The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:MP getting ready to lose y'all the game.
Why don't you do something about it instead of just complaining about how you suck? I'm doing the best I can with the information I have to analyze, and your response is to just say "MP's gonna lose for you all hurrrr".

Fucking get off the pot and convince me otherwise then.

You know, I have this crazy reputation of catching Mafia early on.

You know what else I have? A record of blowing it in the endgame.

I'd rather you go about your explorations and get your opinions in order.

But I'm Juliet Burke, the coffee civilian, and I'd really like to nab a third win. I'm not evil. Go forth with that. Assume it's true. Trust me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:He defended DF to oblivion
I didn't defend shit.
Bullshit you didn't, you actively argued against his lynch.

Nope. Try again.

Two different things.

I didn't "defend DF to oblivion."

And I didn't argue against his lynch either.

I cautioned against voting for him as opposed to his teammates.

Don't get cute.

G-Man is one of the coolest people I know.

Epignosis wrote:MP getting ready to lose y'all the game.

Well, lose some of y'all the game. For some he's about to win for ya.

MP getting ready to lose y'all the game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:He defended DF to oblivion

I didn't defend shit.

MovingPictures07 wrote:To clarify on one point:

There was clear cognitive dissonance between my initial thoughts re: Epignosis & speedchuck and then when I revisited the voting records to develop this rainbow list. I originally had thought Epignosis & speedchuck were very unlikely. However, I felt the distancing could be there because of the lack of follow through, so I threw them in the yellow "I don't really know" area in the end.

ISO stuff upcoming.

Epignosis distancing shows a "lack of follow through."

Noted.

You can have fun with my posts and votes. None of them have been worth a shit.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, that's kinda bad though because my time for this world may indeed be very short. I'll do whatever I can though.

I obviously can't read 660ish posts worth of thread, but I'm going to thoroughly explore each of the remaining mafia and see how you all shake out.
You should have to a penance.
I should what now?

Well now let's see.

Most people like fewer letters, so "as penance" would work for them.

You like a lot of letters, so "ass penance" would be more appropriate for you.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, that's kinda bad though because my time for this world may indeed be very short. I'll do whatever I can though.

I obviously can't read 660ish posts worth of thread, but I'm going to thoroughly explore each of the remaining mafia and see how you all shake out.

You should have to a penance.

Well, right not DF is getting the lynch (or maybe not).

Might as well not even vote.

Let's assume this: G-Man, Quin, Epignosis, and S~V~S are good. That's a nice crew that leaves Dom, Sorsha, and speedchuck.

Two out of three ain't bad.

But two are.

Quin wrote:Can you explain them then? I think that Dom would come out looking good from a DF baddie flip.

If DF can survive a lynch, nobody looks good regardless of him being bad.

I'm going to say this:

S~V~S has claimed to be able to parse llama better than most, but she has played with me over four years (longer). She should know I don't read minds, won't try to, and she should know I'm always going to gun for a grammar nitpick if I can find one, especially if the topic in question is about "posting better." To me, that was the perfect punchline. It was a joke. Quin got it.

She therefore has no reason to be upset. If she is feigning being upset, very well, but I am going to remember this forever, and I will not hold back in the future regardless of what her emotional state looks like.

I hope this little game was worth it.

My vote will go elsewhere today.

S~V~S wrote:And with that I àm the hell out of here.

Oh dear. Five points off.

S~V~S wrote:You have decided, and you are twisting everything to fit that idea. Why are we even talking? (And for me it's the same as talking which is why I say talking). You made up your mind.

I have not decided.

S~V~S wrote:I post fine finely, or, if you prefer, well.

Just vote for me.

S~V~S wrote:No it really isn't my problem. I talk like I talk and you are the one who has problems with it, like how I say I don't like things somehow means something it foesnt, or how i am able to use different words to say the same thing ISN'T the same thing.

It is the same thing. Like I said.

You're not talking. You're posting on an Internet forum. I have to read what you post and make a judgment for or against you. If you want to be understood better, post better.

Not my problem.

S~V~S wrote:Not my problem. If you want to keep clutching at reasons to suspect me, well, that fits your narrative, doesn't it?

It is YOUR problem.

Don't say "Like I said before," and follow it up with "Not the words but the same intent."

I would like to lynch someone other than DF. That's where everyone is voting, and mafia want it so in order to get through the Day phase without scrutiny. I'm not having any of that.

No semantic argument necessary: You didn't say it. You said "Like I said before." I can't read your intent.

S~V~S wrote:I think you misread what I said, but the point remains I don't think you're bad. I don't always think you're bad as you seem to think I do.

I didn't misread what you said- I don't think you think I'm bad.

S~V~S wrote:Like I said, you seem to be trying to make the facts fit your narrative. You are looking for things that make me bad. You have decided I am bad and are trying to find points to prove it.

Where did you say this before?

I would like everyone to pretend DF is gone. It's Day 4. Who gets your vote and why?

And, to add to that, my participation level will never be based on what happened in another game (like G-Man thought). Dom was right- I don't give a shit about any of that.

I sometimes take a hit in morale right after a poor lynch I directed, but I always remind myself: "You're a civilian. The best thing you can do is keep fighting to get the win for the person you just lynched."

S~V~S wrote:Because I don't think you're bad? One thing we have in common, you never low ball when you're bad. You do at times when you are civ. I know that after I have a gave where my instincts were abysmal, as yours were in Red\Blue I tend to low ball.

But if you want to keep clutching at reasons to suspect me, knock yourself out.

"Low ball?" You mean not participate much?

My level of participation has everything to do with the fact that I'm trying to do too much at one time- that's it. I don't like to talk about real life in games, because it has nothing to do with my alignment, so I tend to stay quiet about that and post about it elsewhere. This past week has been grades, grades, grades. Add on to this our yard catching fire a week ago and my sister-in-law moving in the week before, with us trying to get her a job (she has one) and an apartment (she doesn't), and that's why I'm "low balling" it (if that's what you meant).

My participation level will never ever ever depend on what alignment I got. I consider not playing simply because you are bad discourteous.

My initial reaction was to raise the banner and the hammer and the nail for S~V~S' coffin.

She says I can't "read" her. I don't think that's true. I've seen through her evilness plenty of times before. I've seen it plenty of times before.

She is right though that I judge her thought process by a standard that usually isn't appropriate. That's true. It's ultimately why I lynched her last time out.

If she's bad, then can't really say I don't "read her" well.

S~V~S, here is something for you to talk about:

When you are bad, you usually leave me alone. When you are good, you have no qualms going after me. That is my general understanding of how you function. Is it 100% accurate? Of course not. But since you say I don't "read" you well, that's sometimes what I go by, along with other criteria.

Why have you not gone after me? I've done nothing noteworthy here. I've been nothing at all of a force or a maker of discussion.

G-Man wrote:Faraday may be the most obvious choice but I'm trying to figure out if I want to vote for him or not. Low-hanging fruit and all that.

If you vote elsewhere, I will follow you, so you are guaranteed a second vote there.

Unless of course you get cute and vote for me.

G-Man wrote:
linki: Epi- you didn't discuss any other possibilities, nor did you frame as "Golden has used a godfather role before where all the other teammates must die first." You went right into this:

Epignosis wrote:I went and looked back. Both previous installments have a "Mafia Godfather." I couldn't tell what the first one meant, but the second one couldn't be tracked or checked- it wasn't a traditional "Godfather."

So no, that doesn't look good for DF, but he may in fact be a traditional manner of "Godfather." If that's true, then it means you're wasting lynches on him while his cronies keep on keeping on.
You proclaim your idea to be the definition of a "traditional" godfather even though it seems that's not the case for the rest of us. Your post lacks the context of Golden's use of such a role in BSG.

And?

There is a piece of data here that wasn't present in Seasons 1 or 2: DF got the most votes and didn't die.

G-Man wrote:For what reason, Epi, do you automatically default to DFaraday cannot be lynched until all his goons are? Why do you go there first instead of a one-time survival?

I didn't automatically default to anything. I raised a distinct possibility that people should be considering. Given that Golden has used "godfather" before to mean different things, I wanted to speak a word of caution about DF's survival and people thinking they've got this locked down by just voting for him. Wouldn't it suck to fall into that pit?

There are three mafia. I know S~V~S is going to roll her eyes about not lynching the obvious mafia, but that's gambler's fallacy thinking- just because it didn't pan out last time doesn't mean it's a bad idea to figure out the rest of the team.

Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:If DF is a traditional Mafia godfather, and he gets the most votes, the game is over, and the civilians don't win.
What's your definition of a traditional mafia godfather?
Perhaps "traditional" is a poor word choice. I simply mean if DF cannot be lynched until his goons are taken out first, trying to lynch him today gets the mafia the win.
If I recall, (I might be mistaking him for Rico or llama) Golden criticised my having a role of that sort in my burglary. I don't think that would be the case here based on that.

The fact remains that DF received the most votes and there was no lynch. How do you account for that?

Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:If DF is a traditional Mafia godfather, and he gets the most votes, the game is over, and the civilians don't win.
What's your definition of a traditional mafia godfather?

Perhaps "traditional" is a poor word choice. I simply mean if DF cannot be lynched until his goons are taken out first, trying to lynch him today gets the mafia the win.

If DF is a traditional Mafia godfather, and he gets the most votes, the game is over, and the civilians don't win.

speedchuck wrote:Speedchuck
Quin
Epignosis
Dom
Sorsha
S~V~S
DFaraday

Quin argument makes sense to me. Here's a read list, from most town to least.

Also, this is Mylo, not lylo.

I am your most civilian after you and Quin. Why?

G-Man wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I'm a civilian who has been lazy. That's what I've been.
From what happened to you in Blue vs. Red, I can't blame you if this is true and that's a big part of why I have you low on my list.

What happened to me?

I'm a civilian who has been lazy. That's what I've been.

Why hasn't anyone commented on my case against S~V~S? That's where I'm voting today unless someone persuades me otherwise.

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Quin is the only one in this game talking any sense, so I am following his vote on Sorsha.
You put a second vote on someone becasue the first persons reason ("none whatsoever") was talking sense to you?

S~V~S has played with llama enough to know he posts like this and says controversial things that have no bearing on his alignment. She will admit as much later.

S~V~S wrote:I wonder if Sorsha noticed she had three votes when she was in here.

One vote on a person for a silly reason, ha ha lulz. Dropping a second vote on someone for a silly reason, not cool. Dropping a third vote, what baddie would do that?

I hope to see votes moving there or better reasons put forth.

So dropping a temp vote on Llama for lulz. If he takes his vote more seriously, I will too.

This is a case of S~V~S voting llama not because she thought he was bad, but because she wanted to punish him. "Not cool." Why wasn't it cool? He was a civilian, so even if his thoughts were weird, they were genuine. That's how llama is.

S~V~S knows that, as we're about to see.

Lastly, her final line in this post gave the illusion of open-mindedness, but it was conditional. Again, this was not a vote to find mafia- it was a vote to punish: "Take your (Day 1) vote more seriously or else." It was a threat, and it got a civilian lynched.

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Who would you prefer I vote for, SVS?
At this point, I don't particularly know, the votes for Sorsha are the only thing to stand out to me so far. Who do you think I should vote for?

I just really dislike it when people put others in a lynchable position for lulz. Probably an artifact of when we did not have changeable votes.

Again, note the wording: "I just really dislike it when..."

Just because you dislike something doesn't mean you should lynch the person for it. It doesn't make him bad. It means (if you are civilian) that you need to reread the object of the game (find mafia), but I find that a lot of times, mafia resort to lynching civilians for things they dislike. And you, S~V~S, have known llama's wackiness for years. His vote against Sorsha was not worth lynching him over, and you know that, but went for it anyway.

S~V~S wrote:
speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.
Personally, I think Llama looks scummier than you. He was the first to put a second vote on someone for a silly reason. I can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third silly vote on someone. That is why I voted for him, not you. But I have seen very bold baddies do very bold things to fall back on the wifom.

Are you a bold baddie?

Do you honestly think Sorsha is bad? If not do you plan to move your vote?

If S~V~S is bad, I would likely rule out speedchuck based on this exchange.

S~V~S said she can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third "silly" vote on someone. I think that's the most ridiculous thing said here. S~V~S has twice the Mafia experience I do, if not more, and I've seen some squirrely-ass things in my time. I've seen mafia kill their own teammates. I find it hard to believe you, S~V~S, can't imagine mafia not plopping down a third silly vote on someone. I've seen mafia do way crazier things than that.

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Llama~

"What is LOST?"

Google results: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... 8&oe=utf-8

Took me 4 seconds

And I will take you seriously if you give real answers and stop goofing around. If you suspect Faraday, then vote for him! You don't feel even remotely sincere to me, and you put someone you don't actually seem to suspect in danger. That concerns me. Even goofing around, when you are sincere this comes through. I am not seeing it.
I don't google things I can ask my friends about. And if I vote for Faraday now, I put my own life in peril, which I am not in the mood to do.
I don't like to bother my friends with trivia, so I Google things. It takes all types to make the world go around.

So you would rather leave your vote on the person who you don't actually suspect, instead of the person you DO suspect, and who you already named as your suspect? Becasue voting for the person you actually do suspect will get you killed, whereas just naming him won't?

I know you like to be quirky and quixotic and cultivate this image, but you make no sense right now. I am Okey Dokey with my vote.

Iam taking another hit of Nyquil and going to bed.

In light of the fact that there has been a Mafia Godfather in both previous entries, this stands out to me. If my hypothesis is correct that DF is a traditional "Godfather," then S~V~S pushing llama to vote DF would be encouraging him to waste a lynch.

I note that S~V~S herself voted DF today (again, over something she didn't like).

Furthermore, in a Mafia context, I doubt S~V~S ever finds llama remotely sincere. That's his way. He's a snake oil salesman. He's a character from a friggin Flannery O' Connor story. Here he is now.

S~V~S even acknowledged his penchant for being "quirky and quixotic," but he's making "no sense right now." Outside of a blatant slip in which the slipper tries to save face, since when does making no sense on Day 1 indicate that someone is bad? Surely S~V~S has enough experience to know that it is civilians who tend to make the lesser amount of sense early on because there is no pressure on mafia to have to get their stories straight. On top of it all, it's llama.

S~V~S was okay with her vote because it was a convenient way to lynch a civilian. I'm calling her out on it.

I went and looked back. Both previous installments have a "Mafia Godfather." I couldn't tell what the first one meant, but the second one couldn't be tracked or checked- it wasn't a traditional "Godfather."

So no, that doesn't look good for DF, but he may in fact be a traditional manner of "Godfather." If that's true, then it means you're wasting lynches on him while his cronies keep on keeping on.

Regardless of DFaraday's alignment, I'm a little disappointed that when DF talks more, he gets lynched. I like talkative DF.

S~V~S wrote:
DFaraday wrote:If someone could outline the case on me, that'd be great.
I voted for you becasue you asked me a question, I answered it, and then you said, basically, that I didn't answer it. Like as if someone had put me into a possible list of suspects, and you decided to suspect me. It felt opportunistic to me.

I'm voting for you because you keep voting for people for doing things you don't like as opposed to things that are indicative of being mafia.

G-Man wrote:Form a sentence explaining why you sat back for a whole day, contributing nothing, if you are a civvie.

Grades were due this week and I took my wife out to our first date in three years.

speedchuck wrote:Epi being scum wouldn't surprise me.

Why should it ever surprise you?

Does anyone need me to do anything? I've been testing some vaginal canals lately.

nutella wrote:I agree that it's just a tool, but it's one that's deeply ingrained in societal institutions and many people are raised to accept it as divinely, indisputably "correct" rather than a tool to use and adapt to different contexts. It would take a lot of work to undo the widespread biases that prescriptive attitudes toward grammar perpetuate, but it's spreading this kind of work that much of the field of sociolinguistics seeks to accomplish.

When you call proper grammar "racist," however, I take issue.

nutella wrote:
G-Man wrote:Forgive me for veering off on a tangent, but is this prescriptivist vs. descriptivist concept akin to an article I read recently that asserts that grammar is racist?
Probably, yes. The general idea is that there is no right or wrong way to use language as long as it seems natural to the speaker and is effective communication in its context (there's a lot of deeper clarification to into regarding what linguists consider "grammar" in that languages have structural "rules" that speakers just don't break even in informal speech because it just wouldn't make sense), and insisting on "correct" grammar can devalue dialects such as African American vernacular, Southern English, and countless others, which are all valid and effective ways that people can and do successfully communicate despite not necessarily being "properly educated" in grammar. So that's why prescriptivism is associated with racial and socioeconomic elitism, and often does negatively affect opportunities such as employment for people with non-standard linguistic backgrounds.

linki: I'd be interested in that paper if you still have it or if not the general idea of it. We should probably move this discussion elsewhere though

I've kept every paper I ever wrote. I hope I still have it.

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Descriptivists always lose their arguments when they need lawyers.
I find this statement absurdly funny. I'm probably the only one.

Since its genuine belt off topic... I must be descriptivist in my day job, so I make o apologies for turning that requirement off when I'm not being paid for it.

I'm actually not a prescriptivist. I'm not a descriptivist either. My senior paper was on how both ideas are flawed. I called it "The Boomhauer Principle."

Descriptivists always lose their arguments when they need lawyers.

Epignosis wrote:
nutella wrote:
linki @ Epi: I will not tolerate prescriptivism in any form. It is racist and classist and disrespectful of linguistic diversity. If you don't understand someone, ask for clarification and I'm sure you will find some mutual ground for effective communication. Otherwise just let people speak how they speak. Don't be such a goddamn jerk.
The mere fact that you use English is racist.

Really. Learn Swahili or something. Be broad!

nutella wrote:
linki @ Epi: I will not tolerate prescriptivism in any form. It is racist and classist and disrespectful of linguistic diversity. If you don't understand someone, ask for clarification and I'm sure you will find some mutual ground for effective communication. Otherwise just let people speak how they speak. Don't be such a goddamn jerk.

The mere fact that you use English is racist.

nutella wrote:What kind of linguistics did you study that didn't teach you not to be a dirty prescriptivist?

Just because people talk like Boomhauer doesn't mean they are right to talk like that when others need to understand them.

Get out, dirty descriptivist.

Search found 123 matches