The Syndicate

Sloonei wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

Nah.

I don't buy that you were doing that.

why not?

Long Con didn't focus on what he learned, as he implied. He focused on what I called him out on. That's why his style wasn't to garner reactions. It was to say something without saying anything. Now he's making up reasons.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

Nah.

I don't buy that you were doing that.

HOMEGIRL!

HEDGEOWL!

Go vote 18.

You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

S~V~S wrote:Gumshoe & I both used the word "Interesting" as well.

I can't speak for LC or Gumshoe, but I thought todays discussion WAS interesting. You did not find it so, Epi? Out of all that discussion the only thing that caught your eye was one word?

Not really, no.

What of the discussion was interesting to you? You used the word, but you didn't say how. You said you looked forward to rereading it, but you haven't done so. Instead, you are focusing on me.

My issue is not that people use the word, but that they don't explain. If you call something interesting, then say why. Otherwise, you are talking and not saying anything. If I say "S~V~S is suspicious," what you are going to do?

You're going to ask "Why?"

This is no different.

You posted a picture of llama's avatar, and now you're questioning me. This tells me nothing about what you found interesting before 4pm EST today. It leads me to believe you didn't really find anything interesting at all.

S~V~S wrote:This feels somewhat distractionary to me.

Oh here we are again. What am I distracting people from now? Not posting? Pizza Hut commercials?

S~V~S wrote:Either you don't want people to talk about the other discussion today, or maybe you're doing some rather fancy distancing with LC, since it is unlikely that he is going to get lynched over "interesting". Or maybe you are just doing some standard issue Epi mind games and intentionally enigmatic crap. Not sure which, maybe all, maybe none.

You've just named every possibility and then conceded there are other possibilities.

You speak, yet say nothing.

You are on my suspect list.

++++

nutella wrote:Epi, I disagree with your criticisms. True, "interesting" is kind of a vacuous term but I and others use it all the time. And I also say things like "I don't know what to think about [whatever interaction has been going on in the thread]" because I feel like such interactions merit acknowledgment/I feel like I have to comment on them regardless of my alignment.

So I'm right, but it's okay when you do it?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I want to lynch Long Con. That's where my Day 1 vote will be going as of right now.

Why? If you posted it already can you post a link.

It's Day 0. Long Con has six posts. I'm not posting a link for you. Read his posts and draw your own conclusion. Then tell me if you find anything suspicious.

If you don't, then I'll gladly share what I found.

Ok I read the six post, but I would still like to know what you find suspicious.
Is it because there are only six post, 3 of which are fluff posts?
Is it the MP/Epi shoving match post?

As promised:

Long Con wrote:This all got very interesting.

No it didn't. It's all Day 0 dicking around. Nothing has gotten interesting at all. "Interesting" is a stupid word. Stop using it Mafia.

Long Con wrote:I see MP07 is going full-swing with the Question-Hammer, good to see! Gets people talking.

According to LC, MP is getting people talking, and it's "good to see." Hold that in mind.

Long Con wrote:I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

If you "don't know what to think" about something, why in hell bring it up? Does anybody care that you don't know what to think about something? Why not keep quiet until you do know what you think?

And why characterize my exchange with MP as a "shoving match?" That can't be genuine. In this same post, LC said MP was "swinging the question hammer," which is "good to see." Now he's not sure what to think about the Epi/MP "shoving match?"

This doesn't smell right to me.

I'm voting Long Con, except I can't because Hedgeowl hasn't voted 18 yet.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I want to lynch Long Con. That's where my Day 1 vote will be going as of right now.

Why? If you posted it already can you post a link.

It's Day 0. Long Con has six posts. I'm not posting a link for you. Read his posts and draw your own conclusion. Then tell me if you find anything suspicious.

If you don't, then I'll gladly share what I found.

I want to lynch Long Con. That's where my Day 1 vote will be going as of right now.

Gumshoe wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Gumshoe wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Gun to head read

I'm telling you up front I ain't answering any of this GTH bullshit.

And I ain't doing any ISOs.

And I damn sure ain't doing no rainbows reads. I've got Reading Rainbow, and that's enough rainbow reading for me.

Did you see the kickstarter stuff about Reading Rainbow?

I'll have to take your word for it.

I see your interest is totally piqued.

Long Con wrote:I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

Shoving match?

Gumshoe wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Gun to head read

I'm telling you up front I ain't answering any of this GTH bullshit.

And I ain't doing any ISOs.

And I damn sure ain't doing no rainbows reads. I've got Reading Rainbow, and that's enough rainbow reading for me.

Did you see the kickstarter stuff about Reading Rainbow?

I'll have to take your word for it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Gun to head read

I'm telling you up front I ain't answering any of this GTH bullshit.

And I ain't doing any ISOs.

And I damn sure ain't doing no rainbows reads. I've got Reading Rainbow, and that's enough rainbow reading for me.

OK then.

Making observations and asking questions is what a good little civilian is supposed to do. And I'm trying to be a good little civilian.

Instead of answering the question, you ask me a question about probability (the answer is 25% with anyone, just under 4% with a new person), then dodge the question a second time by asking me about my instinct regarding your "set of statements."

Is there a reason you're not forthcoming about my initial question?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:***I would like to avoid voting a player completely new to The Syndicate on Day 1. I used to very vocally oppose those who took this view, but I have recently come around to this line of thinking. I do think it would suck to come to a new site and get lynched Day 1 your first game, so newbies will get a "free pass" from me, but only from my vote (not any suspicion I have), and if they are my top suspect going into Day 2, I will not hesitate to vote for a newbie.

Why? What changed your mind, that you should "very vocally oppose those who took this view" to "recently come around to this line of thinking?" The underlined was the exact same reasoning people gave, which you claim to have rejected that notion before, but now you are accepting it without offering any reason why.

That's a change of heart I was not expecting, especially slipped into a discussion about your history with Devin.

To put a finer point on it, I count exactly four brand new people in this. If you are bad with any number of them, your change of heart excuses you from voting them Day 1 (i.e., putting your money where your mouth is) all the while leaving yourself open to distance ("Yes, I'm quite suspicious of NEWGUY but as I already said Day 0, I won't vote a new person").

What likelihood would you give to this being the case in this game?

I'll answer that question as soon as you point me to a single instance when probability ever did anything for me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:***I would like to avoid voting a player completely new to The Syndicate on Day 1. I used to very vocally oppose those who took this view, but I have recently come around to this line of thinking. I do think it would suck to come to a new site and get lynched Day 1 your first game, so newbies will get a "free pass" from me, but only from my vote (not any suspicion I have), and if they are my top suspect going into Day 2, I will not hesitate to vote for a newbie.

Why? What changed your mind, that you should "very vocally oppose those who took this view" to "recently come around to this line of thinking?" The underlined was the exact same reasoning people gave, which you claim to have rejected that notion before, but now you are accepting it without offering any reason why.

That's a change of heart I was not expecting, especially slipped into a discussion about your history with Devin.

To put a finer point on it, I count exactly four brand new people in this. If you are bad with any number of them, your change of heart excuses you from voting them Day 1 (i.e., putting your money where your mouth is) all the while leaving yourself open to distance ("Yes, I'm quite suspicious of NEWGUY but as I already said Day 0, I won't vote a new person").

thellama73 wrote:Feel stressed? Angry? Like you want to punch Epignosis in his skeletal face?

My what, bitch?

Firth of Fifth.