The Syndicate

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Four pages all about Snow Dog and Long Con's bad directions.

Snow Dog must feel special.

I won't be voting him Day 1.

Pretty sure you can practically count the number of posts about my bad directions on one hand, so that's not really a true assessment of the game.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Snow Dog has no alignment. All attempts to read him are pointless. There is no way to call him a civ or bad, because he has no winning condition. He has no intention to win for either side. He is not playing the game.

Why should he be kept alive?

Every lynch is a policy lynch. We take down people who don't contribute to town's cause, for reasons we decide at the time. This guy is the least contributive a player can possibly be.

Every statement within this post is false. For one, Snow Dog does have an alignment. Whether he knows what alignment that is is up for debate, but he does have one. All attempts to read him are pointless only operating under the assumption that he is playing without reading his alignment, which even then doesn't make it pointless to read him because not knowing your alignment doesn't automatically dictate whether or not you are going to attempt to genuinely contribute to the town cause. Not reading one's role card is a bold unorthodox move, if we are willing to acknowledge that why are we unwilling to consider bold unorthodox explanations for this move? Saying it's a bad move has no bearing on whether or not it is alignment-indicative. He does have a winning condition. We don't know what his intentions are. He most certainly is playing the game.

He should be kept alive so we can figure out his intentions and decipher if he in fact has read his role card, and what his alignment is.

Snow Dog's decision to not read his role card, or at least his claim that he hasn't, has sparked more discussion than anything else so far in the game. And yet you have the nerve to say that he is the least contributive a player can possibly be? Either you are being disingenuous or downright stubborn. No, not every lynch is a policy lynch and no, we do not take down people who don't contribute to town's cause. We take down people who do contribute to the anti-town cause. The difference is monumental and you seem to be choosing to pretend that it isn't. My eye is on MM, Jackofhearts, and you, but especially you after this post.

Town's cause is to lynch scum.
Scum's cause is not to lynch scum.

Town is active. Scum is passive. Scum plays by stalling and not actually doing things. If someone is not trying to scum, they are more likely to be bad. Because that's the bread and butter of bads.

I concede that Snow Dog could help civs, if say, he decide to scum baddies despite potentially betraying his own team. I still argue that he is 100% unreadable, though. Because there is zero connection between his alignment and his posts. And if he is 100% unreadable, how are we supposed to trust him. How can we make the call to leave him alive. It's basically lottery.

We should either investigate him and hope someone manages to hint through the role reveal ban, or vig him. But leaving him alive and unchecked is leaving the game to pure chance. And I don't like games of pure chance.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

But Jackofhearts and DDL don't seem to care that he might not necessarily be bad for it. Don't you think that makes them look bad?

That is not the problem. The problem is being okay with the idea that one player is allowed to go through all game without having his alignment read.

What do we do to him once we get to a point where we have to decide if he is civ or bad?

insertnamehere wrote:I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Saying complete bullshit that makes yourself look bad just to get a reaction? There are better ways to get reactions that don't involve making yourself look bad.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.