yup. Being in AoT mafia, you should know based on how I fooled Zebra that I purposely skew and force meta reads. Not relating these events is odd for someone analytical enough to catch me in a past game. what are you arguing here? That because I missed another possible argument against you, that I'm false in my logic? Not sure what you want to prove here.What I'm arguing here is that based on AoT mafia, and my interaction with Zebra within that game, you should know that meta has no determination of my alignment. I'm also pointing out that I think it's sketchy you didn't notice this.

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'm looking at Matt mainly. Still waiting to see more from Epignosis.

Pervert.

( )

Scotty wrote:

LoRab wrote:I hope Dom is ok!!

And that he didn't forget about us--or that Daisy isn't a role in which if she gets the most votes, the host is actually lynched, but we never find out because the host can't write the post (having been lynched) and the game never ends.

God who would approve that role? Satan?

Me