The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:Hey, JJ, soon you will be ready to embrace survival win cons join the dark side!

What's this supposed to mean?

That JJ currently doesn't like survival win cons, but might come to in the future.

RadicalFuzz wrote:Zebra I disagree. Intentionally twisting words to gauge reactions isn't necessarily an anti-Town strategy. It stirs up trouble, sure, but most players would have different reactions to being misinterpreted based on various variables, including allegiance.

It's more commonly anti-town, though, right? Especially if it goes on for long enough without explanation?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Yeah Golden, I was exploring the "Media" angle.

Also a possibility, Mac. I dunno if I'd be more inspired right now as a bad guy, but I'd probably feel a stronger sense of obligation. I've towned my arse off so many times that I think I've earned a break -- even if that means I am just occupying space and kind of being the thing I once criticized.

Hey, JJ, soon you will be ready to embrace survival win cons join the dark side!

Truth be told, though, as a civilian I find it greatly ups my enjoyment of the game to mix up my style from supatown to less supatown, because it 1) makes me less stressed as a civilian, since I can generally choose my pace (although not always, as Star Wars demonstrated because I constantly got called out for lack of content despite declaring that intent) and 2) makes me less stressed as a baddie, because I can also choose any pace and point out that pace isn't a meta-indicator and 3) I think, actually makes me more adaptable to different types of game and win con.

linki @Rico - I am perfectly consistent. Mac wants to understand what I was talking about. To do that, he has to read that role. He shouldn't have to be in the dark about what I meant just because I don't believe you are THAT role.

By the way, I also asked anyone else if they were aware of similar roles in 2015, yeah?

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I wonder what the current post count leader will think if I refer to that person solely as "the current post count leader" (or adapt for different ranks in post count as applicable).

Are you referring to Epi's 'Media' theory?

Although does anyone know if a similar role existed in any game in 2015?

I would point out that rico wanted to know why I didn't refer to him by name specifically in some of those posts.

But, at this point, if he is any role like that his mention count is already through the roof.

Are you serious?

Well, I mean, that isn't what you wanted to know per se, but it could have led to me mentioning you more. It would have been an effective prod.

But no, I don't think you are a role from 2013.

I just want to know where JJ's head was at.

Your interaction with Rico here has given me furrowed brow and a mild headache. I don't get what you're saying?

Did you look up the role of Media that Epi pointed out?

Long Con wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.

No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

Is that a suspicion, or a belief that it's a Civ strategy? I agree, but I haven't decided yet which. What will his behaviour achieve?

I definitely suspect rico, and think it likely my day one vote will go there.

As for what it will achieve - beyond wifom, I really have no clue.

Matt wrote:Zeebs - Yeah I was joking. Kind of. But fair enough. Now I'm interested, though, what are your non PC views?

Rico - So no answer then?

I think we can all agree that Metalmarsh has to go. Ten points to anyone who can tell me why.

Because lynching him on day one is the Syndicate way?

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I wonder what the current post count leader will think if I refer to that person solely as "the current post count leader" (or adapt for different ranks in post count as applicable).

Are you referring to Epi's 'Media' theory?

Although does anyone know if a similar role existed in any game in 2015?

I would point out that rico wanted to know why I didn't refer to him by name specifically in some of those posts.

But, at this point, if he is any role like that his mention count is already through the roof.

Are you serious?

Well, I mean, that isn't what you wanted to know per se, but it could have led to me mentioning you more. It would have been an effective prod.

But no, I don't think you are a role from 2013.

I just want to know where JJ's head was at.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I wonder what the current post count leader will think if I refer to that person solely as "the current post count leader" (or adapt for different ranks in post count as applicable).

Are you referring to Epi's 'Media' theory?

Although does anyone know if a similar role existed in any game in 2015?

I would point out that rico wanted to know why I didn't refer to him by name specifically in some of those posts.

But, at this point, if he is any role like that his mention count is already through the roof.

a2thezebra wrote:linki - Haha, I didn't even bother to check that. All I knew was that even if it were true, it's not alignment-indicative regardless.

This makes me feel good about zebra. Or at least, for me it demonstrates that the (patently silly) b24/zebra team theory is wrong. If they were actually teammates, zebra would have been much more likely to point out the inaccuracies (or demonstrate awareness of them), rather than just say 'its wrong' in the way he did.

sig wrote:I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!

I'm sorry, sig. I made you suffer through an entire game being called winkydinkdontuthink.

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:It's an act and everyone knows it's an act. Cut the bull.

I've heard worse dismissals from baddies.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Three of Golden's recent posts are validating or clarifying MacDougall's thoughts. I mean, what in the name of God.

If I think you are misrepresenting someone, anyone, I am going to give my own interpretation of that. I did the same with LoRabs thoughts. I am not sure if this is a habit of yours, but you have been reaching for interpretations of peoples posts and then treating your own interpretations as gospel, and I am going to point out where your interpretations seem to me disingenuous.

As far as I've seen, you still haven't answered to me why you felt Mac's behaviour around the LoRab stuff made him look less green to you. Some of those posts I'm quoting are me pointing out that the interpretation you had of Mac's posts was not a reasonable one.

Where have you referenced me in the three posts you made in reply to MacDougall. Totally confused by what you're saying here.

I am validating/clarifying thoughts of MacDougall that appear to either be lost on you or that you seem to be deliberately avoiding, something I feel like you know only to well. Your 'confusion' does nothing to make me feel better.

How about, instead of being totally confused, you actually just answer the questions asked of you? WHY DOES MACS BEHAVIOUR AROUND THE LORAB STUFF MAKE HIM LOOK LESS GREEN TO YOU????

This is now the third time I've asked you this. The last two times, you've decided to respond to.... wait for it.... semantic points instead of the question I actually asked.

Plus, my feelings on Mac have shifted. I don't have any active suspicion of him any more up to where I've read. I don't agree with him about the rico/zebra fight being staged. If they were both to be bad, I'd guess that would mean two baddie teams.

Mac, if you could choose one person to be immediately lynched at this moment, who would be your choice?

Ricochet wrote:Three of Golden's recent posts are validating or clarifying MacDougall's thoughts. I mean, what in the name of God.

If I think you are misrepresenting someone, anyone, I am going to give my own interpretation of that. I did the same with LoRabs thoughts. I am not sure if this is a habit of yours, but you have been reaching for interpretations of peoples posts and then treating your own interpretations as gospel, and I am going to point out where your interpretations seem to me disingenuous.

As far as I've seen, you still haven't answered to me why you felt Mac's behaviour around the LoRab stuff made him look less green to you. Some of those posts I'm quoting are me pointing out that the interpretation you had of Mac's posts was not a reasonable one.

MacDougall wrote:I don't recall you being this immediately adversarial in Dune

My recollection might be skewed by the fact she was adversarial towards me, but I feel as though zebra was fairly immediately adversarial in Dune. You might recall I was calling her out on day one for something like her second post appearing to be a massive overreaction.

MacDougall wrote:I am not a role I previously played before. I assumed that was obvious.

It was.

Ricochet wrote:"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.

No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

Speaking of which, you didn't answer if you are a role you've previously played before. 'cause that would mean either Duncan or, y'kno, that bad guy I caught bare-handed. I don't think Han Solo was implemented so quickly into these Champies. What were you in World Reborn?

My green light on you is losing its intensity, tbh.

This may be the point where Rico went off the deep end in this game forever.

It's also as far as I've been able to catch up before work.

MacDougall wrote:Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I didn't read it the same way you did. My first interpretation of LoRab's theory was 'the 30 roles are one winning role from each player playing this game' but not that each player would have the same role they had before. Your proposed sentence does not capture the same thing.

But I also do think you made your interpretation clear the first time, and it was a reasonable one.

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

It was LoRabs theory.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:It appears to me that the person who had my role the first time around isn't even playing this game, if that is of any use.

I think anyone who has hosted this year has the best insight into how hosts may have selected the roles, although to be sure it is very little insight. I've been waiting to see how Epi votes, since he hosted many of these games.

Not sure what role you are referencing.

I didn't host any game this year. I will be making my disastrous debut later this year.

I'd hope not, because I'm not trying to out myself. I'm just trying to say any theory about all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game seems flawed, to me, because I think my role was originally played by someone who isn't playing.

It appears to me that the person who had my role the first time around isn't even playing this game, if that is of any use.

I think anyone who has hosted this year has the best insight into how hosts may have selected the roles, although to be sure it is very little insight. I've been waiting to see how Epi votes, since he hosted many of these games.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:State your case, MM.

Ezekiel is probably dead.

Ezekiel will L I V E E T E R N A L L Y

Elohcin wrote:haha, that wasn't Epi, sorry DH.. You're not stupid.

Thank goodness it wasn't Epi, otherwise you'd have to ask why he can't tell Simon and Abigail apart.

Black Rock wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

I only agree to this plan if Metalmarsh is included.

Or we could just lynch Metalmarsh and be done with it.

What's a Syndicate game if I'm not lynched Day 1 and you aren't killed Night 1?

Linki: Not really. His statement was accurate, since no other Game of Champions Night 0 has been more lame than this one.

I was hoping if you were lynched day 1 I might survive night 1.

What about night zero?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

I only agree to this plan if Metalmarsh is included.

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'll also add that Rico has my attention, not sure what to think of him so far but he's a bit pingy with the antics so far.

Why else wouldn't he have your attention? He's practically on a chainsaw juggling tricycles.

I bet he has a saw butt.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

This is what is called meta.

What Draconus really said is, the behaviour people are finding suspicious conforms to LoRab's civilian meta, so isn't inherently suspicious. Don't you think that is a valid point? Or do you think judging people based on their meta is as a rule not helpful because people are able to reproduce their civilian meta when bad?

I don't think it's that much of a valid point, given the person we're talking about - but I'm not particularly interested in exploring this subject right now.

Not sure I fully understand your second question, but I can acknowledge a player's meta, but when that meta is implacable, what previously confirmed the player as genuinely civilian could easily be a easy facade to use when baddie. So meta becomes a weak analytical weapon.

I'm not saying meta is necessarily a great analytical weapon. But you aren't disagreeing with Draconus' point because you find it weak. You are calling Draconus bad for pointing out LoRab's civilian meta (as he knows it). I don't understand or see your thought process on that at all.

Let me put it another way. The way I see your posts is this. You agree with (or do not directly refute) Draconus' assertion that LoRab is conforming to her civ meta. But you think either LoRab, or Draconus, or both could be bad because 'just because LoRab reproduces her civ meta does not mean she is civ'. How does this make sense? The same could be said of any person.

Why do you find Draconus bad for stating his perspective of LoRab's meta? What is suspicious or pingworthy about that?

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

This is what is called meta.

What Draconus really said is, the behaviour people are finding suspicious conforms to LoRab's civilian meta, so isn't inherently suspicious. Don't you think that is a valid point? Or do you think judging people based on their meta is as a rule not helpful because people are able to reproduce their civilian meta when bad?

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:@llama - you should look up the definition of win win.

Extract.

Spoiler: show

win-win (wĭn′wĭn′)
adj.
Of or being a situation in which the outcome benefits each of two often opposing groups: a win-win proposition for the buyer and the seller.
win′-win′ n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
win-win
adj
1. guaranteeing a favourable outcome for everyone involved: a win-win situation for NATO.
[C20: modelled on no-win]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Translations-----------------------Select a language:
win-win (win win) adjective
that both sides will benefit from it: a win-win situation.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary © 2006-2013 K Dictionaries Ltd.


Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster's page for free fun content.

Well, that's blatantly wrong. Dictionary makers have gotten sloppy.

That's because virtually all English dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, defining words as they are commonly used rather than how they are "properly" used.

No, really this post (summarising many dictionaries) is saying how the term is correctly used. Not that I have any problem with the evolution of phrases to mean multiple things, but win-win has always been about both sides winning... not one person winning in any event.

Long Con wrote:These links are audio recordings, right? Vocaroo? Are they serious, in-game content, or jokes?

All of them so far have been fully on topic.

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I was ready to open all of these up and hate them, but I ended up liking them.

Maybe the same thing will happen when you record yourself.

Worst idea ever.

Best idea ever. I did like it. It reminded me slightly of GLADOS from Portal, which is at once both unnerving but also awesome.

linki @DH - well, I dunno, I always feel like sometimes people don't see my suspicions because I don't explain them well. But you explained your bit of it well.

@DH - the answer to your question is that I try and maintain a duality about what could be going on so that I don't close my mind. Sure, I may suspect mac, but if he is town (as I noted in that post) I know he is truthful when he says he has good day one instincts. It's not useful for me to shut out the concept of Mac being good and to think about the implications of that, just because I have a suspicion of him.

Is your conclusion on rico that you agree with my suspicion, or just that you can explain why I do better than me?

@llama - you should look up the definition of win win.

Extract.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:Lol @ Dharma using Rico's patent spoof of rainbow lists as the example for why we should hate on rainbow lists.

@DH - you don't have to find them effective. People will continue to use them who find them useful and you can continue to ignore them. It's kind of a win win.

Was it a spoof? I could barely tell. It hit on several of the problems I have with rainbow lists regardless.

Also, I would argue the definition of a win win.

No it didn't address the problems you have with rainbow lists. Because

1) People taking the list seriously don't put people in red 'arbitrarily', as you claim. Rico did, with what is clearly a very different rainbow list from any ever.
2) Rico barely put anyone in green or blue, but obviously the fact he put a couple of people in green was the SOLE piece of value in that post. He was saying that he didn't suspect a couple of people. He could have done it a lot more efficiently, but why is it not of value to you who people do NOT suspect. Do you think it is impossible to find baddies based on links in the thread? Saying you don't find someone suspicious is often as helpful as saying you do. If you don't want people spending energy telling you who they don't suspect, that is not an issue with rainbow lists... its done both in and outside of them.

You have an opinion on them, and thats fine, you don't have to use them. To dismiss them as meaningless and stupid in every single game you play that they happen in is just... bloating your post count.

Of the two with most heat right now (RadicalFuzz and LoRab) I'd be far more likely to vote LoRab.

The suspicion on RadicalFuzz reminds me of a standard suspicion of sig. Or a little bit of how people thought I was bad because I tried something different in recruitment. I don't see where the baddie motives are for claiming that you are going to play a different style this early in the game, for a couple of reasons 1) drawing attention to a change in play style is hardly helpful - I'd think a baddie would more likely want to avoid drawing attention to it... and 2) because I don't see it as likely that he is paranoid enough about how different his baddie meta looks that he would need to protect it in advance.

JJJ's quote 2 on LoRab - that is standard for all LoRab metas and she would say it either way. She isn't easy to read. I'd like to know more about why you and Mac feel the other two read as constructed, because they don't deeply to me. But I find LoRab to be good at hiding her affiliation, and so she could be bad. If I was to vote LoRab, it would be more because I trust the instincts of both of those people who have called her out (should they be town) and not based on my own read.

I'm more suspicious of two people who don't have a lot of heat right now.

My eye is more on Rico and Mac at this point. Rico minimises the value of the poll without any evidence beyond his own opinion that he has presented, but also claims certain options benefit him. He claims he thinks it has no value, but he immediately questions me for apparently being so sure that roles are imported wholesale, as though there could be some kind of baddie motive for that in a poll he apparently doesn't think has any meaning. His mindset just doesn't add up, to me, I don't know what his perspective is. He is drawing a lot of attention to himself with apparent nonsense/jokes (like that rainbow list). Maybe his agenda is just to have fun and be a little zany, in which case success. But I'm wary of the things that seem to me to be contradictions.

Mac, has felt more like town Mac for me except that one trap he put me in which reminded me much more of TH where he liked to try to talk people into traps. I don't remember him doing that when civ, and I don't like it from either player. I might have felt a little better if he'd taken the time to explain where his mindset was on that after I called him out on it. But I feel much more wary of Rico at this point.

Lol @ Dharma using Rico's patent spoof of rainbow lists as the example for why we should hate on rainbow lists.

@DH - you don't have to find them effective. People will continue to use them who find them useful and you can continue to ignore them. It's kind of a win win.

I was going to be a smart ass because lol Pilate

@Wilgy - vote for Fuzz, or vote for Watari?

Hmm, yeah I assumed that only one was included, but I see from the poll title it is ambiguous and could be more than one.

Whatever, I'm just using the tools I have available to do what I can to make the best choice. Right now I'm wondering if the best tool I have is actually listening to DH.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:
@HOSTS - does any player have any particular potential benefit from any of the poll options getting more votes than the others?

And you would expect an answer to this...why?

Hope?

Ricochet wrote:I agree with Mac that this poll doesn't seem a big deal, nor is deciding upon an option.

OK, well since in your world taking a point of view = 'being so sure'

What makes you so sure in your judgment that the poll doesn't 'seem' to be a big deal? What is it about the poll that makes it seem unimportant? Why is deciding upon an option so easy for you? It also seemed easy for DH, but then you picked different options...

@HOSTS - does any player have any particular potential benefit from any of the poll options getting more votes than the others?

linki @Mac - call it day one magic, then, eh. I don't find that post you made about me 'knowing LoRab is good' to have any frame of reference in Dune or Star Wars. You knew full well that isn't what I said or meant, and it certainly wasn't a ping. It was just you setting a trap.

MacDougall wrote:The trick to day 1 is... don't read the posts, read the tone. Lorab especially reads tone bad. I can feel the backspaces she wrote as she second guessed her way into a fumbly first post. She bad, def bad.

Linki: I also analysed those options in Star Wars. I got no beef with you analysing the options, but you dived in so dramatically and are taking it so seriously. It's hard to say where my magical day 1 pings come from, but they are definitely magical.

I don't really care where they come from. I have them too, and I think my day zero, day one gut is right a lot more often than probability should let it be. I agree with tone reading, especially in early game, as being a very successful catching ground for baddies, and I always have. I'm just saying your magical radar is wrong in this game, since you have named two suspects and at least 50% of them are town (specifically, me).

If you go doing what you like to do and be all twisty turny... such as knowing you named me as a suspect, but pretending I must have info on LoRab when I say I know you are wrong... that bothers me. It's manipulative, and reminds me more of your TH play than either Dune or Star Wars.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:Well, the great and mighty day one scum radar of Mac has failed you in this game.

So you know for a fact that Lorab is good then?

Well, the great and mighty day one scum radar of Mac has failed you in this game.

MacDougall wrote:Making a big point over a bunch of nothing = u bad.

Saying day zero polls are a bunch of nothing = you bad (ok, maybe not, but I really don't like the sentiment).

How much more content did I post about the day zero poll in Star Wars, Mac? I analysed those options good. Were you right about me being bad there?

I have fewer pet hates then people treating day zero/night zero polls as useless. In my games, they are always meaningful and solvable, and I treat them as such in anyone elses game. So many people dismissing it as unsolvable bothers me.

I don't know anything, but it is the only information available to me that could assist in making a decision. If all the roles have changed, then answering this poll correctly is a shot in the dark.

OK, here's what I got.

Xander and Watari both appear to rely on another role from their own game being in the game. In Xander's case, the role seems almost entirely pointless and unable to adapt to this game. Watari I could see being adapted, and its also kind of cool so I could see it being used.

Duncan Idaho is decent, but relatively normal. There are other more interesting roles from Dune I think would be more likely to be included. Finn McMissile also seems like a relatively normal role, although in a game that seems relatively traditional all up. So Finn is a decent option.

On the other hand, the role of Ezekiel seems seriously epic, but in a game where there are lots of unusual and interesting roles to choose from. But I think Ezekiel stands out to me the most, so thats the way I'm going.