The Syndicate

a2thezebra wrote:You've essentially admitted here that you would advocate a Mac lynch entirely based on him being, yes, clearly, ridiculous.

Yep. If someone says they will literally do nothing but vote the same person day after day, even if that person is civ, then I will vote that person right out of the game. If that makes me guilty, then guilty. I don't think that kind of attitude is helpful to the town.

But that's nothing to do with Mac being bad. It's just to do with him being a distraction. Which, because of his answers, it's clear he isn't going to be.

Also, you are the one talking in circles. All I'm doing is repeating the same thing over and over again.

For everyone elses benefit.

When you ask someone to back something up, and their response is 'as if your accusations are backed up', instead of actually backing their accusations up, what does that tell you?

Zebra is just trying to get you to look the other way by using a lot of words, so you'll all say 'civ on civ'. It happens all the time. I use it when I'm bad and people say 'civ on civ'. People pull me into it when they are bad so that people will say 'civ on civ'.

I'll give you plenty of examples analagous to Zebra's behaviour in this game.

Epi in Keeler
Aces in Roger Rabbit
Long Con in Bullets over Broadway
Llama/Absalom in Biblical

People who use bullishness and words to make others say they are civ on civ. All example of cases where it was not.

Zebra is a good vote.

zebra, you are the one getting tangled up in semantics.

I don't care if what you did was offensive or defensive. Ricochet kept trying to get all semantic over that in Talking Heads too, something you saw and I think you think it's a good way of wiggling your way into getting me tied into knots.

I don't care if you were opportunistic or not opportunistic or any of those things. This is all just words to me.

You lied about what I did, and when I called you out on it, you overreacted, and you continue to overreact at every turn. I'm not trying to dissect every sentence you make, but you are trying to dissect every sentence I make. Yet you say I'm counting punctuation etc.

At this point, I've given up on reading all your posts. The substance is irrelevant to me. The emotion and vibe is not. My gut says you are bad, you were snapped, and you are trying to post a lot of words to hide the fact. It's a tactic I use too. It's not one I'm buying.

a2thezebra wrote:a minor linguistics correction!

Apparently, the difference between me suggesting Mac is suspicious and suggesting Mac is not suspicious is a 'minor linguistics correction'. No - it's not. I'm not fiddling around with semantics. You said you found me suspicious for something I did not do. Apparently, because I should have just assumed Mac was being silly, when he looked pretty deadly serious given his large font in two different games.

Now you are calling me semantic, basically picking up on what FZ said about misrepresenting (I note you never said that I did that until after FZ did...) - but what, exactly, have I misrepresented? You've made a whole lot of jokes about how semantic I've been, but did you or did you not say you found me 'suspicious'? Did you or did you not say it was because I was painting Mac as suspicious'? Did you or did you not overreact? These are literally the only three things I've claimed you expressly did in your posts. Can you reject any of them?

Here is something deadly serious - if Mac had not satisfied me with his answers, he would have absolutely gotten my vote. But he did - he explained his motivations, which were completely unclear to me off the back of the two posts that apparently you alone have the key to understand they were 'silly' (I'm not even sure Mac would call them silly - even in hindsight, I read them as a mix of genuine frustration and game strategy, nothing silly about either of those things).

And apparently I'm 'checking off your punctuation marks'. Really? You think I'm epi? I haven't mentioned an adverb once. If you cannot see how you continue to completely overblow this, it's actually insane. I'm not writing your posts for you. You are the one who said you suspected me for something that never happened. You said I was trying to make Mac suspicious. I will ask you, for the second time, where is your evidence? What posts do you have to support that I was doing that?

I don't understand what you mean by my suspicion being hypocritical, but I do know that when I'm bad and being called out on day one my best defence is a good offence. You've had one today, being so incredulous that I could even suspect you at all. Let alone how my suspicion is either 'fake' or 'misleading'. Perhaps instead of just throwing out accusations, you could back them up?

Yes, I am voting zebra

I would refer people to Aces in Roger Rabbit for further information. If Zebra is civilian, I will be gobsmacked.

FZ. wrote:

Golden wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Golden wrote:Suddenly lines are being drawn, this is good stuff. Useful stuff. I like it.

I still see Zebra as more bad than Sig. Sig's posts come across as genuine, his normal self, and don't say anything blatantly wrong. Zebra, on the other hand, twisted what was already in the thread.

Sig is one of those people who always seems to ping people on day one, just for the way in which he says things.

You and zebra just look to me like a civ vs. civ fight. He misinterprets your words thinking you looked at Mac as bad because of his vote, and you misinterpret his words thinking he was saying you or BR were setting up things for a later lynch. Don't see either as bad, but rather a waste of time butting heads.

No. I did not misinterpret his words in that way. Once again, here is what he said.

a2thezebra wrote:I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

He sais I was 'trying to make mac's behaviour look suspicious'. What did I do to do that? Having talked through it with Mac and come to the view that Mac was ok with me, what did I do to make Mac look suspicious? Just talk to him about his posts?? Would the civilian thing to do be just to ignore Mac? Why would any civilian mindset find that suspicious?

Zebra didn't say I was setting up for a later lynch, and I've never suggested he did so it's hard for me to have misrepresented that. I accused HIM of setting up for a later lynch of me or BR. And then overreacting to me calling him out, rather than actually talking through his thinking. Just read the first sentence he had in context. I have my first, day one, ping... and that's the response? Really? It's so overblown!

Yeah, okay, I mixed things up. Sorry. I still don't get a baddie vibe. Was the reaction overblown, definitely. Does it automatically mean baddie? Not in my book

Fair enough.

FZ. wrote:

Golden wrote:Suddenly lines are being drawn, this is good stuff. Useful stuff. I like it.

I still see Zebra as more bad than Sig. Sig's posts come across as genuine, his normal self, and don't say anything blatantly wrong. Zebra, on the other hand, twisted what was already in the thread.

Sig is one of those people who always seems to ping people on day one, just for the way in which he says things.

You and zebra just look to me like a civ vs. civ fight. He misinterprets your words thinking you looked at Mac as bad because of his vote, and you misinterpret his words thinking he was saying you or BR were setting up things for a later lynch. Don't see either as bad, but rather a waste of time butting heads.

No. I did not misinterpret his words in that way. Once again, here is what he said.

a2thezebra wrote:I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

He sais I was 'trying to make mac's behaviour look suspicious'. What did I do to do that? Having talked through it with Mac and come to the view that Mac was ok with me, what did I do to make Mac look suspicious? Just talk to him about his posts?? Would the civilian thing to do be just to ignore Mac? Why would any civilian mindset find that suspicious?

Zebra didn't say I was setting up for a later lynch, and I've never suggested he did so it's hard for me to have misrepresented that. I accused HIM of setting up for a later lynch of me or BR. And then overreacting to me calling him out, rather than actually talking through his thinking. Just read the first sentence he had in context. I have my first, day one, ping... and that's the response? Really? It's so overblown!

Suddenly lines are being drawn, this is good stuff. Useful stuff. I like it.

I still see Zebra as more bad than Sig. Sig's posts come across as genuine, his normal self, and don't say anything blatantly wrong. Zebra, on the other hand, twisted what was already in the thread.

Sig is one of those people who always seems to ping people on day one, just for the way in which he says things.

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:Zebra - I have never suggested Mac is bad for his behaviour or 'tried to make him look bad', so I'm not sure where you get that from. I didn't really get any suspicion from BR either, although I'd have to read that back.

I did, however, point out the inherent contradiction/irony in Mac's sentiment vs his posts, and talked his thinking through with him, and was satisfied with his answers. If I had voted for Mac on day one, it would not have been because I thought it was bad - it would have been to solely to fulfil his own reasoning for what makes a good policy vote on day one. Having backed down somewhat from the 'I will vote him forever in any game we both play' aspect, though, means I see nothing in Mac's position that is specifically unhelpful to the town - at least beyond day one. I don't specifically oppose policy lynches on day one, I just am unlikely to ever agree to the policy reason.

Putting this post in other words, ping! I now have my first real candidate for a vote. I found zebra to be a relatively fair and astute analyst of what was going on in the thread in Talking Heads. That post, though, was not a fair analysis. It felt to my like an artifical 'taking of sides' in a conflict that didn't exist, a setting up for a future vote for me or BR, and it caught my eye.

This is gold. This is really gold. This is the fucking jackpot, baby. Okay. Oh boy. Alright. Here goes. Deep breath. Let me get this straight. Wow. Here we go.

I pinged you because I made a post that could be interpreted as an opportunity to set up a future vote for you or BR. The reason you claim that it could be interpreted this way is because I seem to have taken a definite stance in an imaginary conflict. What was that stance again? Oh yeah, that you and BR may have been a little opportunistic with your interactions with Mac. Keep in mind, I didn't say that I was intending to vote for you or that what you two did was a serious "ping" for me, I only said that I was suspicious, and I said that with good reason. It seemed to me that you were the ones who could have been setting up a potential vote. Why else would you go after someone with genuine, serious arguments, when they are clearly trolling, as if Mac's absurd actions could potentially put his alignment on trial? But lo, that is in fact what I am doing! My bad. So just to recap, my suspicion of either you guys maybe setting up a potential mislynch is opportunistic, but when you suspect that I am doing the exact same thing with way less reason to believe so, it's not opportunistic, because...you really think I wouldn't notice the over-the-top hypocrisy of such an accusation? What makes this even better is that I merely suspected you, whereas for the exact same reason (but to a less rational extent!) you not only suspect me, but have made me a "real candidate for a vote"! Good luck.

I agree. This is the jackpot.

Your stance was that we may have been opportunistic?

Lets look at what you said...

a2thezebra wrote:I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

You said nothing about 'opportunistic'. You said that I and BR were trying to make his behaviour 'look suspicious' - when I was absolutely not.

And then when I called you on it, you had a massive reaction.

Zebra - I have never suggested Mac is bad for his behaviour or 'tried to make him look bad', so I'm not sure where you get that from. I didn't really get any suspicion from BR either, although I'd have to read that back.

I did, however, point out the inherent contradiction/irony in Mac's sentiment vs his posts, and talked his thinking through with him, and was satisfied with his answers. If I had voted for Mac on day one, it would not have been because I thought it was bad - it would have been to solely to fulfil his own reasoning for what makes a good policy vote on day one. Having backed down somewhat from the 'I will vote him forever in any game we both play' aspect, though, means I see nothing in Mac's position that is specifically unhelpful to the town - at least beyond day one. I don't specifically oppose policy lynches on day one, I just am unlikely to ever agree to the policy reason.

Putting this post in other words, ping! I now have my first real candidate for a vote. I found zebra to be a relatively fair and astute analyst of what was going on in the thread in Talking Heads. That post, though, was not a fair analysis. It felt to my like an artifical 'taking of sides' in a conflict that didn't exist, a setting up for a future vote for me or BR, and it caught my eye.

FZ. wrote:Matt F, while you can like or dislike his way of playing, or while you might get really frustrated with it, is at least trying really hard. Whether he's right or wrong is not relevant. If you don't like his posts, just ignore them.

I concur with the sentiment that its sad Matt felt the need to self-vote. I wish he hadn't.

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Golden wrote:Yeah, but did the poison snooper help at all?

With what?

I'm sure I wouldn't know, since I picked spice, which did not help at all. Maybe I should rephrase the question - you asked 'were any of the items at the warehouse useful' which I assume you mean things on the poll - I'm asking was yours useful?

Yeah, but did the poison snooper help at all?

TheFloyd73 wrote:So, we're anything things at the warehouse useful?

Was yours?

I can confirm TH's story - the spice was useless. I should have known Epi wouldn't let the obvious be the best.

Someone that, when he plays, inevitably there are days where even us hardened TS regulars will end up considering voting out for policy reasons.

While BR isn't familiar with 'policy lynch' (something I picked up on RYM) what we do recognise is that there are certain philosophies about how to approach lynches, especially day one, particular the 'lynch a low poster' debate. Vomps falls into this category.

Imagining what MacDougall would think of Vompatti.

Mind blown.

I will admit to having a no-lynch policy for newbies, on day one, so you won't see me voting for Luke or Banana.

I will not be voting for metalmarsh today.

I'm afraid he is actually hit-marmot, what with him still wearing those underpants.

(Unless I think he is bad. Then I will vote for him).

OK. For me, saying you will pursue a policy lynch on day one is very different to saying you will pursue it endlessly until one of you two die, which is what I thought you were saying. I also have no problem with the aspect of you 'gaining reactions'.

I can't agree with the idea that Matt's approach is inherently unhelpful to the town, however. He comes up with some very good angles and lenses through which to examine the game. If I don't agree with his theories, I can happily discard them (no matter whether he does or not). They don't need to be 'distracting'. Sometimes he has very valid theories and his ability to correctly identify baddies should not be discounted because you found him frustrating in one game. In addition, I find MattF generally betrays whether or not his convictions are genuine, and so is readable in time.

If I was going to policy lynch someone who 'we might be better off having out of the way early', if you like, I'd sooner take out someone inscrutible, who rarely ever shows their hand when bad. But in reality, I believe there tends to be ways to catch baddies on day one, and as a matter of policy I don't really support policy lynches unless it comes to deadline and I really have no better idea.

Although I don't support the policy lynch, I actually think Zebra's point on MattF has a little merit.

Hey, Mac, I've actually experienced a game where I went very deep, as a civilian, with MattF on my back the entire game.

You have only experienced a brief time in a game, when you were actually bad, when MattF tunnelled you to the advantage of the town for a very short period of the time.

So, I'm not sure why you would feel the need to be aggrieved? MattF, I have only ever seen tunnel because he has actual reasons he thinks you are bad. You just seem to be doing something personal.

Do you actually intend to follow it through, or are you just making a point?

MacDougall has claimed a policy lynch of tunnelling on someone who he considers is unhelpful to scum-hunting effort because he tunnels.

I assume all the people writing in blue are Fremen?

I'm busy knitting a stillsuit.

Hey all people playing for the first time! It's nice to have you here.

sig wrote:I wonder does our votes in the poll affect the game play like an additional power.
I'll be going for the Lasgun or Windtrap not sure which one though

I assume that they will have some impact, don't know what though.

I picked spice because I know it is valuable. Everything has its purpose, though.

Also:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also, votes are not changeable in this poll.

Or any other poll.

Getting in on spice before it is all gone.