Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (End Game)

[Golden]

I already have a G bond with G-Man and no-one can take it away.

Except G-Man.

[Bullzeye]

I also think we should lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, because I would feel bad lynching someone who is at least trying and wants to be here when the odds are so high they are unaligned.

Unsurprisingly I agree with this.

I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

Where did TH get invited?

It appears everyone who starts with the letter T is invited.

MP, let's form a pact since we are the only M-players in this game. I will not be voting for MP today.

T is for The Baddies?

[Marmot]

I also think we should lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, because I would feel bad lynching someone who is at least trying and wants to be here when the odds are so high they are unaligned.

Unsurprisingly I agree with this.

I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

Where did TH get invited?

It appears everyone who starts with the letter T is invited.

MP, let's form a pact since we are the only M-players in this game. I will not be voting for MP today.

T is for The Baddies?

Something like that.

T begins "Teamwork"
T begins "Tier"
T begins "The baddies" who will take your beer!

[Bullzeye]

I also think we should lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, because I would feel bad lynching someone who is at least trying and wants to be here when the odds are so high they are unaligned.

Unsurprisingly I agree with this.

I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

Where did TH get invited?

It appears everyone who starts with the letter T is invited.

MP, let's form a pact since we are the only M-players in this game. I will not be voting for MP today.

T is for The Baddies?

Something like that.

T begins "Teamwork"
T begins "Tier"
T begins "The baddies" who will take your beer!

Not the beer! Damn those villainous villains!

[S~V~S]

I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

I have been lucky in my BTS partners in the past, that's for sure. I would recruit any of those guys for both game related and personal reasons. Super competitive, smart, detail oriented and somewhat patient with me asking the same question for the 88th time, lol. Plus just fun guys to hang out with; I have never really had regualr BTS with aapje, but he has basically held my mostly stupid & uncomprehending hand throughout Aces D & D game patiently telling me week after week what my roll should be. I don't think I have ever won with Typh, and I only won with Tranq in Jurassic Park (where we used our lynch switch to save Nutella, a baddie on the other team, and got ALL of those guys lynched, lol, good times). But winning isn't everything.

I play Mafia to have fun playing hard. That said, if any of them are recruiting, they did not recruit me

@Golden, in the past, the recruit passed down. That's how I got it in the first game, the original recruited was NKed.

[S~V~S]

original recruiteR *

[Golden]

How would you answer those two questions, MM?

I think he is not a recruiter, because a recruiter may want to appear blendy (or at least match their own meta).

I also think we should lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, because I would feel bad lynching someone who is at least trying and wants to be here when the odds are so high they are unaligned.

So you think BWT is off-meta?

I would like to lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, I very much agree with the merit of that plan, but I have trouble lynching someone I don't find suspicious over someone I do.

linki @svs - that's useful to know.

[Marmot]

How would you answer those two questions, MM?

I think he is not a recruiter, because a recruiter may want to appear blendy (or at least match their own meta).

I also think we should lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, because I would feel bad lynching someone who is at least trying and wants to be here when the odds are so high they are unaligned.

So you think BWT is off-meta?

I would like to lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, I very much agree with the merit of that plan, but I have trouble lynching someone I don't find suspicious over someone I do.

linki @svs - that's useful to know.

Yes I do. I will not be voting for birdwithteeth11 today.

[Epignosis]

You think Golden is a recruiter because he is asking SVS/the thread for advice?
Are you supposing he knew that SVS has been a recruiter before? (RM1 and 3, I believe?)

No on both counts. Please see below.

@ Epi - i don't think Golden asking how others have recruited makes him bad. I think if Golden were a recruiter he would shut the fuck up about it tbh. I'm not sure I buy the WIFOM that Golden would play dumb as a recruiter and ask for advice.

I don't think that either. I think naming the gamut of types of people he would recruit is suspect. He named four different types of people (he says two, but I don't agree): Under the radar people, wily people, people he'd probably have fun with, and people he had not had BTSC with. That's four categories- a broad answer that says nothing about his mindset right now, meaning, if he is a recruiter, and he gets lynched as such, finding his recruits will not be an easy task.

Does that make sense?

I think Epi thinks you were trying to entrap me somewhat, ask me a leading question, then hoist me on my own petard; Lord knows (as does Epi) that it''s an easy thing to do sometimes. The only thing I found odd about the whole thing was the names you threw out there. I think your point was pretty clear without using examples.

But yeah, discussion works best when different perspectives are brought to the table. I think this is something that Epi does, he comes into the thread and throws a name down like a gauntlet for reasons of his own. Sometimes he is very right, sometimes not.

I didn't think that about entrapment, no- my suspicion of Golden is because of his broad answer when you posed the question back to him (see my reply to bea).

Golden-Epig back in forth, intersting (haha I noticed Epig hates the word intersting!!!! :P)

I don't hate the word "interesting." I don't know why you would mock something before trying to understand it.

Hey everyone! Please tell us here in this very thread how you think you would go about choosing recruits in this setup if you were recruiters. What factors would be most important in your decision? Least important?

That's a poor question.

How I would recruit would depend upon what side I drew.

If I were good, I'd recruit 3J early because he tends not to take Night kills despite being a strong presence in the thread. I'd recruit G-Man after that because they would have fun together spreadshitting everywhere.

If I were bad, I'd recruit thellama73 early because we work well together and think alike. I'd recruit 3J later because I would want to observe his flip from non-bad to bad game.

I was really hoping that all the adverb talk was not serious suspicion talk :/ It seemed like silly banter to me so I really just skimmed over it as I would OT. Should I be rereading it?

Most of the people talking about adverbs don't understand that it's a rather nuanced thing, and that just making dismissive jokes about it is doing them no favors. Cretins.

Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

You arrived at that in 20 minutes?

What is the purpose of sign-ups with people that a) Have been leaders before and b) have not been followers? I feel like they would purposely give people that have been leaders before the reigns. I think Bass may be on to something.

Scotty, the second yes option in the sign ups was "Yes, I have followed a leader in the past", not "Yes, I have been a leader before". Probably a way to indicate they have prior experience with this type of game. Of course, some of the 19 who signed up that way have actually been leaders in the past, but I doubt all of them have.

This is nonsense. Black Rock and Long Con know who were leaders in their own games. They don't need a poll telling them so.

[aapje]

A question for anyone, on average how long does it take before players start putting in their votes? Is the fact that I voted first when I did unsettling to anybody? If so, then why?

I think it was a bit weird that you voted without saying why when you cast your vote. In fact you didn't even mentioned you voted until someone asked you about it. Also you voted really early, we aren't even halfway the day yet. Usually people only start voting earlier once a lot of discussion has already taken place and they have made up their mind. Unless of course they have to vote early for scheduling reasons.

[Golden]

Epi

1) You continue to say SVS asked me something she didn't ask.
2) You continue to treat the first half of my response as me saying 'who I would recruit' which it wasn't. Because that wasn't the question SVS asked.
3) It's time for you to read before you continue to box on against me based on at best, you not reading the thread properly, and at worst you deliberately misrepresenting the conversation that occurred.

[Ricochet]

MM, you so far said you will not be voting for BWT, Canuck, Roxy and MP.

Who are you looking to vote for, so far?

[birdwithteeth11]

*gets lynched for asking questions*

Lynchlynch Jimmy.

Are you that white rapper, Vanilla Lynch?

No, but I did sing Roll the Bones at the wedding.

[Marmot]

MM, you so far said you will not be voting for BWT, Canuck, Roxy and MP.

Who are you looking to vote for, so far?

You've noticed my pattern? Good eye there mate. I will not be voting for Ricochet today.

I'm slowly eliminating the names of players I will not vote until there is one left. That is my Day 1 strategy.

[Ricochet]

What is the purpose of sign-ups with people that a) Have been leaders before and b) have not been followers? I feel like they would purposely give people that have been leaders before the reigns. I think Bass may be on to something.

Scotty, the second yes option in the sign ups was "Yes, I have followed a leader in the past", not "Yes, I have been a leader before". Probably a way to indicate they have prior experience with this type of game. Of course, some of the 19 who signed up that way have actually been leaders in the past, but I doubt all of them have.

This is nonsense. Black Rock and Long Con know who were leaders in their own games. They don't need a poll telling them so.

Again, the sense I got from that option was "press 2 if you've played this before". Scotty talked about it highlighting viable leaders, not me.

[Ricochet]

MM, you so far said you will not be voting for BWT, Canuck, Roxy and MP.

Who are you looking to vote for, so far?

You've noticed my pattern? Good eye there mate. I will not be voting for Ricochet today.

I'm slowly eliminating the names of players I will not vote until there is one left. That is my Day 1 strategy.

Better hurry then, you've got 30 more to exempt.

[Marmot]

A question for anyone, on average how long does it take before players start putting in their votes? Is the fact that I voted first when I did unsettling to anybody? If so, then why?

I think it was a bit weird that you voted without saying why when you cast your vote. In fact you didn't even mentioned you voted until someone asked you about it. Also you voted really early, we aren't even halfway the day yet. Usually people only start voting earlier once a lot of discussion has already taken place and they have made up their mind. Unless of course they have to vote early for scheduling reasons.

DrWilgy may not have been in a game with a lynch poll before, so may not have recognized that we consider it good form to do so. This is his first game here, and Jesus Toast does not have such a mechanism.

Linki: and 24 hours to do it too.

[S~V~S]

Could you say why you'd pick those players specifically? The stated motive is what I'm tracking, though this post might make for nice reference material later.

Got em! JJJ is obviously a baddie tracker

I do hope I am color coding everything appropriately. A question for anyone, on average how long does it take before players start putting in their votes? Is the fact that I voted first when I did unsettling to anybody? If so, then why?

Generally, until recently, we could not change votes, so holding votes till closer to the end was more common. We do both styles now, unchangeable votes, and votes that can be changed. We still tend, overall, though, not to vote early & change often. It is still kind of suspicious, but with the influx of people from other communities, like yours, that perception is changing a bit. You don't know Unfurl, and our community is a bit differnt in that not all of us are as concerned with "solving the game" or playing the same way as each other. I think Unfurl has been acting pretty much like herself~ but you don't know that, so meh.

Day one often turns into a last minute clusterfuck.

[Golden]

SVS - help me with a bit of theorycrafting. (For anyone who asks, I asked SVS specifically because I know her brain works a lot differently to mine and so I think her perspective can be very helpful to me, but I'm interested in anyones view). If you were a baddie leader, what would your preferred approach be on day one - try and recruit someone you know is a major FEB and could be a big asset to the team, or try and recruit someone no-one would suspect?

I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

I just want to be really clear here. I asked SVS to help me with a theory.

I (didn't quote this bit) said her response hadn't helped with my theory.

She then asked me what my theory was and I told her.

SVS did not ask what my motivation would be for recruiting.
I never implied that my theory was based on my own motivations for recruiting - which it was not. It was based on me trying to figure out what I thought might be common reasons for others to choose to recruit (and I thought SVS might be a good example of someone whose thought process would align with my theory).
The entire first paragraph you highlighted in green is not a response to a question about how I would go about recruiting, nor was it me talking about my thought process for recruiting.

AND EVEN IF IT WAS

Why would giving four different reasons be indirect? What about my post was indirect?
Why would giving four different reasons make me bad? What about my post was bad?

Questions you have avoided so far...

[Ricochet]

If I'd be a baddie recruiter, I'd recruit all the players I have had grudges with.

If I'd be a civve recruiter, I'd recruit my best friends on the forum.

It's not the case, either way.

Write both down under "Fun", I suppose.

[Marmot]

If I was a recruiter, I would self-recruit every night.

Why do you all love being so... transparent.

[S~V~S]

If I was a recruiter, I would self-recruit every night.

Why do you all love being so... transparent.

Are you only going to vote for a transparent person?

[Golden]

Having looked through DH's posts, there isn't too much I specifically wanted to highlight. All I will say is, from post one, which was:

I voted for Position 1, because its best to start at the beginning.

And was deliberately done very early right in the middle of other people trying to figure out which position was best.

Then he did all his adverb stuff.

What I will say is, I suggest people read DH back for themselves. But the very distinct impression I get is that, even for DH, he is trying to play up almost too hard how much he really doesn't care.

[reywaS]

I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

I have been lucky in my BTS partners in the past, that's for sure. I would recruit any of those guys for both game related and personal reasons. Super competitive, smart, detail oriented and somewhat patient with me asking the same question for the 88th time, lol. Plus just fun guys to hang out with; I have never really had regualr BTS with aapje, but he has basically held my mostly stupid & uncomprehending hand throughout Aces D & D game patiently telling me week after week what my roll should be. I don't think I have ever won with Typh, and I only won with Tranq in Jurassic Park (where we used our lynch switch to save Nutella, a baddie on the other team, and got ALL of those guys lynched, lol, good times). But winning isn't everything.

I play Mafia to have fun playing hard. That said, if any of them are recruiting, they did not recruit me

@Golden, in the past, the recruit passed down. That's how I got it in the first game, the original recruited was NKed.

I have always counted Lost as a win even though the game never made it to the intended endpoint.

[Epignosis]

SVS - help me with a bit of theorycrafting. (For anyone who asks, I asked SVS specifically because I know her brain works a lot differently to mine and so I think her perspective can be very helpful to me, but I'm interested in anyones view). If you were a baddie leader, what would your preferred approach be on day one - try and recruit someone you know is a major FEB and could be a big asset to the team, or try and recruit someone no-one would suspect?

I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

I just want to be really clear here. I asked SVS to help me with a theory.

I (didn't quote this bit) said her response hadn't helped with my theory.

She then asked me what my theory was and I told her.

SVS did not ask what my motivation would be for recruiting.
I never implied that my theory was based on my own motivations for recruiting - which it was not. It was based on me trying to figure out what I thought might be common reasons for others to choose to recruit (and I thought SVS might be a good example of someone whose thought process would align with my theory).
The entire first paragraph you highlighted in green is not a response to a question about how I would go about recruiting, nor was it me talking about my thought process for recruiting.

AND EVEN IF IT WAS

Why would giving four different reasons be indirect? What about my post was indirect?
Why would giving four different reasons make me bad? What about my post was bad?

Questions YOU have avoided so far...

Who is YOU?

[Marmot]

If I was a recruiter, I would self-recruit every night.

Why do you all love being so... transparent.

Are you only going to vote for a transparent person?

Now there's a thought. I will not be voting for S~V~S today.

I've already ruled MP out though.

[Ricochet]

Having looked through DH's posts, there isn't too much I specifically wanted to highlight. All I will say is, from post one, which was:

I voted for Position 1, because its best to start at the beginning.

And was deliberately done very early right in the middle of other people trying to figure out which position was best.

Then he did all his adverb stuff.

What I will say is, I suggest people read DH back for themselves. But the very distinct impression I get is that, even for DH, he is trying to play up almost too hard how much he really doesn't care.

To be honest, at a quick glance, most of DH's posts feel like he might have to "achieve" something. Maybe there is something to his D0 adverb talk, but on D1 so far, his posts are borderline omelette or trying to out-fluff our fluff master MM.

[Golden]

borderline omelette.

OK, rico, I could see that interpretation as legit.

Epi, I think you know that you are you.

[Ricochet]

If I was a recruiter, I would self-recruit every night.

Why do you all love being so... transparent.

Are you only going to vote for a transparent person?

Now there's a thought. I will not be voting for S~V~S today.

I've already ruled MP out though.

Oh great, now I have to open a separate sheet for the players you intend not to vote.

[S~V~S]

I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

I have been lucky in my BTS partners in the past, that's for sure. I would recruit any of those guys for both game related and personal reasons. Super competitive, smart, detail oriented and somewhat patient with me asking the same question for the 88th time, lol. Plus just fun guys to hang out with; I have never really had regualr BTS with aapje, but he has basically held my mostly stupid & uncomprehending hand throughout Aces D & D game patiently telling me week after week what my roll should be. I don't think I have ever won with Typh, and I only won with Tranq in Jurassic Park (where we used our lynch switch to save Nutella, a baddie on the other team, and got ALL of those guys lynched, lol, good times). But winning isn't everything.

I play Mafia to have fun playing hard. That said, if any of them are recruiting, they did not recruit me

@Golden, in the past, the recruit passed down. That's how I got it in the first game, the original recruited was NKed.

I have always counted Lost as a win even though the game never made it to the intended endpoint.

OMG, such a fun team I was about to get boned there, so but we were close. I think we talked more about ASOIAF than the game ha ha.And all of those ridiculous chatrooms & Room 23.

I will have to go back & reread DH. He seems to be the ironic, detached persona he has been for some time now. What am I missing?

[Marmot]

Having looked through DH's posts, there isn't too much I specifically wanted to highlight. All I will say is, from post one, which was:

I voted for Position 1, because its best to start at the beginning.

And was deliberately done very early right in the middle of other people trying to figure out which position was best.

Then he did all his adverb stuff.

What I will say is, I suggest people read DH back for themselves. But the very distinct impression I get is that, even for DH, he is trying to play up almost too hard how much he really doesn't care.

To be honest, at a quick glance, most of DH's posts feel like he might have to "achieve" something. Maybe there is something to his D0 adverb talk, but on D1 so far, his posts are borderline omelette or trying to out-fluff our fluff master MM.

All tasty omelettes are fluffy. All fluffy omelettes are not tasty. Is DH fluffy or tasty?

[birdwithteeth11]

In the mean time, BWT continues to ping me more and more - take these two posts...

Spoiler: show

I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her. I asked her because 1) she was around when I was thinking about it and 2) there is noone else in mafia whose perspective I find to be completely different to my own more often. When testing theories, different ideas are better.

This might warrant pedantic pink, but whatever I'm gonna ask:

There seems to be a semantic discrepancy in the first sentence of this post. You seem to suggest that SVS's prior experience was not a factor in your motivations during that discussion despite the fact that you didn't know she had prior experience. This would seem to be a paradox or something. These notions should be causally linked, not separated by an anti-cause. That might be French, here's a translation:

Shouldn't it be more like this:

"SVS's prior recruiter experience was not a factor for me because I didn't even know about it"

Or, if you're on the side of the fence of trying to catch potential recruiters for slip-ups or tiny mistakes, the wording in Golden's initial sentence would seem to fit that bill.

I hadn't really seen the early suspicion on Golden before, but after the way you've worded your statement, I can see it now.

I didn't like this one in the first place. I'm always worried when someone says 'I didn't see the suspicion on x before, but this one minor point has me seeing it'. That is a specific form of flip-floppiness that I find common amongst mafia.

I didn't flip. I changed my opinion when I realized the way you worded that post made it look like a slip to me (it still does). You saying you didn't know SVS was a recruiter but it not factoring into your decision makes it look like you're trying to cover your tracks depending on what happens down the road. JJJ just happened to explain it in such a way that I understood what the fuss was about. And that alone doesn't mean I'm going to go ahead and put a vote on you.

Then:

Spoiler: show

BWT, you've stated your agreement with or support for a number of points made by other people; I don't know if I've seen much dissent from you though. What player(s) have been the most disagreeable to you so far?

1) I've already stated my feelings on llama, especially in regards to Bubbles, quite a bit. So I won't repeat myself there.

2) Probably MP if I had to pick anyone else right now. I feel like he started going after unfurl mostly because of how she was playing the game. Seemed to me like a quick jump from "You need to post more" to "You're my highest suspect now and I might vote for you". Although maybe he read her response differently than I did, given he feels she's contributed without really contributing anything.

I don't feel like I've fully absorbed the Epig vs. Golden stuff yet. Either that or I don't get it. Although I'd like to hear more from Epig on his case against Golden before I decide on that one.

Which I feel doesn't follow through the earlier post at all, feels like there is a disconnect here indicative of not having fully formed thought processes and genuine opinions sitting behind the statements made.

I'm feeling fairly comfortable with a BWT vote right now.

If I had "fully absorbed" the debate between the two of you, I'd have more than just a ping on you because of one word. And I do not. If you want to vote for me for how you feel right now, go ahead. I won't stop you. But I doubt you'll get enough of a majority today.

Linki: 12 linkis?! Well I was multitasking sooooo...

[Golden]

But I doubt you'll get enough of a majority today.

That's confidence! How much is 'enough of a majority'? Should I be trying to understand whether the use of the word 'enough' is a role hint? What does that one word mean?

I don't actually think those kind of slips happen at the best of times, but the fact you say 'you think it is A SLIP and still believe it is A SLIP' is actually patently ridiculous to me and I do not buy it. I don't think anyone could possibly think the use of the word 'but' is a slip. Especially when the sentence has a plain meaning which makes perfect sense with the word but there.

So, you apparently it "makes it look like you're trying to cover your tracks depending on what happens down the road." Ok. Explain to me how the use of the word 'but' in that sentence does that? Explain it to me convincingly, like as if this is something you actually believe, because I do not think you believe it, not for a second.

[Epignosis]

Epi, I think you know that you are you.

Nope. I didn't. My name wasn't mentioned in that entire post, nor was I quoted, big boy.

[birdwithteeth11]

If I was a recruiter, I would self-recruit every night.

Why do you all love being so... transparent.

Are you only going to vote for a transparent person?

Now there's a thought. I will not be voting for S~V~S today.

I've already ruled MP out though.

Oh great, now I have to open a separate sheet for the players you intend not to vote.

What did SVS say about Day 1's being clusterfucks again?

[Golden]

Epi, I think you know that you are you.

Nope. I didn't. My name wasn't mentioned in that entire post, nor was I quoted, big boy.

Epi, you continue to demonstrate with your posts that you are much more interested in getting pedantic with me than you actually are in going back and reading the posts that have been made or answering the questions I've asked you.

I'll say to you what I've said a couple of times in the past - from now on, you only get responses from me when you shoot straight. Otherwise, I'll ignore you.

[Golden]

For what it's worth, you can only use the argument I didn't quote you or make it clear in that last post - but it's not the first time they have been raised, you already ignored the questions in the first place.

[Golden]

For your assistance, epi.

Spoiler: show

I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Read this. Golden asked someone about recruitment. That someone was S~V~S.

For me, S~V~S gave a straightforward, believable, and satisfactory answer to the question.

Then she asked Golden the same question.

I'll color it above. That's four different criteria. Why is Golden seeking advice for this? What is his purpose? Couldn't Golden use his own knowledge to determine the best recruits?

But why, when asked for his view on recruitment, did he name four different possibilities instead of being direct?

That is what I find suspicious about Golden.

She did not ask me the same question, at all. She asked me a different question.

She did not ask my view on recruitment. She asked me what my theory was, which is what I answered in the first paragraph. With one possibility, not two. Although I expounded it with two sub-categories.

Then, I also answered a question she didn't ask, which was my view on recruitment, where I did give two answers.

The "four (three) different criteria" across those two things are the point. It's why I've come to the conclusion that I can't use that method to find a recruit.

So - you have asked a whole lot of questions about be, but not actually given what your answers would be, thats a really nice way to throw shade at someone without having to commit.

So, I've answered why I named all those different possibilities. Now lets do the rest.

What bit of 'why am I seeking the advice' did you not understand? I think it was pretty clear I was looking for other perspectives. I had a theory, I wanted to test it.
Could I use 'my own knowledge' to determine the best recruits? Sure I could, but why is it bad to ask others? I believe you get the best results when you have as much input as possible.

And one more question for you - what bit of my response is in any way not direct? Because I think the whole post is direct and to the point.

Spoiler: show

I'm going to bed myself. I want people to read Golden's answers a few times over. I think he's a naughty recruiter.

You think wrong.

I am not a naughty recruiter.

I am not a naughty recruitee either.

I do, however, want to make something of a day one in which nearly every person is neutral, and trying to get in the head of a naughty recruiter is, for me, a good idea.

I have an idea epi, why don't YOU read all my posts relating to thinking that through, in fact the whole chain of conversation with SVS - and not just my answers to your post - a few times over. I'm quite happy to encourage everyone else to as well, but I'd like you to, because so far all you've done is:

1) Misrepresent what SVS asked
2) Misrepresent my response
3) Put colours on things and asked vague questions to throw shade at me without actually specifying anything about why they would make me a 'naughty recruiter'
4) Ignored the questions I asked you.

[birdwithteeth11]

But I doubt you'll get enough of a majority today.

That's confidence! How much is 'enough of a majority'? Should I be trying to understand whether the use of the word 'enough' is a role hint? What does that one word mean?

I don't actually think those kind of slips happen at the best of times, but the fact you say 'you think it is A SLIP and still believe it is A SLIP' is actually patently ridiculous to me and I do not buy it. I don't think anyone could possibly think the use of the word 'but' is a slip. Especially when the sentence has a plain meaning which makes perfect sense with the word but there.

So, you apparently it "makes it look like you're trying to cover your tracks depending on what happens down the road." Ok. Explain to me how the use of the word 'but' in that sentence does that? Explain it to me convincingly, like as if this is something you actually believe, because I do not think you believe it, not for a second.

Okay. I'll try explaining it this way.

I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her.

Now I'm going to change one word in that quote and....

I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter because that played no factor in why I asked her.

The second one is closer to an example JJJ gave. But that's why it's something that caught my eye the second time around. If you had said 'because', I would have thought nothing of it and probably not even paid as much attention to it as I have. However, you said 'but', as if you needed to try and defend an action based on something you had no knowledge of. And hence why I said it seemed like you were "covering your tracks", in case you felt such a statement would come back to bite you later on.

Not sure if I can explain my feelings any clearer than that.

[Golden]

Maybe, bwt...

Are you saying, effectively, that you think I might be lying about not knowing SVS was a recruiter, and I was trying to cover my tracks about my knowledge of that?

[reywaS]

pedantic semantics ftw

[Golden]

BWT, I do think you should take my response to JJ into account, and ask yourself whether you think your interpretation is more likely. What I have laid out below is an explanation of not only what I meant, but also the actual plain meaning of the sentence as I originally wrote it. I'm having trouble equating the word 'but' to 'because'.

JJ said they should be causally linked, my point is they were - both are relevant halves of the sentence and are causally linked.

I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her. I asked her because 1) she was around when I was thinking about it and 2) there is noone else in mafia whose perspective I find to be completely different to my own more often. When testing theories, different ideas are better.

This might warrant pedantic pink, but whatever I'm gonna ask:

There seems to be a semantic discrepancy in the first sentence of this post. You seem to suggest that SVS's prior experience was not a factor in your motivations during that discussion despite the fact that you didn't know she had prior experience. This would seem to be a paradox or something. These notions should be causally linked, not separated by an anti-cause. That might be French, here's a translation:

Shouldn't it be more like this:

"SVS's prior recruiter experience was not a factor for me because I didn't even know about it"

Yes, that should have been in pedantic pink, I encourage everyone to use it appropriately

But a more accurate statement of what I mean to imply is that "I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but the concept of SVS having played previous recruitment games and potentially having her view informed by that (whether recruiter or otherwise) was not a factor in me asking her."

[Epignosis]

Epi, I think you know that you are you.

Nope. I didn't. My name wasn't mentioned in that entire post, nor was I quoted, big boy.

Epi, you continue to demonstrate with your posts that you are much more interested in getting pedantic with me than you actually are in going back and reading the posts that have been made or answering the questions I've asked you.

I'll say to you what I've said a couple of times in the past - from now on, you only get responses from me when you shoot straight. Otherwise, I'll ignore you.

When did honesty become pedantic? I'm calling it like I see. That's shooting straight. I think you're a bad recruiter.

How many times did I read your posts? You don't know, do you?

Your questions aren't actually questions. They either require me to explain your behavior for you or are rhetorical and the answer is implied.

But okay. Let's answer some.

Why would giving four different reasons be indirect? What about my post was indirect?

I answered that to bea. If you are a recruiter, you gave us nothing to work with in case you are lynched. You listed FOUR categories of people you would recruit from. I think that makes you a recruiter. It wasn't direct, because, if I ask you, "May I take your order?" and you answer, "Everything without cheese, some things with cheese, anything that could have lettuce on it, and then whatever I feel like is fun," I would not call that a direct answer, no. That's what you gave.

Why would giving four different reasons make me bad? What about my post was bad?

I answered this too. Not doing it again.

[reywaS]

Epignosis v. Golden is fun

[Marmot]

I will not be voting for MovingPictures07 today.

Linki: I will not be voting for reywaS today.

[birdwithteeth11]

Maybe, bwt...

Are you saying, effectively, that you think I might be lying about not knowing SVS was a recruiter, and I was trying to cover my tracks about my knowledge of that?

Pretty much, yeah.

BWT, I do think you should take my response to JJ into account, and ask yourself whether you think your interpretation is more likely. What I have laid out below is an explanation of not only what I meant, but also the actual plain meaning of the sentence as I originally wrote it. I'm having trouble equating the word 'but' to 'because'.

JJ said they should be causally linked, my point is they were - both are relevant halves of the sentence and are causally linked.

I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but that played no factor in why I asked her. I asked her because 1) she was around when I was thinking about it and 2) there is noone else in mafia whose perspective I find to be completely different to my own more often. When testing theories, different ideas are better.

This might warrant pedantic pink, but whatever I'm gonna ask:

There seems to be a semantic discrepancy in the first sentence of this post. You seem to suggest that SVS's prior experience was not a factor in your motivations during that discussion despite the fact that you didn't know she had prior experience. This would seem to be a paradox or something. These notions should be causally linked, not separated by an anti-cause. That might be French, here's a translation:

Shouldn't it be more like this:

"SVS's prior recruiter experience was not a factor for me because I didn't even know about it"

Yes, that should have been in pedantic pink, I encourage everyone to use it appropriately

But a more accurate statement of what I mean to imply is that "I did not know SVS had previously been a recruiter but the concept of SVS having played previous recruitment games and potentially having her view informed by that (whether recruiter or otherwise) was not a factor in me asking her."

Oooooooooh okay. Somehow I missed when you addressed this with JJJ. Alright then. That clarifies why I felt like you were getting frustrated. Because you'd already offered an explanation on the matter.

[reywaS]

I will not be voting for MovingPictures07 today.

Linki: I will not be voting for reywaS today.

[DharmaHelper]

Any time Epi gets into it with someone who isn't me, I have a good time.

[S~V~S]

Any time Epi gets into it with someone who isn't me, I have a good time.

QFT

[Golden]

@rey - exactly. That's why I find it very hard to see BWT as coming from a genuine place. I am, however, very familiar with being a popular day one target for suspicion from baddies, they love to find semantic ways of getting votes on to me.

linki @epi - ok. I'm not responding to you any more. I do not agree that you are shooting straight. It takes a special kind of cajones to have a lie as the fundamental basis of your accusation and call it shooting straight.

I will not be responding to any more of your posts until you acknowledge that you actually understand that 1) SVS never asked why I would recruit and 2) that is not the question I was answering.

linki 2 BWT - ok, that I can kind of read as genuine and understand.

linkie to everyone enjoying epi vs golden. Last time it happened, I was good and epi was bad. Then I get into it with LC. LC is bad, golden is good. When people get into it like this with me, anyone who still is pretending to genuinely believe they think I'm bad is worth lynching imo. Epi knows full well he is wrong. He is enjoying it as much as you.