The Syndicate

bcornett24 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Matt F wrote:Golden

Nothing sticks out really, but he seems more playful then usual so far. Typically at around this time, if civ, Golden is picking a fight with another civ. Why hasn't that happened yet Golden?

Thats kind of low. Often by this point I'm picking a fight with a baddie.

But, this is one of the most common and yet untrue accusations that gets levelled at me. If you looked back at the games I've played on this site, you'll see I've been lynched early several times as civ for not having 'picked a fight' yet - most notably in economics where I was lynched day one and then got to sub in as a baddie and clean everyone up. No early fights in Biblical where I was civ. But I did have early fights in Bullets over Broadway where I was Indy.

Since you came back, you have played 4 games early with me. In Dune zebra and I got into a fight, but it was not me that 'picked it'... I said I had a small ping and he overreacted. In Talking Heads I had some dialogue going on with Rico, but it could hardly be called a fight (any more than the posts I exchanged with Mac today). The first time I picked a fight was day 2, and it was with the specific goal of getting people to lynch me. And World Reborn, you didn't see me go straight out and pick fights in that one either (although because it is ongoing, I recognise we can't dialogue on what that means).

Long story short - you are raising a false indicator of my affiliation. (And I think your representation that I am 'more playful' is incorrect too... I always try to be playful. It makes things fun for me.)

I was wondering about that golden, what's going on normally by this point your are flinging shit around looking for scum. I just took a look at your content, even with 40+ posts there is almost no content. Are you busy being trained in the ways of the dark side? I find this concerning.

I would say that your three latest posts appear to be your only actual content. That being said, you appear to have a read on matt, I will take a look at him next as a lot of people seem to be going on about him right now.

Do you have any other reads or major concerns?

bcornett24 wrote:

Golden wrote:And before brian points out my 'lack of content', I would like to REINFORCE these points:

Golden wrote:about 24/29 of the players have not even had 10% of the reads I have made in this game.

I want people to ask themselves, why is brian forcing the 'lack of content' angle when my response to this has consistently been "This is an incorrect scum tell" - It is blatantly not the truth, in any event, that the conduct I'm being accused of is a scum tell for me. I have it thrown at me regularly WHEN I'M CIVILIAN. As I keep saying. I can think of only one time when I've been accused of being bad because I've been quiet, and it has actually been the truth (and it wasn't the truth because I was bad... it was the truth because I was very busy at that time).

bcornett24 wrote:

Golden wrote:And I will repeat what I said to Matt.

Your post about me appears like you have just ISOed me. If that is true, you ought to know that I've given reads on about half of the people in the game, which is significantly more than most other people here.

I'll add you to my scum read list, though. I don't like it when people push this agenda about me, that if I don't pick fights I'm not creating content. I've seen it take me down as a civilian too many times, both back in my RM days and since I've arrived at the Syndicate. People use an incorrect perception of my meta against me. It is something I find inherently suspicious, especially when the basic starting point is that I 'don't have content' when that is plainly untrue.

I did indeed, but I have also, as I just stated read the entire forum nearly twice now. I am not asking you to compile a list of reads if you have any specific concerns off the top of your head right now, that would be great.

By no means am I attempting to force anybody to do anything, people have very low content in general right now which is, from my experience normal for day 0/1 standards.

I agreed with you on the first point, most people have very little content right now.

bcornett24 wrote:Are you currently civilian golden?

Golden wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Are you currently civilian golden?

That's an odd way of phrasing that question. Do you have reason to believe things will shift? In case you are trying to dig for some kind of LDable statement (which is how that reads), I will give you one that should work. I am not and (unless I'm missing some mechanic which is outside of my control) will never be aligned with anti-town win conditions.

linki @MP - I don't find Simon's posts alarming either. Boba looks dangerous, I'd call it astute. Interesting that 'indy-hunting' is a scum tell in Savage's mafia world. I agree that it isn't here.

bcornett24 wrote:

Golden wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Are you currently civilian golden?

That's an odd way of phrasing that question. Do you have reason to believe things will shift? In case you are trying to dig for some kind of LDable statement (which is how that reads), I will give you one that should work. I am not and (unless I'm missing some mechanic which is outside of my control) will never be aligned with anti-town win conditions.

linki @MP - I don't find Simon's posts alarming either. Boba looks dangerous, I'd call it astute. Interesting that 'indy-hunting' is a scum tell in Savage's mafia world. I agree that it isn't here.

Not really considering your question.

Golden wrote:And before brian points out my 'lack of content', I would like to REINFORCE these points:

Golden wrote:about 24/29 of the players have not even had 10% of the reads I have made in this game.

I want people to ask themselves, why is brian forcing the 'lack of content' angle when my response to this has consistently been "This is an incorrect scum tell" - It is blatantly not the truth, in any event, that the conduct I'm being accused of is a scum tell for me. I have it thrown at me regularly WHEN I'M CIVILIAN. As I keep saying. I can think of only one time when I've been accused of being bad because I've been quiet, and it has actually been the truth (and it wasn't the truth because I was bad... it was the truth because I was very busy at that time).

bcornett24 wrote:er statement

Golden wrote:It was the word 'currently' that I found odd.

Golden wrote:Oh but I get it now, you mean 'in this game'.

Golden wrote:gth in this context is gun to head not go to hell.

bcornett24 wrote:

Golden wrote:gth in this context is gun to head not go to hell.

lol that is awesome

Golden wrote:I've actually felt the vibe is generally been ok in this game.

But, never mind the cute baby animals, my 'fun vibe' in this game will continue to be Star Wars memes.

Like this:



(No, thats not a role hint)

Golden wrote:Red Four, standing by.

Also standing by for Brian's case... promised an hour ago, two hours till the day ends. I'm getting concerned that it could lead to a day end bandwagon on me without me having any real opportunity to respond, especially as a chunk of that I'm not at my computer.

bcornett24 wrote:

Golden wrote:Yeah, I'll invite anyone to look at that, and note the various points I made on Russti, MP, Mac, Zebra.... others too... and the things that weren't specific reads but contributing to solving game mechanics, before those 'last three posts'

I do not believe anyone can possibly read my iso and genuinely call that a 'lack of content'. I guess you are in the zebra camp where if you don't care about the specific thing being talked about, it isn't in any way someone trying to contribute to solving the game. The fact you doubled down on it has you shooting to the top of my suspect list. The golden 'lack of content' case is always bullsuit, it gets rolled out far too often, and it frankly pisses me off. I'm not under any obligation to write 200 posts in the first day phase going at someone aggressively. There is no greater discouragement to trying to help the town than behaving like a good member of the town and being told you don't have content, when about 24/29 of the players have not even had 10% of the reads I have made in this game.

It's taking every ounce of my control not to just vote for you and be done with the vote for today.

I do not think your case on me is truthful. So, people want me to pick a fight? Bcornett has one coming. Read my iso people, go ahead. Look at what bullsuit it is that I have no content.

You are way to defensive for what I said. I have never seen a golden who is scared he is going to be lynched because of too much content as a civ? Even if you have been in the recent past, even in more than one game, that is a bullshit excuse, and illogical. As you stated in your argument with zebra content is useful as it allows reads. I've have been lynched on day 1-2 in 2/6 of the games ive played thus far. That hasn't stopped me from posting. (Thanfully this day 0/1 fell on my weekend so I have had more time to participate.)

So here we go...detail iso

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Consider me slightly pinged that you are slightly pinged.

Consider me slightly pinged that you are slightly pinged that he is slightly pinged.

Oh, who am I kidding. I'm just slightly pinged because you are zebra

My experience of DDL is that he always seems suspicious early on. I thought he was bad day one in economics and he wasn't.

You do make a meta statement about DDL though which was useful.

This statement is followed with a short discussion with Zebra about DDL.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I've never played with him before (either that or it's been far too long) so does he normally make a suggestion and then proceed to shoot down that very suggestion in the same post?

Umm, I'm not sure I can speak to his precise tendencies. Just that I have found he picks up suspicion early in every game, no matter his affiliation. Kind of like sig in this way.

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Btw MP, any rainbow lists yet?

Not yet, still trying to make sense of the thread, but I'm sure I'll force myself to make one before Day 1 ends.

He will force himself. Get it??

@MP - if its worth anything, I don't share your suspicion on russti. It's consistent with the way I think to express a ping on someone when I see behaviour that I find odd, even if I feel like 'I'm not sure if it is civ or bad'. For me, the most accurate definition of what I would say I mean by 'ping' is 'I found something you did odd and so now I'm paying attention to you'.

When I see behaviour that I don't think is civ (ie I feel like 'that must be bad') I'm not nearly as likely to describe it as a ping. I only really use ping when I can also see the potential civilian perspective.

Golden doesn't agree with MP's suspicion of Russ.
Golden then talks about what a ping is.

Golden wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Regarding Mac's case on MP, I think while it may have some substance to it most of it is just pointing out differences between Mac's and MP's play style. I haven't seen MP do anything yet that has struck me as opportunistic or disingenuous, and I think Mac's case against Enrique is much more convincing.

This is interesting to me, for a few reasons.
1) re: Mac's playstyle. Have you played with Mac a lot before? I've only played with him in World Reborn, and I was not super attentive in that game, but the Mac that I encountered there was NOTHING like this Mac so far (who is reading to me as calm, reasoned, and analytical). Which of these two Jekyll/Hyde sides of Mac is the "real" style, in your opinion? In what way do you see his playstyle as differing form MP's?
2) I didn't read Mac's case on MP (which I thought was good, since I almost always accuse MP of being too hedgey/non-committal, usually on Day 1 ) as accusing him of being "opportunistic" or "disingenuous", but of being overly cautious, non-committal, and wibbly-wobbly (technical term). If you don't agree with Mac's case on "opportunistic and disingenuous" grounds, do you agree with it on "wibbly-wobbly and over-cautious" grounds?

My take on Mac so far is that he is Jekyll and Hyde, but that it's not like 'Jekyll is civvie'. I think he is like some other players you and I have played with a lot (the rabbits and dutchies of this world) who take joy in mixing up their calm and chaos, even when civ, to preserve their game better when they do roll bad.

here you do provide a legitimate read on Mac's play style.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Also has everyone forgotten that MM has already voted? Am I the only one that is extremely bothered by that? Even Mac doesn't seem to care.

It's hard to be bothered by MM's normal civilian behaviour.

Statement about MM's normal play-style.

This next part I had to take into context otherwise it makes no sense nor would it be a fair read so I'm putting it inside a spoiler tag. This is Golden and Mac talking about MM

Spoiler: show

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Also has everyone forgotten that MM has already voted? Am I the only one that is extremely bothered by that? Even Mac doesn't seem to care.

It's hard to be bothered by MM's normal civilian behaviour.

Initially I assumed it was a joke vote and that he hadn't noticed that there were no vote changes, but...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Votes are not changeable in this poll.

So actually what the hell did you vote for me for Metalmarsh?

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:If he had managed to explain a thought process behind this switch, that'd be one thing, but the kicker is that he has failed to address your suspicion whatsoever.

I'm not sold, but I'm listening. I'd like to hear Enrique address your thoughts.

What do you think this was (from before your post):

Enrique wrote:thats like the biggest nonstory ive seen presented as a case on mafia

tbh i had no idea what "Yavin" was until i read the descriptions, at which point it was a bit of a no-brainer. like really? the place is literally the civvie base where the civvies do cool things in the movies. i DID consider my options (tattooine, endor) up until i found out about yavin. but then when it looked so good, surely i was missing something that kept people away from it? nobody gave it any consideration so i just put it down to lack of familiarity and went ahead and voted.

like i dont even understand what the baddie logic behind anything there would be.

Whether the truth or not, it definitely is a 'thought process behind the switch'.

Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

MP was referencing enrique's initial reactions to my initial suspicions and his lack of response to them, anything that enrique said subsequent was not on the table.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

MP was referencing enrique's initial reactions to my initial suspicions and his lack of response to them, anything that enrique said subsequent was not on the table.

Nope, I had the context exactly right. MP said he found Enrique suspicious because 'he hadn't given a thought process behind his change in view' when in fact Enrique had. The fact that MP said that in the context of also responding to other posts is not important. It demonstrated to me that MP's suspicion was based on the fact he had missed Enrique's post, and if anything was being swayed by posts from you saying Enrique hadn't responded... even though Enrique subsequently did.

@zebra - nope. Marmot can pretty much get away with anything. He went through a period of being lynched day one over and over and over and basically always flipping civ. So, now we recognise that it isn't alignment-related behaviour. It's just him.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

MP was referencing enrique's initial reactions to my initial suspicions and his lack of response to them, anything that enrique said subsequent was not on the table.

Nope, I had the context exactly right. MP said he found Enrique suspicious because 'he hadn't given a thought process behind his change in view' when in fact Enrique had. The fact that MP said that in the context of also responding to other posts is not important. It demonstrated to me that MP's suspicion was based on the fact he had missed Enrique's post, and if anything was being swayed by posts from you saying Enrique hadn't responded... even though Enrique subsequently did.

@zebra - nope. Marmot can pretty much get away with anything. He went through a period of being lynched day one over and over and over and basically always flipping civ. So, now we recognise that it isn't alignment-related behaviour. It's just him.

No, you didn't. He was referring to his lack of reaction to the suspicion initially, not subsequently. He quoted a post that I had made before enrique had responded. The fact that MP himself didn't defend himself with this very easily raised refute to your point indicates that he doesn't want to play with you in the thread Golden.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:Thanks for your psychoanalysis of MP, Mac. Lets see which of these is most likely to be true. Occam's Razor time.

1) MP claimed Enrique had never said something that he had said, but he only did it because he was putting it 'in context' and so was able to ignore the fact that Enrique said what MP claimed he did not say. MP fully knew that Enrique HAD said what MP claimed he hadn't, but he went ahead and said it anyway, knowing that you, Mac, would understand the so called 'context' of his post didn't include Enrique's actual response, that he claimed didn't exist. Then, when I pointed this out to him, he said 'thank you' to me, rather than him deciding to clarify that he intended that statement only to be read in context. He said thank you because he, the overlord of engaging people in the thread, and whom I have a very good working relationship with, wouldn't want to engage with me. Just because. But he also asked me for a gth read on you. Because he only wants to engage me a little bit.

2) Or... MP stated his (at the time) current thoughts on Enrique but had missed Enrique's post, and when he said 'thanks for pointing it out' he meant it, because I was helping him figure out where he stood on Enrique (whether it changes his mind or not), while at the same time clearly engaging me by asking me questions.

I dunno, take your pick people.

Firstly, the fact is that I called enrique out on the behaviour on day 0 and enrique did not reply then. The fact that he replied after I elaborated much later does not take away the fact that he did in fact reply to me with dismissive non posts. Yes, I do think it's fair for MP to have suspicion on enrique for an initial reaction without needing to address the subsequent one. The fact that he chose not to say "Golden I was referring to the fact that enrique didn't reply to Mac's initial points" alarms me, because it looks to me like that is entirely what he has done. I was not inferring that he doesn't want to engage with you "just because", I believe he didn't attempt a defense because he is already caught scum for other reasons and chose to take the easy way out and just apologise for his behaviour.

How MP chooses to respond to our conversation is going to be very telling isn't it.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Is there a third option for who gives a shit? You guys are going back-and-forth about an issue that boils down to insignificant nonsense regardless of which one of you is right.

OK, so now I'll seriously consider a vote on zebra - the so-called champion of throwing stuff out and getting people talking wants to shut down my dispute with Mac. Why?

MacDougall wrote:Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

That's a statement which I can only call target painting. Accusing someone of 'taking something out of context' is accusing them of having ulterior motives.

You don't think it is worth talking about how ridiculous that is? I do. Mac isn't merely wrong. He's pushing illogical shit. This should have you writing in caps.

I feel ok about Mac about it, but big ping on you!

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Is there a third option for who gives a shit? You guys are going back-and-forth about an issue that boils down to insignificant nonsense regardless of which one of you is right.

OK, so now I'll seriously consider a vote on zebra - the so-called champion of throwing stuff out and getting people talking wants to shut down my dispute with Mac. Why?

MacDougall wrote:Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

That's a statement which I can only call target painting. Accusing someone of 'taking something out of context' is accusing them of having ulterior motives.

You don't think it is worth talking about how ridiculous that is? I do. Mac isn't merely wrong. He's pushing illogical shit. This should have you writing in caps.

I feel ok about Mac about it, but big ping on you!

Okay I don't it's fair to say that it's ridiculous. Firstly, my accusing you of taking it out of context was an accusation of you being at best lazy with your choice of where to start looking into this swathe of content that has been presented since you were last here, yes at worst I am accusing you of having ulterior motives. I'm sorry but I don't see how anything I have said is illogical.

MP quoted and agreed with the point I made that enrique failed to address my suspicions of him on day 0.

You said that was disingenous because enrique addressed subsequent suspicions on day 1.

I think you are the one who is being illogical. I know you are headstrong bordering on bullish Golden but if you fail to see my point then it is another poor reflection on you.

Whoah, whoah. What do you mean 'lazy with my choice of where to start'. If I see ANYONE who I think has missed stuff, I will point it out to them. I was giving MP context for HIS suspicion, because someone having a suspicion for reasons that I see are incorrect is not something I will let stand without me mentioning it. Thats the opposite of lazy... I could have just let him think he had read the thread properly. I can't see any reason at all for ulterior motives to what I did. Where are you even coming from on that? I was HELPING mp, and you are making out like I'm misrepresenting him... I wasn't even saying anything about MP. I never made out it was disingenuous. You are reading a hell of a lot in to that.

I'm honestly not sure I understand this argument to be honest, though I don't see it as useless mac and golden are clearly butting heads. I think that all content gives information.

The last three posts, before Golden and I started arguing about the merits of his content I will look at in context of looking at Matt F, almost all of his content since then has been directed at myself.

SUMMARY
Golden has several statements regarding DDL's meta
Golden doesn't find Russ to be suspicious
Golden provides a read on Mac's meta responding to Canucklehead's analogy of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde
Golden provides a read on MM's normal, or abnormal play style
Golden has a long argument with and MaC, Zebra concering the thinking process behind Enrique's vote

Conclusion
Golden has done more than many of the players have thus far.
Upon completion of this ISO golden has added more content than I thought, I had to pull in the entire conversation with Mac and Zebra which I think will possibly count as golden's content, but did not show up in an initial ISO. I think this looks good for golden.
I felt that he didn't meet his own meta that I know and have seen him conform to in other games in regards to content. Which was a slight read for me.
Golden provided a reason for this.

Neutral

Golden wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:You are way to defensive for what I said. I have never seen a golden who is scared he is going to be lynched because of too much content as a civ? Even if you have been in the recent past, even in more than one game, that is a bullshit excuse, and illogical. As you stated in your argument with zebra content is useful as it allows reads. I've have been lynched on day 1-2 in 2/6 of the games ive played thus far. That hasn't stopped me from posting. (Thanfully this day 0/1 fell on my weekend so I have had more time to participate.)

I'm not 'afraid to post content'.

But if I put my absolute full 'supatown golden' into every game from day one, two things will happen.

1) People will like me less, because it can be quite an abrasive style for some people and I make a concerted effort not to do it too often, only when I feel very confident and;
2) I'll burn out.

I'm heading into a short mafia break after this game to stay fresh, and I only signed up for this one very late because I couldn't resist the theme. But I have no intention of playing this game at 100% intensity. I'm still committed to providing quality content, just hopefully in a less intense way. I need this for me.

I appreciate you doing the iso and realising that I've been providing content all game. You didn't need to change your perspective, you could have pursued it, so that is a positive in my book.

Golden wrote:And I'm not scared of being lynched for posting content. I'm scared of being lynched for being wrongly accused of not posting content. Because it is quite literally the most common reason I get lynched, it has happened to me again and again. Believe me when I say it is something people think must be a scum tell for me, and it is not. My civ meta is not all on, all the time. It just sometimes gets perceived that way because those games where I am 'all on' tend to be the ones where people remember me.

Also, I think the only time you've seen me as bad, when I was going after you for day upon day, I was 'all on' and creating content anyway. It was partly the content I set out to create that got sleepy and seaside lynched behind me and helped Diiny to the win.

So next time that you think my content level is suspicious, remember that, and don't be fooled by others claiming it's a golden scum tell! It's something that too many people forget.

bcornett24 wrote:

Bubbles wrote:voting zebra for voting bass, and because i don't think enrique is bad from his tone. and i don't want to miss another vote so that's why i'm posting now!

You have exactly three posts, come in drop a vote and leave...you deserve to be lynched. This is the type of behavior that contributes to town loses.

Based on your tone, you aren't going to be around again anytime soon. I don't like this.

Golden wrote:Why is bubbles post 'the kind of conduct that contributes to town losses'?

She gave two reads in that post. I also don't see any reason to assume she won't be back, but she is on the verge of a p-score fail so I can see her desire to vote early making sense.

What is it about bubbles content that makes her bad, bcornett? If we are to lynch people for 'not-town conduct', why not start with people like Mishimeals who haven't shown at all, or people who in their posting haven't given reads?

Your suspicion on bubbles feels like the easiest thing in the world. I agree that it would be ideal if lots of people posted more, but picking on one person and calling them out specifically for something around 10 people are doing seems very convenient.

And, after your relatively consistent suspicion on me on day one (until you ISOed me) this feels like the second time you have driven a suspicion based on CONTENT without giving any regard to whether the person's conduct is actually suspicious. When I defended myself on the basis of meta, you essentially ignored it. It feels to me like you are trying to create or jump on to reasons for suspicion that don't follow any genuine ping or reason to be suspicious of a person - but that 'sound good' and could lead to others agreeing.

Compare your own stance on bubbles to this post about not understanding why people would lynch bass:

bcornett24 wrote:@mm

I have read over bass's posts and i honestly can't tell you why he was lynched let alone had a single vote. Here is the post history for Bass_the_Clever. As I had previously stated I could not recall why he was considered to be suspicious therefore I placed my vote on Enrique instead. I am not sure how this made me your number one suspect. In fact, that is as suspicious as bass's Lynch. 6 players voted for bass. Of those the only player only zebra seems to have provided a reason in her ISO which basically stated that her suspicions were based on lack of content/participation.

So apparently it can't be understood when people suspect Bass for low participation, but you can suspect someone else for the same. I'm very strongly considering a vote for you today.