The Syndicate

Golden wrote:@Matt - zeebs is acting totally different (to me) here than in Star Wars. The zeebs I saw in Star Wars was poised, she was the one resolving fights and being a good mediator, trying to get people to have an open mind and see all sides etc. She lacked any real frustration. To me this frustrated zeebs reminds me much more of her dune self.

What I see from you at the moment is standard tunnelly Matt. I'm not seeing good evidence from you that she is bad, just 'I was right last time' and you reacting to her suspecting you.

I'm not tunneling. My priority is Zeebs at the moment, but I've also openly wondered about sig (who has ignored two of my posts about him) and I've also commented on other matters in thread.

However, yes, Zeebs NO U'd the fuck out of me, puts her vote on a random option and then attempts to call others out for where they put their vote.

Cool you don't see how that is worrying.

Linki - Mac, again, how have I been tunneling? I've been batting off Zebra's attempts to paint me as bad.

Unfortunately, I seem to be on the losing side of the argument here (again...I was on the losing side in Star Wars too where, yup, I called Zeebs out on her sketchy behavior there too), so hopefully peeps don't see her adversary (me) and go "Oh well guess we'll vote him".

I'm not Batman or anything but it will simply be a waste of a day if that's where we're going. Seeing Enrique call me stubborn and a few others (Golden for one) acting suss of me does not make me feel good about tomorrow's lynch, but anyway, just throwin' that out there.

Bullzeye wrote:I've read just about all I've had time for today and still I'm only just about halfway through the thread! I've had a busy day of travelling on next to no sleep so I'm gonna cast my vote now and then go pass out for the night. Voting for *Wayne Manor* because I bet Bruce has a sweet booze stash somewhere in there. Perhaps he'll share.

I've been so sidetracked with Zeebs I forgot...

U bad.

Turnip Head wrote:You don't seem to understand Zebra's behavior, so you're associating it with her being bad. To me, that's irrational. I don't really understand why Zebra made the "alarming" comment or why she voted for the Docks, but I'm reading her tone as genuine.

Tone reading I get. But you can't ignore that she did not like the Arkham option, yet did nothing to stop it's progress with her vote. Only commented how "alarming" it was how many votes it was getting, and then when asked to provide reads on those who voted Arkham, every single one was "null" except for me...who dared to question her on it.

Zeebs, another question. Do you really find me more suspicious then some of the other Arkham voters, who have barely said a word on the matter since your "alarming" comment?

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

So does that mean you think Zeebs is civvie ("irrational") ?

Tbh, seeing her and SVS get into has made me question by bad vibes on Zeebs, but again, that whole argument could be legit regardless of her affiliation.

Basically, though, I do not understand...if she did not like the Arkham option, why she would throw her vote on the docks. Why NOT Wayne Manor or GCPD? She says she doesn't necessarily think those are better options then Arkham. If she sees Arkham as a bad option, then why doesn't she see Wayne Manor or GCPD as a "good" option? Why put her vote on an option that virtually nobody else (cept nub Typh) is going to add on to?

Again, am I the only one seeing this? Does this not strike anyone else as funny?

Turnip Head wrote:I guess that's my point. Why are you associating that with baddie behavior?

I definitely don't associate it with civvie behavior. Do you?

Turnip Head wrote:

Matt wrote:Frankly, I think Zebra is bad. She accuses people without really accusing them.

Is this something you think Zeebs usually does when she's bad?

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen her pull a "this is quite alarming but nobody is alarming in particular cept the guy who called me out on saying this is alarming".

So I dunno.

a2thezebra wrote:Matt, you went to the trouble to bump all of your old posts for me to elaborate on the issues I have with them (as if I haven't already) but you didn't go to the trouble to find my analysis of them that you're still pretending doesn't exist. You're digging your own damn grave.

It really wasn't trouble at all, it took like three minutes.

Anyway, as it were, I see you're doing the "won't answer you" thing you also did as a baddie in Star Wars, so whatevs.

Enrique, I really was confused. One of Zebra's most recent posts finally got the point across, but until then, I simply wasn't getting it.

Frankly, I think Zebra is bad. She accuses people without really accusing them. She saw Arkham as a bad option for town, yet opted to vote the Docks instead of adding votes on Wayne Manor or GCPD which could've helped stop Arkham from winning the poll. She said she didn't think I was bad because of my vote for Arkham or because I questioned her on reads for everyone, and yet when I bring up the six posts I had in the game previous to her calling me bad (a total no u btw) asking her to explain why she thought I was bad...doesn't answer.

Zebra, quick question. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Batman mythos, but if there was a breakout at Arkham, which option do you think Batman would pick from the poll?

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:Zeebs, another problem I've had...

Is that you immediately called me bad for simply asking you to give me reads. It felt like you knew where I was going with my questioning of you, so preemptively made a "no u" of the situation.

And remember, you called me bad well before most of our argument, so you saying "for reasons outside of your vote" doesn't completely make sense to me.

Anyway, I can't wait to see what happens assuming Arkham is still in the lead by the time the poll ends.

That's not true. See Matt this is what I'm talking about when I say that you're disingenuous. Why did you assume that I called you bad for asking you to give me reads?

K. Here are my posts before you called me bad...
There you have it. Please identify why you found me bad outside of my vote for Arkham.

Anywho, I'm out for a bit to eat, but I'll be back in an hour or so. Peace

Also, wow, I keep seeing things...

Looking at the poll, Arkham had about 5 or 6 votes by the time you voted. Both Wayne Manor and the GCPD had two votes a piece before you voted. If you were so against the Arkham option, why didn't you pick Wayne Manor or GCPD as a way to "beat" the Arkham option? Instead, you went for the Docks, which...IMO, not many people are going to see "the Docks" and go "oh swell option".

But again, I don't understand why you didn't pick Wayne Manor or GCPD when they already had votes, and you could've added to them as a way to ensure Arkham doesn't win.

Zeebs, another problem I've had...

Is that you immediately called me bad for simply asking you to give me reads. It felt like you knew where I was going with my questioning of you, so preemptively made a "no u" of the situation.

And remember, you called me bad well before most of our argument, so you saying "for reasons outside of your vote" doesn't completely make sense to me.

Anyway, I can't wait to see what happens assuming Arkham is still in the lead by the time the poll ends.

a2thezebra wrote:Matt, it's similar to when someone is about to be lynched in a landslide vote and you know there is at least one baddie on it but you have no idea how many or which one(s). That happens all the time, and this is a Day 0 equivalent of that for me.

No offense, but this is another thing that doesn't make sense to me.

You were very "whatevs" with your vote for the docks, "cuz I like docks" and "it's only day 0", yet you have aggressively been AGAINST the Arkham option.

I don't know how you could be so "careless" with your vote, but then go on to suss the Arkham option.

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

Enrique wrote:Matt, it's simple. When an option gains popularity on the poll, and most votes are quick throwaway for no particular reason and sometimes by players that have gone mostly unaccounted for, that's considered shady. It's a huge stretch to go from there and start singling out individuals as being suspicious, especially when the game just started. There's simply nothing else to work with, but the poll results are still interesting.

Again, this feels like a contradiction.

Per the underline, what exactly is considered shady? If Zebra isn't calling the voters shady, then she's just calling...the votes...shady? I'm having a real hard time grasping what you all seem to easily be getting.

I'm not calling any particular voter shady. No particular voter or vote has pinged me. But the popularity of the option in general seems shady to me, and alarming.

Lol. This is almost comedic I guess, considering everyone seems to be on this page and I'm just not understanding. I don't see how the popularity of an option can be shady if the voters behind that popularity aren't considered shady as well.

This isn't almost comedic, this is comedic.

The voters behind that popularity are shady in general, but none in particular have pinged me because of their vote. When you ask for individual reads of all of them and most of them are null for me and the baddie one for you is for reasons outside of your vote for that option, there is no contradiction. Just because I think the popularity for an option is shady doesn't mean I'm able to discern who the baddies are that are voting for it and who the misguided civs are. Because of this, you asking for my reads of all the players on that vote in the first place was one of the first indicators to me that you weren't genuine.

Okay, finally I'm getting what you're saying.

However...how do you know there are any "misguided civs" ? How do you know that Arkham isn't the BEST option to pick? You are so absolute on Arkham being this "terrible" option, yet nobody has info, and we don't even know what's going to happen.

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

Enrique wrote:Matt, it's simple. When an option gains popularity on the poll, and most votes are quick throwaway for no particular reason and sometimes by players that have gone mostly unaccounted for, that's considered shady. It's a huge stretch to go from there and start singling out individuals as being suspicious, especially when the game just started. There's simply nothing else to work with, but the poll results are still interesting.

Again, this feels like a contradiction.

Per the underline, what exactly is considered shady? If Zebra isn't calling the voters shady, then she's just calling...the votes...shady? I'm having a real hard time grasping what you all seem to easily be getting.

I'm not calling any particular voter shady. No particular voter or vote has pinged me. But the popularity of the option in general seems shady to me, and alarming.

Lol. This is almost comedic I guess, considering everyone seems to be on this page and I'm just not understanding. I don't see how the popularity of an option can be shady if the voters behind that popularity aren't considered shady as well.

Enrique wrote:Matt, it's simple. When an option gains popularity on the poll, and most votes are quick throwaway for no particular reason and sometimes by players that have gone mostly unaccounted for, that's considered shady. It's a huge stretch to go from there and start singling out individuals as being suspicious, especially when the game just started. There's simply nothing else to work with, but the poll results are still interesting.

Again, this feels like a contradiction.

Per the underline, what exactly is considered shady? If Zebra isn't calling the voters shady, then she's just calling...the votes...shady? I'm having a real hard time grasping what you all seem to easily be getting.

Matt wrote:What "shady" means...

Google says "of doubtful honesty or legality"

Urban dictionary says "shifty, sly, suspicious"

How is the popularity of Arkham "shady" if you don't suspect any one who's voted for it?

I'm sorry, I simply do not understand. It's not intentional. I simply don't.

Can someone else speak up on this before Zebra and I make 100 posts each going at each other?

Does anyone else understand? Am I legit just being stupid right now?

What "shady" means...

Google says "of doubtful honesty or legality"

Urban dictionary says "shifty, sly, suspicious"

How is the popularity of Arkham "shady" if you don't suspect any one who's voted for it?

I'm sorry, I simply do not understand. It's not intentional. I simply don't.

Hrm. I wanted to ignore Zebra, but before I do, thank you for clarifying what Mac probably meant.

Anyway, wow, I sound like a baby. Sorry, but it is really annoying for you to continually call my suss of you desperate or not genuine. Saying it once or twice because you're frustrated with me, fine. But every time you post that's what you say.

Know this. You are wrong. My suss of you is very genuine.

Also, I'm not trying to NOT understand you like you claim. OTHERS in the thread have pointed out how you can be confusing, so if I'm not getting it, that's on you IMO.

Again, it's not fair of me to say I'll ignore you rest of game, that's pretty fucked up actually, but SERIOUSLY, stop saying I'm desperate or "not genuine". That's simply not fucking true.

As it is...

I still think you're bad, but your back and forths with SVS lead me to believe you're really upset, but still, that can be true of any alignment you have.

Zebra - Besides me...is there anyone in the game you find suspicious right now?

Zebra, stop calling my susses desperate and stop saying I'm not genuine.

Oh, "you tried". Seriously gtfo. Are you intentionally being as insulting as you can right now?

Anyway, yes I think you're being contradictory. Whether on purpose or not, perhaps not.

Again, you clearly said you think that it's SHADY how Arkham is more popular then the other options. The ONLY THING THAT CAN MEAN IS THAT YOU FIND THE VOTERS OF SAID OPTION "SHADY" AS WELL.

If that's not what you mean, then phrase it fucking differently next time.

Btw, I typically enjoy playing with you Zeebs but I am not enjoying being constantly insulted every time I read a post of yours directed at me in this game.

Anyway, I'm putting a stop to this. If you wanna vote for me, go for it, but I think I'll be ignoring you for the rest of the game. Peace

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.

Was this directed at me? I'm thinking it was because between this post and your last post, I had the longest post.

What is hypocritical about it??

Also, it may be a "long post", but it doesn't take all that long to read. For real. That being said, do you have anything to say about the content of my post or just how long it was?

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:Zeebs - Strong or not, can you give me your current read of each of the Arkham voters? Considering the votes for Arkham are "downright alarming", just wondering.

Bass_the_Clever - Null
ekeknat - Null
sprityo - Null
Matt - Bad
Scotty - Null
MovingPictures07 - Null
Nerolunar - Null

a2thezebra wrote:I don't see why saying that I find the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum to be alarming - which it is - has to refer to any specific votes or any specific voters.

a2thezebra wrote:Like I said, I am not suspicious of anyone in particular who voted for Arkham Asylum (even in Matt's case I'm suspicious of him for other more recent reasons), I am only suspicious of the option itself.

a2thezebra wrote:Where is this coming from? First Matt, then Nerolunar, possibly S~V~S, and now you, all assuming that me thinking that the Arkham Asylum option being so popular has to be some kind of statement about particular people that voted for it. It's not.

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

a2thezebra wrote:My reads were null because I don't lean good or bad on anyone but Matt, and in Matt's case I read him as bad for reasons unrelated to his vote. My reads of the people who voted for Arkham Asylum being null has nothing to do with me finding the Arkham Asylum option being so popular alarming. I don't know how many times in how many different ways I have to say this.

As for how many time you have to say the same thing over and over, my count is currently at 5. I would go on, but I think there's still about 30/35 posts of yours to sift through, and I think we get the gist. You've regurgitated over and over and over "I do not find the voters themselves alarming or suspicious, just the option itself."

And yet...

a2thezebra wrote:I'm against it because I don't see how going to the place where everyone has escaped from, rather than any other place where we have a chance at finding out where they have escaped to, would be beneficial for the civs. I'm also against it because I find it shady how more popular it is than all of the other options. As to why it got so drawn out, your guess is as good as mine.

So wait. Over five times (before I stopped counting), you said that you didn't find any of the voters suspicious, even me. How can you reconcile that with saying that it is SHADY how Arkham is more popular then the other options? What makes an option popular anyway? The voters. So if you believe the popularity is shady, you believe those who make it popular to be shady.

On another note, I think SVS nailed it. You were literally alarmed over nothing. Or so you claimed. Until you slipped and just admitted you found the popularity of Arkham to be "shady", i.e. dishonest, suspicious, etc.

Btw, it's a little irritating for you to claim that my suss of you isn't "genuine". Regardless of alignment, I'd be looking for baddies either which way. Case in point, in GoC, until the Noses all died, I GENUINELY believed Marmot to be on the other team. There is zero reason for me to not be genuine. What are you even talking about?

Anyway, I think you're bad. Don't know if you're mafia or indie, but I think you were trying to plant suspicion on the Arkham voters, and then backtracked when I called you out on it. You saying over and over "I didn't find anyone suspicious, though, not even Matt for his vote" does NOT gel with you saying "The popularity of that option is SHADY".

Btw, Golden, are you aware that Wayne Manor gets a 12% increase for every dead inmate? You keep saying that no civs "necessarily" need them dead. That's not true.

Golden - Nvm, found it.

Between you and Enrique, I was mostly siding with Enrique in your "argument", and I didn't understand why you were sussing him over it.

a2thezebra wrote:If I was wishing to imply something more specific when I said that I thought the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum was alarming, then I would have outright said whatever it was you're assuming I meant to imply. Maybe the amount of votes for Arkham are alarming because of misguided civs, maybe it's because of scheming baddies. Maybe it's a mix. I don't know.

By stating that the votes were downright alarming, it seems clear to me you were asserting that some of the voters were bad. Am I the only one who got this impression from Zeebs?

a2thezebra wrote:I already told you that my question was rhetorical, and therefore the equivalent of a statement. You're not helping my baddie read of you by continuing to pretend otherwise. I also don't believe that you think that I was trying to give the impression that saying "I like docks" somehow was relevant to the game. My point in saying it was that it wasn't because you're looking for game-relevant answers that aren't there. I have no game-relevant reason for voting for that particular option. For most Day 0 votes I've come across, this one included, I don't think there's much use trying to figure out which option would be best for the civ cause. Instead, I only avoid the options that seem shady to me (the one you voted for being one of them) and out of the options left I tend to pick a more-or-less random one for reasons that aren't relevant to the game. Your insistence that I have to have some game-related motive for voting the docks seems disingenuous to me, and you seem pretty desperate to be suspicious of me for, frankly, stupid reasons.

No, I never was under the impression that you saying "I like docks" was you trying to imply relevance. I just thought it was convenient for you to call the Arkham votes "alarming", when you quite literally have no reason to vote the option you voted for. And no, I'm not "desperate" to suspect you, Zeebs. Right now, though, you and, surprisingly sig, are high on my radar.

a2thezebra wrote:Where did I give you the impression that I am confident that Arkham is a trap? I even outright stated that it's not that I think it will be harmful to the civs (though it very well could be) but rather that I don't see how it could be beneficial to the civs. You insist I give you more specific answers for my prevous statements under the assumption that I either have knowledge, are implying something more specific than what I said, have a game-related reason for everything I have done and said so far, and am completely confident with everything I have done and said so far as well. You have absolutely zero reason to assume any of this yet you assume it all anyway in a pathetic attempt to justify your suspicion of me and ask me questions that I either have already answered with my initial statements or can't answer because the questions don't apply to me in the first place. Every thing you've said and asked directed at me so far has come off as opportunistic and desperate. So yes, I genuinely believe you to be bad. Surprised?

Where did you give me that impression? I suppose by calling the Arkham votes alarming, and of course, you saying that you think going to Arkham is a trap. Do you think this is like Star Wars, that we'll eventually visit all of these locations? If so, does that mean eventually town is going to be "trapped" no matter what?

If I was being opportunistic and desperate, I would've continued to suss sig for ignoring my post earlier. I'm going after you because I think you're bad.

Linki - Golden, what question?

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:Zeebs - Strong or not, can you give me your current read of each of the Arkham voters? Considering the votes for Arkham are "downright alarming", just wondering.

Bass_the_Clever - Null
ekeknat - Null
sprityo - Null
Matt - Bad
Scotty - Null
MovingPictures07 - Null
Nerolunar - Null

So you are either refusing to give your reads or your "downright alarming" post was BS.

Which one?

Neither. As humorous as my response is, it is also genuine. I don't have enough content with any of the other players but yourself to be confident in reading them even slightly. I don't see why saying that I find the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum to be alarming - which it is - has to refer to any specific votes or any specific voters.

So you genuinely believe me to be bad?

Maybe I should explain myself then. By calling the Arkham votes alarming, which I don't think they are at all btw, I feel like you were trying to paint some of the voters as bad. Otherwise, why would the votes for Arkham be alarming? Are you trying to say you feel the Arkham voters are civvie but it's just alarming that they voted Arkham? I don't think that's what you were insinuating with your initial post.

On top of that, when questioned why you voted your option, you turned it around with a question. When questioned again, you simply say "I like docks", which has no game relevance at all.

You also state that you "did not design this game", and thus did not answer when I asked what kind of trap Arkham could be. Yet, even though you did not design the game, you still feel confident that Arkham is some kind of trap regardless.

I dunno, it doesn't gel IMO.

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:Zeebs - Strong or not, can you give me your current read of each of the Arkham voters? Considering the votes for Arkham are "downright alarming", just wondering.

Bass_the_Clever - Null
ekeknat - Null
sprityo - Null
Matt - Bad
Scotty - Null
MovingPictures07 - Null
Nerolunar - Null

So you are either refusing to give your reads or your "downright alarming" post was BS.

Which one?

Zeebs - Strong or not, can you give me your current read of each of the Arkham voters? Considering the votes for Arkham are "downright alarming", just wondering.

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:The amount of votes for Arkham Asylum is downright alarming.

Why do you say that Zeebs?

In a game called Arkham Mafia where the first post talks about escaping from Arkham...I'm surprised more people aren't voting that way.

That's just it, the escape has already happened. The inmates aren't in Arkham at the moment, they're outside of it. What good is going to come from going there? If anything happens, it will be a trap.

linki - Enrique, you're reminding me of me when I'm bad.

Hrm. What kind of trap?

If you're assuming that going to Arkham might be a positive for the escapees somehow, then tbh, I'd rather go there now then later in the game.

Why did you pick the Docks?

Any kind of trap, I didn't design the game. I'm not assuming that going to Arkham will be a positive for the escapees, only that it won't be a positive for the civilians. Is there a reason why I shouldn't have picked the docks?

Did you just answer a question with a question?

Anyway, I see no reason to not go to the Docks. However, given nobody has info on the poll, and you came out of the gate "Let's go to the docks!", I'm just wondering why that option appealed to you more over any of the others. Still wondering.

a2thezebra wrote:

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:The amount of votes for Arkham Asylum is downright alarming.

Why do you say that Zeebs?

In a game called Arkham Mafia where the first post talks about escaping from Arkham...I'm surprised more people aren't voting that way.

That's just it, the escape has already happened. The inmates aren't in Arkham at the moment, they're outside of it. What good is going to come from going there? If anything happens, it will be a trap.

linki - Enrique, you're reminding me of me when I'm bad.

Hrm. What kind of trap?

If you're assuming that going to Arkham might be a positive for the escapees somehow, then tbh, I'd rather go there now then later in the game.

Why did you pick the Docks?

a2thezebra wrote:The amount of votes for Arkham Asylum is downright alarming.

Why do you say that Zeebs?

In a game called Arkham Mafia where the first post talks about escaping from Arkham...I'm surprised more people aren't voting that way.

SVS - Just throwing shit out there to see what happens. You acted as I expected...curiously, sig ignored my post completely.

Long Con - Actually, "Gotham" is a guilty pleasure of mine, but was surprised to see anything from that show in this game haha. I'm sure this game will be quite sweet regardless of who is involved.

Btw, as a huge Lost fan myself, I didn't think of Lost at all with the number 8 thing. Derp.

Batman!!

So far, gettin' indie vibes from sig and SVS, and Golden is bein' strange.

I think we should go to Arkham considering the game is Arkham Mafia, but if this is like Star Wars, then we'll probably visit all of these locations eventually.

Btw hosts, is this game based on a mix of different source materials? I did not expect to see the name "Fish Mooney" pop up in what otherwise looks to be a pretty sweet game.

(oh, and if town knows what's good for it, we should probably lynch Wilgy Day 1 just to be safe)