The Syndicate

Luke you aren't meant to celebrate when your team lose a player.

Dat lynch do.

Good point Mattology. Reckon Zebs came back scum and Golden is a scumbud? Nice bruva.

Sig you should post more. It really helps the game.

It must be hard being scum in two games.

S~V~S wrote:
sig wrote:Right know I'm civ leaning on Mac earlier I was suspicious of him. I do stand by my thoughts on Golden though.
There is one sentence between these thoughts; you changed your mind while writing this paragraph?

sig wrote:It could be, but it could also not be. It really depends on how I use it.

Know really can't do much to defend myself at this point, as there isn't much to go on but I'm slightly suspicious of Golden and Mac. Zebra 2.0 is leaning civ.

I don't find bea's self lynch strange but I believe her excuse. Know Floyd I'm more suspicious of I don't like his explanation for his vote

I'm also reading Mac as civ lean right know. I've liked his response to me and his suspicion of me seems genuine.

He must be lynched for this imo.

Not saying you are, saying you could be, and it would be of an unnamed low content player at this stage. It's not a major ping. Just caught my eye.

TheFloyd73 wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
TheFloyd73 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Bea and Floyd please explain the thought process behind swooping in at the last second and self voting.
I had trouble deciding on someone to vote for and, with little time remaining, I figured I might as well vote for myself, to keep myself as someone who is contributing
This makes so little sense that it actually makes anti-sense.

linki -
Lemme put it like this:

You rock up at an election, where the voting ends in one minute. You have little idea on the candidates' promises, and you panic. You know a couple of candidates will get a majority of the votes, but you find that voting for one of them will lead to something bad (in this case, lynching a civillal). You spot a name you're vaguely familiar with, who you're almost certain won't be voted on. You think, what the heck?

In other words, what everyone does at the Australian voting ballots.

Floyd scumslipped about six times just like this in the TH game so I am not doubting that this is another one.

Golden wrote:
Matt F wrote:
Golden wrote:The obvious answer is sig.

The obvious question is... is it too obvious?
What do you think of Drac and Turnip? Just like, in general and stuff.
Yesterday, I thought TH would be a good candidate for zebra's teammate. I haven't gone back to reexamine what I would think knowing zebra was good, but my first thought was that it made me feel better about him.

Drac the omniscient is one of my four major suspects right now - Drac, sig, bea, floyd.

We share reads on every one of them.

a2thezebra wrote:The baddies are going to sit back, relax, and watch the civvies bicker about which one of them is bad. Watch the lurkers, folks. Watch the lurkers closely. There's less to go on with the lurkers than the mega-posters for a reason. The lurkers know this. Watch them. Do not dare forget they are still alive.

While I agree with the sentiment this post could have the motivation of setting up a mislynch. Intriguing post.

sig wrote:Also quick note zebra I did read your post, I just liked Golden's reasoning more so then yours. Sorry if you think I wasn't reading your posts.

I did too Zebra. At length. I doubt anybody read your posts as carefully as I did including Golden. I still thought his points were quite poignant. In light of your lynch they clearly were misinterpreted. I do think there are many town players in this game that did not read your posts, and many that did not read any posts in general.

I would be thrilled with a Floyd or Sig lynch today.

The dead have risen. Run for your lives!

Bea and Floyd please explain the thought process behind swooping in at the last second and self voting.

Ugh apologies Zebra.

Golden wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Golden wrote:What side did I take in what conflict that didn't exist?
The conflict that didn't exist was me setting up a potential mislynch for you and BR, as if I was trying to hide the fact that I was suspicious of you and be coy about it the same way you were with Mac. The side you took was that I had no decent argument.

linki - WOW, Floyd.

linki@Mac - I'll cover this in my next post.
@Mac - you eloquently said in one post what I've been trying to express for the entire phase.

@SVS - indeed. Could well indicate that the vote leaders are actually both civ and there is no-one in need of a save.

As I've said, I could be wrong about zebra. I think the case is compelling, but it's still a day one case. But I think the outcome this poll is potentially very valuable going forward, whatever the outcome.

Floyd self voting intrigues me. That's a very unusual move for a second gamer. Bea has been pinging me a bit too and then they both so that. I could easily see Bea having decided that as the best course of action and then telling him to do it too in btsc.

So we have a coin flip lynch on day 1?

Interesting.

Okay.

I understand. Zebra you need to use less words to convey your point and particularly adjectives and adverbs.

Thank you for taking the time to do that. I strongly disagree with your read of Golden's motivation.

You accuse him of attempting to set up a future mislynch and I can see that as a possibility based on his first posts on the subject but that is quite an assumption to make when his points could quite easily also be at face value.

You are both capable of cancelling one anothers points out by claiming misrepresentation. You are both interpreting the hidden meaning behind the other's posts. You both may be right or wrong. Here are the facts.

He has maintained composure. You have not. You have had difficulty framing your opinion into readable text, he has not. You have resorted to accusing people of not reading yur posts when the actual fact is that your point is difficult to understand. Thus discrediting my read by virtue of allegedly having not even read your posts, which is untrue.

The fact that your response to his accusation was to fire up a case that you couldn't communicate effectively, when you are genuinely a good communicator as evidenced by your great work in the TH game, is an indication that you do not have conviction in what you are saying. This would make your case on him a lie. And lying in this case would be a strong anti town tell.

a2thezebra wrote:
MacDougall wrote: 3. I don't see any of this. What do you mean by misrepresented you? What did he do that was hypocritical? I want to help the civ in you survive but you aren't making sense.
You not already having at least an inkling of an answer to these questions proves to me that you simply have not read any of what I had to say. If you are civ Mac, then I am hurt. So hurt. I am in the process of restating my case against Golden but I see you would rather vote for me before I have time to publish it. Excellent scumhunting, folks.

No it proves that you have failed to convey what you claim you intended to.

I would encourage a Zebra lynch. Golden is right.

I really can't make any more posts. This is it.

Zebra I have read all your posts. I do not get it.

1. It's not that I just now get it. I like to reaffirm facts when making reads for the benefit of those reading them.

2. That does appear to be the case.

3. I don't see any of this. What do you mean by misrepresented you? What did he do that was hypocritical? I want to help the civ in you survive but you aren't making sense.

4. What exactly are you asking?

5. I don't feel like Golden was being disingenous. He was commenting on the major topic of the thread at the time. What would have had him do instead? I feel like it is more opportunistic for someone to question a logical townie behaviour, which is what you did.

6. I started the read of the interractions the page after your initial post on a post which snipped your post and didn't have the mention of Golden in it. Apologies.

7. I don't mind what you do or how you do it. I just want you to resummarise your defense and your case against Golden.

Draconus voting sig seems like a scum voting scum on day 1 for later gain.

I have to go for a while. Back later.

I also don't like Draconus's recent posts simply because they read as effort posts.

If I could encourage votes they would go to sig. Golden, Zebra your squabble pales in comparison to what I am seeing there. Can you please put down your guns and observe his posts.

sig wrote:I was very confident of placing a lynch on zebra, however, after some review I'm not so sure about her. This is based around a few things.
Golden statement which others have pointed out and this by Mac.
quote="MacDougall"]Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Do you maintain that stance now?

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.

This post just rubs be the wrong way, I don't like that Mac is agreeing with Golden about Zebra. Know quick question for those who have played with Zebra before. IS she likely to defend a fellow teammate in the manner she did on day 1, re the post I mentioned earlier with her defending Mac's vote.

Zebra is still my top read, but I would like peoples opinion on this before I vote. Since this seems like a slightly sloppy think for a mafia member to do, and as I said I don't like the fact golden seems to be backing away from his case on Zebra.[/quote]

My reasoned view on the situation rubs you the wrong way?

You simply don't like that I agree yet you make absolutely no effort to comment on what I am agreeing with.

Golden does not appear to be backing down either where did you get that idea?

Your question of whether Zebra would defend scum as scum is highly interesting. Sounds like a scum preparing to bus and chaining my lynch to it. I would assume civ Sig is smarter than this.

a2thezebra wrote:Another thing.

MacDougall wrote:
Golden wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Golden wrote:When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.
This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.
I'm very ok with how good-looking that statement is. I know you won't be convincing anyone who knows me well. My meta is what it is.
Pointing out that you are actively copying your meta is not a valid defence.
While initially I responded well to this post of yours, in hindsight of how easily you changed your mind after taking a closer look at what Golden had to say, but not moi, it strikes me as a bit strange given that it's basically echoing what I said before here:

a2thezebra wrote:I see you're aware of your meta. When I'm scum, I never attempt to use my meta to my advantage.
And again here:

a2thezebra wrote:
Golden wrote:When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.
This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.
To which you immediately responded with:
MacDougall wrote:Yak yak yak
I'm not sure if I should feel more confident about being blatantly ignored/dismissed by a town or the likelihood of you being scum trying to get others to ignore me. So, since you wanted me to ask you earlier, are you bad, Mac?

Nope.

Also I am a fair person. If Golden is making irrelevant posts to lend himself credibility I will point it out. At the point I posted the yak yak yak thing I was tired and over the squabble with a civ v civ read but I got a second wind and decided to read it with clean eyes afterwards.

Making irrelevant posts to lend yourself credibility doesn't scum ping me.

Okay Zebs I can see that you did. Look I am struggling to comprehend your reaction because it reads like a rage out wall of text. Could you please try explaining your case for us plebs in simpler terms?

a2thezebra wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?
Not quite. I was suggesting that he didn't actually find you suspicious but tried to make it appear as if you were to set up a potential mis(?)lynch for later.

MacDougall wrote:Do you maintain that stance now?
Yes.

MacDougall wrote:If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.
Here you go.
Golden wrote: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?

Golden wrote: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.
Now I understand why these posts didn't strike out as suspicious to anyone else, because I assume everyone else took Golden's inquiries here to what exactly you were doing as genuine. I simply do not.

MacDougall wrote:I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.
I disagree. There was not enough of a case to developed, so I think he backed out.

MacDougall wrote:I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.
I don't see how my back was up. I was honestly very baffled by Golden's reaction and saw no possible town motivation behind it, so I pounced at the opportunity to call out what I perceived to be a clearly disingenuous reaction to my suspicion. And that really hasn't changed even now, only now, as I've said before, I'm tired of the back-and-forth between us as I don't think it's going any where. I also fail to understand how you think that he was not guilty of what I pointed out, or how there were others to point at who were guilty of what I referenced. In my initial post I mentioned Golden, and, I quote, to a lesser extent BR. If there were others that I missed whose responses you felt appeared more disingenuous than theirs, by all means point them out to me.

MacDougall wrote:Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.
I really don't see it. If I could at least understand where you're coming from then I could probably give you a better defense, but, like with Golden's initial response and Eloh's echoing of it, I don't see how there is even a remotely decent case against me at all. And again, I also don't see how the issues I have with Golden are shared by virtually no one but myself.

Did you really mentiom Golden in your initial post on the subject?

a2thezebra wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?
Not quite. I was suggesting that he didn't actually find you suspicious but tried to make it appear as if you were to set up a potential mis(?)lynch for later.

MacDougall wrote:Do you maintain that stance now?
Yes.

MacDougall wrote:If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.
Here you go.
Golden wrote: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?

Golden wrote: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.
Now I understand why these posts didn't strike out as suspicious to anyone else, because I assume everyone else took Golden's inquiries here to what exactly you were doing as genuine. I simply do not.

MacDougall wrote:I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.
I disagree. There was not enough of a case to developed, so I think he backed out.

MacDougall wrote:I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.
I don't see how my back was up. I was honestly very baffled by Golden's reaction and saw no possible town motivation behind it, so I pounced at the opportunity to call out what I perceived to be a clearly disingenuous reaction to my suspicion. And that really hasn't changed even now, only now, as I've said before, I'm tired of the back-and-forth between us as I don't think it's going any where. I also fail to understand how you think that he was not guilty of what I pointed out, or how there were others to point at who were guilty of what I referenced. In my initial post I mentioned Golden, and, I quote, to a lesser extent BR. If there were others that I missed whose responses you felt appeared more disingenuous than theirs, by all means point them out to me.

MacDougall wrote:Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.
I really don't see it. If I could at least understand where you're coming from then I could probably give you a better defense, but, like with Golden's initial response and Eloh's echoing of it, I don't see how there is even a remotely decent case against me at all. And again, I also don't see how the issues I have with Golden are shared by virtually no one but myself.

Interesting.

So you are basing your aggressive rebuttal on the idea that Golden's initial posts around the policy lynch were not genuine.

Of course that's possible but his posts on the matter and all subsequent read logical and sensible. Your posts are hard to follow. Your thought lines are more difficult to comprehend to me.

What is the allusion you are drawing between Elohcin echoing and this situtation? You have lost me here.

I thoughy I framed my read of the play quite simply and you can't understand it? Can't or won't?

The fact is your initial post did not ping me. What has pinged me is your maintaining that it is a case against Golden when I feel a civ would not be pinged by him in this situation.

I have read the interractions. Your case is based on the idea that Golden was trying to set me up with a couple of soft posts and backed down when he couldn't put enough content into it. I think the very thing you are saying makes him look scum makes him look ok.

MacDougall wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I do think Zebra feels different when she is bad than she does here. And yeah, in the gave I referenced, I tunnelled hard on Golden and I was 100% wrong. So I am leery of my gut thought on him.

And what is bad about rereading?

Linki, I thought you gave me something to work with and i was disappointed, Mac. And he does not wear kilt, but my husband did.
You saw me post, got excited and thought I was giving you something to work with and was disappointed that I hadn't made a post with what you perceive as pressuring content. Is that right?

Nothing is wrong with rereading but contextually it felt like it was placed at the end of your post to reduce the validity of your post so that people wouldn't challenge it.

Welcome back SVS.

It is getting late so this will be my last post for some time.

So assuming your recent response is to this question raised may I ask that at what point did you see me post? Did you notice my post in the forums index as most recently posted or are you just saying you got excited seeing that I was engaging you while you were reading the thread?

FZ. wrote:You know what? I think the four of us should shut up now, and let some other people speak their mind and lead things. I hate that everyone comes late and just drops a vote.

I'm out

You do have a better footing to engage the situation than somebody coming in off a cold read of the thread so it would be your civ duty to assist here FZ. I think we have both already tread ground that others would be forced to repeat.

FZ. wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Do you maintain that stance now?

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.
Are you genuinely changing your mind, or are you doing it because he said there has to be a baddie in those claiming this is a civ on civ, but it probably isn't me?

No I must admit he was right when he said that in situations like this people can be blinded by strongly worded posts into thinking the reactor must be a civ. I analysed the post content more and saw a possible scum. Zebras response to me will be telling. I stated I feel differently about who a Zebra scum flip here would make look scum and you are at the bottom of that list.

a2thezebra wrote:I'm a she. I am trans and recently came out to the web.

Apologies will refer to you via correct pronoun now on.

Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Do you maintain that stance now?

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.

70 to 75 percent of day one overreactions are bad?

Dude that is utterly inescapably preposterous. For a start define overreaction. Then tell me that you as a townie would not do that if you were aggressively confronted.

I think day 1 UNDERREACTIONS are more of a tell but in both cases it is entirely dependent on the personality of the person you confront. And day 1 lynch wagons are such a crapshoot that a scum player is far more likely to ignore or brush aside speculation to not draw attention to it.

What you have done is give across a solid town read to me. If at any stage in the game Zebra flips scum I would look at players who have posted during this saga but not touched on this subject as teammies.

I would be ok with putting your scumdar to the test here if not for two things. In the one game I have played with you your scumdar was not exactly amazing. Not to say it is always bad but my experience suggests you pick up a scent and push and push. You are adept at getting your targets lynched. Second thing is that I quite like Zebra as a contributer and I think through volume a player like Zebra is either going to be a fantastic town contributer here or will eventually expose himself through the voluminous web of lies a player replicating his meta will be forced to concoct

Now as I have a good town read on you I humbly request you take a look at some other players and in particular those who have a moderate to lurky post volume to their meta because players like that are far harder to lynch late game due to having to leave less crumbs.

FZ. wrote:I'm getting tired of the Golden/zebra fight. I'm pretty sure I'm looking at a civ Golden, but I don't agree with him. I'm also a lot more inclined to call zebra a civ than a baddie.

I want to discuss Eloh. What do people think of her bandwagon on the "overreaction" of zebra?
I think my vote might go there, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

The post that pinged you also pinged me.

Golden wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Golden wrote:When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.
This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.
I'm very ok with how good-looking that statement is. I know you won't be convincing anyone who knows me well. My meta is what it is.

Pointing out that you are actively copying your meta is not a valid defence.

Sorsha wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.
Ping
That's interesting. Expand?
Valid

Fluff posts talking about how you have nothing to go by on day 1 is a scumtell.

Adding that you then actually have a little ping on two players is worse. A little ping on day 1 should be enough to encourage a townie to look deeper. Here it appears to be an attempt to feign town play.

Mild ping.
I will look deeper when I have time to. I'm at work now so I'm just pointing out what I see as I go. I can't make big posts on my phone very easy... Not that it would be a big post anyway, since it's just a small ping but thumb typing sucks for more than a few lines.

Yak yak yak

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.
Ping
That's interesting. Expand?

Fluff posts talking about how you have nothing to go by on day 1 is a scumtell.

Adding that you then actually have a little ping on two players is worse. A little ping on day 1 should be enough to encourage a townie to look deeper. Here it appears to be an attempt to feign town play.

Mild ping.

Oh oh ask me ask me.

Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.

Ping

Golden v Zebra looks like civ v civ to me. The aggression each of them is reacting with and the lengthy diatribes don't look day 1 scum to me. Day 1 scum would be more likely to softly dismiss cases in hopes of not making a scene. This is anxious cix behavior on both parts. I would humbly request you both take time ignoring each other's presence for at least 12 hours just to let the info settle in your minds and put that enthusiasm to use elsewhere in the game. Pretty please.

S~V~S wrote:I do think Zebra feels different when she is bad than she does here. And yeah, in the gave I referenced, I tunnelled hard on Golden and I was 100% wrong. So I am leery of my gut thought on him.

And what is bad about rereading?

Linki, I thought you gave me something to work with and i was disappointed, Mac. And he does not wear kilt, but my husband did.

You saw me post, got excited and thought I was giving you something to work with and was disappointed that I hadn't made a post with what you perceive as pressuring content. Is that right?

Nothing is wrong with rereading but contextually it felt like it was placed at the end of your post to reduce the validity of your post so that people wouldn't challenge it.

S~V~S wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
MacDougall wrote:SVS is scum. Bank on that.

I am on vacation on my phone so making huge cases is not really fun so imagine there are lots of quotes here and a great case and then vote.

Also I see that my policy lynch idea generated some fab discussion so I feel justified.
Awesome. Drop that nugget on the thread and say that you are unable to justify

Pull those quotes or gtfo. I will be happy to refute anything you bring since i am not bad.
How do you sleep at nighy lying through your teeth like that?
I sleep super fine. Again, bring the quotes. I saw you posted and i was all excited, but all it was was more hyperbole.

Give me something to work with. And an FYI, my Dad is actual Clan MacDougall.

How is what I said hyperbole? Why were you excited about me posting? That's cool bout yo dad. Does he wear a kilt?

S~V~S wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.
This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."
Then vote for me. I just told the truth. I don't remember anyone ever using a "policy" lynch. I still don't think following a "policy" lynch is a good idea. also, oh my goodness, BR used an emot. Would have been better if I hid behind a

Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.
Like I said, I don't think following a policy lynch is a good idea either. Your tone just stood out to me. What does the shrug mean BR? What does it mean?!
What would you have done had she used the bigger shrug ?

So far I am seeing Zebra as civ; it's been a while since i played with her, but she had a slicker feel when she was bad, not unlike boo, and i am not seeing that at all here. My sureness about Golden in Recruitment (I was positive he was on the other baddie team in that game) has made me leery of my gut on him. I do agree that sig is pretty siglike, although I don't necessarily agree with the opinions of any of these people.

I need to reread from the beginning, I think, in order to have a better grip on everyone else. It feels like a lot of people are not posting.

Here is a quote. Look at what you have posted.

1. A slicker feel when she was bad? I would say this if I was bad and trying to mingle.
2. Leery of gut.
3. But don't hang me on my suspicions please. I need to re-read the thread first.

Go on then. Re-read the thread and we shall continue this topic afterwards.

S~V~S wrote:
MacDougall wrote:SVS is scum. Bank on that.

I am on vacation on my phone so making huge cases is not really fun so imagine there are lots of quotes here and a great case and then vote.

Also I see that my policy lynch idea generated some fab discussion so I feel justified.
Awesome. Drop that nugget on the thread and say that you are unable to justify

Pull those quotes or gtfo. I will be happy to refute anything you bring since i am not bad.

How do you sleep at nighy lying through your teeth like that?

bea wrote:Ugh. Got called into work. I will try to look at stuff tonight/tomorrow morning, but I have to close then open. Most people seem like themselves and I'm not getting much in terms of vibes. Per normal more who I feel good about atm rather than bad.

In general, I'm not a super fan of the idea of policy lynches. Not sure I understand like at all how lynching someone based on playtime alone even on day 1 is better than random.

Bea my sweet cherub. You may disagree ethically but surely the simple idea of random lynching a potentially disruptive townie who may be scum is beneficial to lynching a random. Is that so hard to rationalise?

I think there has been enough discussion on the subject for the logical validation of the idea to have no question about it. There are arguments for it but disputing the logic and reason of it at this juncture is suspicious.

SVS is scum. Bank on that.

I am on vacation on my phone so making huge cases is not really fun so imagine there are lots of quotes here and a great case and then vote.

Also I see that my policy lynch idea generated some fab discussion so I feel justified.

I believe that Golden is not part of a network of united evil you guys and I will play as such until such time as he loses my trust.

FZ though. The guy is pure evil. I insist he be held down and have clamps tightened to his nips and be tickled with feathers while being spanked lightly by a raincoat wearing Serbian aristocrat.

You guys are making me feel bad.

FZ. wrote:Matt, I really wish you hadn't done that. People play differently and you can't let them get to you.

And to answer Mac's question, if I had no ping whatsoever (which I find hard to believe), I would always vote a low poster who didn't have a real life reason for it over someone who is doing their best at playing the game no matter how frustrated they might make me. No brainer for me.

Would you vote a self voter over a low poster?

I can confirm water was a choice.

Vompatti kicks all kinds of ass. I would never policy lynch him. He brings amusement value to the game.

Search found 220 matches