The Syndicate

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote: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.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote: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.

reywaS wrote:Adverbs are weasel words. You bunch of weasels.

Boomslang wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

aapje wrote:Holy fucking spam. I'm tempted to vote for the next person who uses the word adverb

Adjectival modifier.

Actually, the part of speech to which you are referring can modify not only adjectives, but also verbs, determiners, noun phrases, clauses, or entire sentences. (Finally got to use pedantic pink appropriately!)

aapje wrote:Holy fucking spam. I'm tempted to vote for the next person who uses the word adverb

Boomslang wrote:The whole adverb thing is ridiculous. I don't see why it would be relevant for the theme (in terms of being a requirement for a given role). I also think generalizing that baddies use adverbs as a form of distancing or overexplaining is spurious at best. Also, MP clearly has a few sentences that don't use adverbs, so he's not even completely consistent.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Adverb theory is so dumb, anyone who takes it seriously should punch themselves in the face.

By calling it "adverb theory," you've demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the concept itself and also what a theory in general is.

By calling it a concept, You've demonstrated you know what the word concept means.

DharmaHelper wrote:Adverb theory is so dumb, anyone who takes it seriously should punch themselves in the face.

MovingPictures07 wrote:It seems this Day 0 poll may be quite meaningful, upon first glance. What do you all think?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One day when I have nothing else to do I am going to do a lengthy study on adverb usage in mafia and prove once and for all that it's always meaningless.

TinyBubbles wrote:yes, i'm evil. badder than you could ever suspect! better lynch me now, doo eet.
actually i thought the position 1 also had many protector - ish options, compared to some of the other positions.