The Syndicate

DrWilgy wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Eighth

God I have missed playing mafia with you and everyone else. Also on that note I know the games that I signed up for in the past I didn't participate or subbed out its because I got into a serious relationship and couldn't figure out how to balance the two. Me and my lady friend have moved into together so it should make balancing the two a lot easier. So my hat goes off to anyone who has a significant other and plays mafia because it's extremely hard if your significant other is like mine and doesn't like cell phones or laptops out while we are hanging out. Lol

Well Golden! That's a nice big glass of WIFOM, mind if I have a sip? Why did you wait until we were in game to let us know about this? You could've mentioned it in the pre game lobby... Er... Maybe you did. Didn't really check but I'm assuming you didn't based upon your posts. Also... Are we hinting at rolls already Golden? *sings* ~Epi's gonna kill you!~

I'd like to go GCPD.

Nerolunar wrote:Just cast my vote for Arkham Asylum.

Also, why has the hosts voted for the zoo?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I would like to hear DH's thoughts about everything that has happen today.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Looks like I'm going to have a lot to comment on huh Bass?

Yes. Why do we have to wait till tomorrow if you don't mind me asking. If it has to do with RL my bad for asking.

LoRab wrote:Still catching up from the first chunk of pages in the game, but just read from where I left off last night until now.

A few responses:

MacDougall wrote: Lorab's couple of posts had the vibe I commonly find in day 0 baddies as well.

You are wrong about me. And I don't know what you perceive as "baddie" tone, but I don't particularly feel like rehashing the argument of whether or not there are baddie traits. At any rate, I'm not bad, so whatever tone you're reading--it's not me being bad. It's just me being me. A tired and jetlagged me, but me.

MacDougall wrote:Okay Lorab is probably not here but bea appeared to totally ignore the fact that I eyeballed her so that's a point against her.

You are correct--I was not here.

Nerolunar wrote: Im happy that Arkham is the most voted for poll option. The game almost urges us to go there, so Im surprised more people aren´t voting for it.

That is exactly why I'm not voting for it. It seems like too obvious a choice and I know these hosts. The fact that the game is urging us to go there makes me think that we shouldn't go there. *insert it's a trap meme here*

MacDougall wrote:A hypocritical point.

Am I the only one who finds long wall posts almost intentionally designed to not be read? I have copped stick for posting a few replies in a row before but I would be much more willing to read that than one quote mountain post.

This probably could be green, but it's an on topic enough conversation that I'm keeping it black. But it's really a meta-idea.

I think it's largely a mafia culture thing. I'm used to wall posts. Multiple posts in a row look suspicious to me, because my instinct is to feel that they are trying to bump up their post count. I realize that the culture is different elsewhere, so I have learned to mostly overlook it. But walls of text seem completely natural to me, and often seem slightly more civ to me. What I'm learning more and more is that baddies and civs can easily be behind either.

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Civvie behavior is hard to define because we pretty much always act irrationally.

You went out of your way to write "we" here.

No I didn't.

I believe that you did. I think you went out of your way to call yourself a civ when the natural way to phrase that sentence would be to refer to civs as "they" but you were worried that someone would find it scummy for you to refer to civilians as that and didn't want to defend from a dumb comment. It's an irksome sentence. At best case scenario it's fluff content that you've created for the purpose of telling us you're a civilian.

MacDougall wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Civvie behavior is hard to define because we pretty much always act irrationally.

You went out of your way to write "we" here.

No I didn't.

I believe that you did. I think you went out of your way to call yourself a civ when the natural way to phrase that sentence would be to refer to civs as "they" but you were worried that someone would find it scummy for you to refer to civilians as that and didn't want to defend from a dumb comment. It's an irksome sentence. At best case scenario it's fluff content that you've created for the purpose of telling us you're a civilian.

Dunno, Sorsha slipped and said "you civs" in GOC and I correctly caught that.

Sorsha wouldn't have been too worried about that on account of her being a rather benign independent in a game where there was already one revealed to the thread that the civilians seemed intent on not lynching. Sorsha is also not Turnip Head. Sorsha probably would have said that if she were a civilian, and the context of the sentences is no doubt different.

Anyway if I'm the only one who scrunched my nose at it I will drop it. I'm not going to get hung up on one sentence.

Turnip Head wrote:And if you think the purpose of that post was to highlight my civvieness then you missed the point of my post. I believe civilians lynch each other all the time simply because they can't understand one another's behavior.

MacDougall wrote:DH reacting bizzarely to this.

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:DH reacting bizzarely to this.

This I agree with.

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2 ... 4852_n.jpg

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:DH reacting bizzarely to this.

This I agree with.

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2 ... 4852_n.jpg

a2thezebra wrote:What is that reaction saying exactly?

a2thezebra wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:What is that reaction saying exactly?

You Bizarro best friend. Bizarro love you.

Same?

Dom wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Dom wrote:I think TH slipped tbh.

I don't.

Cool.

I think the "we" was suspicious. I was on my way out when I posted that and didn't realize there was a discussion on "they". "They" is less suspicious to me than the "we" was.

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?

Two thumbs up for Enrique.

This I agree with. Mac's painting of TH's "defenders" doesn't read genuine to me. People can't disagree?

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Civvie behavior is hard to define because we pretty much always act irrationally.

You went out of your way to write "we" here.

No I didn't.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:13. Votes are not changeable.

MacDougall wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:"We're both done talking about it."

Five minutes later

"ONE MORE THING!"

For someone who has no time to/gives enough fucks to catch up and find some mafia you seem to give plenty of fucks and have heaps of time to read every post and make wisecracks.

a2thezebra wrote:

Dom wrote: Zebra, why did you say Matt is digging his own grave? Would you like Matt to lynch himself?

I said he is because he's chosen to ignore what I have against him in the hopes that him pretending that I have nothing against him will be a lie that everyone will believe, and because that's not going to happen, he's digging his own grave.

I don't want anyone to lynch themselves and never do, regardless of their alignment or mine. If I want someone to be lynched I want it to be because their defenses aren't good enough, not because they're choosing to pretend like they don't have anything to defend against. So my answer to your second question is a very strong no.

Now regarding these recent developments, I still don't think Turnip Head didn't slip and I think he's come out of his back-and-forth with Mac looking good. I also think that Mac seems genuine as well. The only ones that I'm not sure handled the conflict genuinely would be Nerolunar and DH, especially DH.

a2thezebra wrote:Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

a2thezebra wrote:And your response defending your content blaming your lack of substantial output on how much of the thread consists of people discussing about not wanting to discuss things that aren't going anywhere seems like a disingenuous excuse for your own lack of significant contributions.

linki - I did. What makes you think otherwise, what am I missing that will completely change my mind and never suspect you again?

a2thezebra wrote:If this is how you're going to answer for yourself then I'm just going to be more tempted to tunnel you. You know this, right?

a2thezebra wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:If this is how you're going to answer for yourself then I'm just going to be more tempted to tunnel you. You know this, right?

I've explained previously the reasons I've not been paying attention. It was Day 0, I hadn't seen anything I particularly gave a shit about yesterday, and today I was spontaneously invited to go see Deadpool. Unless you think that is disingenuous we've got nothing to talk about.

I ribbed Mac and TH for going back on their promise to move the fuck on because it's was funny to me.

Linki - No, I didn't.

But you see it's not that you haven't been paying attention, it's that you haven't been paying attention while at the same time trying to give off the impression that you're contributing as someone who has been paying attention, (and you admitting that you haven't payed attention doesn't change this) and that's what seems disingenuous to me. I can see how you may have said that to Mac and TH because it was funny to you, but you can understand how others might interpret it as saying something just to say something and not get accused of lurking too much.

MacDougall wrote:Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

If I wasn't against policy lynches than a part of me wouldn't oppose it. But another part of me is too addicted to the psychological mayhem that can only happen (with respect) in this game as well as you beautiful people that partake in it, so even if I didn't oppose policy lynches (let alone my own) I don't think I would like for you to do that. My only frustration comes from me not being able to convey to people what I mean and constantly, constantly, constantly, being misread, misinterpreted, and misrepresented, as well as deliberately ignored sometimes for whatever damn reason. That's something that happens outside of mafia so it would neither be logical nor honest of me to blame that on mafia or anyone playing it with me.

DharmaHelper wrote:I hope it was obvious I was kidding. I already admitted to not reading anything that's happened in Day 0. I don't even know the context or severity of the TH case.

He did say "they" though. Fuckin' gotem.

a2thezebra wrote:As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

a2thezebra wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

Bullshit. The point is to demonstrate a mindset that you could potentially be in possession of. Nobody knows who's bad so we guess who's bad based on the baddie mindsets we think others have. Obviously the people we suspect aren't going to agree, and we may be correct about the alignment itself without being correct about the mindset. But to say the point is useless couldn't be farther from the truth, because it dispels the idea that you have zero motive to appear as if you are contributing to an extent while simultaneously saying that you're not keeping up with the thread. This is one of countless hypothetical examples to demonstrate that that idea is false, it doesn't need to be me and it doesn't need to be that particular example to be right, because the point is entirely that you're claiming that your full admission has to have bearing on my accusation when it simply doesn't.

a2thezebra wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

Bullshit. The point is to demonstrate a mindset that you could potentially be in possession of. Nobody knows who's bad so we guess who's bad based on the baddie mindsets we think others have. Obviously the people we suspect aren't going to agree, and we may be correct about the alignment itself without being correct about the mindset. But to say the point is useless couldn't be farther from the truth, because it dispels the idea that you have zero motive to appear as if you are contributing to an extent while simultaneously saying that you're not keeping up with the thread. This is one of countless hypothetical examples to demonstrate that that idea is false, it doesn't need to be me and it doesn't need to be that particular example to be right, because the point is entirely that you're claiming that your full admission has to have bearing on my accusation when it simply doesn't.

OK, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. What posts of mine appear contributory and why? And what "motive" would I have to literally state in the thread that I have nothing yet to contribute and then "pretend" to contribute?

Answer those two questions and then I will address the fallacies in this post.

I have already answered both of these questions but I guess I'm on a roll in this game for repeating myself for players that don't acknowledge what I've already taken the time to address and explain. Question 1:

a2thezebra wrote:Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

Question 2...oh wait, it's answered with the same quote:

a2thezebra wrote:Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

To which you responded with "Yo did you read anything you're talking about?" but now that you've inexplicably decided to take my ping of you seriously you're asking for the information that you previously rejected and dismissed because I apparently didn't read what I was talking about. When I asked you what it was you saw that prompted you to conclude that I don't know what I'm talking about, you dodged the question. It might be asking too much to actually get a serious response from you addressing the issues I have brought up even though you demand a serious response of me that doesn't concern anything I haven't already explained, meanwhile you're acting like I'm the one who's being unreasonable (this is becoming a trend it seems) and not you. Do tell me about my post's fallacies, I'm dying to hear them.

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

Bullshit. The point is to demonstrate a mindset that you could potentially be in possession of. Nobody knows who's bad so we guess who's bad based on the baddie mindsets we think others have. Obviously the people we suspect aren't going to agree, and we may be correct about the alignment itself without being correct about the mindset. But to say the point is useless couldn't be farther from the truth, because it dispels the idea that you have zero motive to appear as if you are contributing to an extent while simultaneously saying that you're not keeping up with the thread. This is one of countless hypothetical examples to demonstrate that that idea is false, it doesn't need to be me and it doesn't need to be that particular example to be right, because the point is entirely that you're claiming that your full admission has to have bearing on my accusation when it simply doesn't.

OK, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. What posts of mine appear contributory and why? And what "motive" would I have to literally state in the thread that I have nothing yet to contribute and then "pretend" to contribute?

Answer those two questions and then I will address the fallacies in this post.

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:What is it about Zebra that makes people want to have wall post battles with her...

Fucking seriously.

a2thezebra wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:What is it about Zebra that makes people want to have wall post battles with her...

Fucking seriously.

You started it.

Voicing suspicion of someone is starting a discussion, not a wall post battle where the priority isn't communication but gibberish.

Turnip Head wrote:All I got from this is that DH does not deny he hasn't contributed, but has a lot to say in defense of his non contribution.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Votes are not changeable in this poll.

Turnip Head wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Why do we fall Marmot friend?

I don't understand. I am still upright.

That's now two people who haven't understood this reference