The Syndicate

Enrique wrote:MM, I don't know what's the deal with Glorf, but leave me out of it. Whatever game he's trying to play, it has nothing to do with me.

Mac, can you name 3 players that you don't think are scum, or at least not yet?

Russtifinko wrote:Hey all. Voting now as I will be traveling tomorrow and really don't want to miss it again.

I hate to admit this, but I'm not really caught up at all. Seattle has been fun but I've had no down time whatsoever. Voting bananananananana because their name makes me laugh. Maybe it's a cover for evil? /sarc

I do plan to be fully involved after the thanksgiving break. Sorry once again

MovingPictures07 wrote:So I'll be around for a few hours before EoD tomorrow, but I may pop on here tonight making some drunk posts (going out with some fellow accounting and finance PhDs).

Doubt I'll actually read until tomorrow (still need to properly catch up and respond since I've been busy with work and hanging out with the wife), but I'll possibly be around to drunk mafia in real time with whoever is here.

sig wrote:I'm glad mafia team 1 finally made it.

Luke you appear out of nowhere and vote for Enrique? I could go for a Luke vote today because of this. I'm thinking about Enrique some more I might be tunneling on him ever so slightly.
Any theories for why Dragon was killed?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:With Bass flipping civ , he's coming off my new list.

1) bcornett24 - I don't like his vote from yesterday, as I've discussed already.
2) MacDougall
3) BANANA - nowhere
4) *Bubbles - also nowhere
5) MovingPictures07 - I agree with him that the quiet folks should speak up and unlurk, but I still don't like his response to my Day 1 vote.
6) zebra - where'd she go? Only one post in the last 45 hours.

*New addition to my list.

Russtifinko wrote:Ah shit, sorry everyone.

I was out and about in Seattle all day and never got a chance to vote. Still thought I had time now, but the time difference got me :-(

Enrique wrote:Oh so Mac voted for me. That's what the post was about.

Alright so hopefully I'll live long enough to get an explanation.

linki- whats the deal with u. I didn't realize this was happening at all from your limericks.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I changed my mind Mac. Do you have a problem with that?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Here are my top suspects going into Day 2 (in no particular order) and why:

1) MovingPictures07 - As I stated before, I don't like his comment about the timing of my Day 1 vote.

2) Bass_the_Clever - He said it takes him a while to get a grip on my alignment. That doesn't line up at all with our previous games' interactions.

3) MacDougall - This one isn't strong, but he was pretty carefree before I voted for him on Day 1, and got serious after I voted for him.

4) Nanana_Banana - He's done nothing but visit Tattooine.

5) Roxy - I agree with zebra about Roxy's vote (but not about Dom's). She offered a little disclaimer that Matt looked mildly suspicious for his Day 0 vote, and no such additionaly comments about any other player she talked about, yet coincidentally random'd on him Day 1.

6) a2thezebra - she is trying too hard and posting too much and is bad.

Did you not see my response?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Spoiler: show

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Here is where zebra brought it up the first time, directly after I placed my vote.

Here is where zebra brought it back up for discussion, about 12 hours or so later.

Golden and MP chimed in immediately with regards to my vote in response to zebra's comment. MacDougall did too, but he was the victim, and this wasn't his first mention either.

Golden - Well Golden had one post in between when the vote happened and when zebra recently brought it up. Also his response read sincere to me.

MP - On the other hand, MP had 7 posts after it happened and before zebra brought it up. Not only that, but this was MP's response. He didn't comment on it before (not until zebra brought it up saying she was bothered by it). MP agreed he was also bothered by it, though admitted to not knowing how to handle it. But he also awkwardly used the word "also" twice at the very beginning of this post. It looks like sentence restructuring, meaning MP was trying to pick his words.

Metalmarsh89, you're missing something important here that negates your analysis about my response to your vote. The reason I hadn't pushed you on your vote was because between the time of your vote and this post about an hour later, I had not posted.

Why is that latter post important? Because you said you made your vote for observance. I thus did not feel it necessary to press you on it at that time. But when zebra kept going on about your vote, I wanted to make it clear that I was also bothered by your quick vote.

As to my "also" wording, I made that post in a rush, and if anything that blunder should indicate I gave too little thought to my post wording, rather than the alternative.

If you still have concerns, let me know.

Seems I missed it.

My point still stands; if you saw the second post that you linked from me an hour after my vote, why did you come into the thread later and say you didn't like my vote?

As for the "also" thing, fair enough. It could go either way.

Linki: wtf

MacDougall wrote:Metalmarsh I appreciate your gesture
But I question your motive is pleasure
What better way is there
To not chase scum with vigour
Than to post hard to read literature

MP I must stop playing you see
Each limerick is a challenge to me
The same could be said
About me being dead
As a result of your read on me

Golden wrote:Yeah, I think you are barking up the wrong tree thinking MP is independent. I think he is pure civ, thats my gth.

I would guess its possible that Enrique's read on Russti is correct. I could see him being a jawa or raider, it does make sense of his stuff about Tattooine (particular when Enrique talks about the Hutt's being unlikely to be so obvious).

@MP - the most convincing points I've seen against you are that your caution against people seeing zebra as civ could come from genuine baddie motives of not wanting people to get comfortable with her, and also that points that you've made which suggest you've missed things in the thread can be easily explained away by the fact you don't have a lot of time and are skimming, but that could also be a convenient benefit of your rl situation.

I could see these things being a little reflective of the tactical you I remember from Roger Rabbit.

But I don't think they are. I get quite a genuine vibe from you.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:MPs wall of text is a carefully constructed magnum opus designed to ensure players constantly over-analyse Zebra's posts I reckon. It's a genius scum play because Zebra is eminently lynchable early game yet here has a load of town reads so by doing so Zebra is quite likely to start doing things to raise the ire of other vociferous players. What a smart way to knock off the dominant town player.

MP you devilish fiend.

linki: Yes. I had a leadership seminar at work that I couldn't sneakily play Mafia instead of attending.

This is the first post of yours, Mac, where I feel you're exhibiting tunneling.

Can you elaborate upon why you made that interpretation of my post?

What are your other thoughts? (although I may run into them as I catch up, so ignore if necessary)

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:It's only a terrible day if it ends badly.

Now its time for you to answer my questions overall, although you have begun to.

I didn't buy the Enrique suspicion on day one, but good catch on the misrepresentation. I don't mind people cutting bits our of quotes, but in this case the point of his response is to make your response look more minimal than it was.

Not so; every day that we fail to spur good discussion is a missed opportunity.

You're right though that we still could salvage something good out of the lynch mechanic, but I cannot believe how silent this thread went.

Let me know if you have further questions. Let's compare rainbows. I'm going to work on a new one now.

I'm glad you agree with me, since I feared I was letting tunnelling MP take over, but I really just cannot fathom how what Enrique did there was innocent. It seems like a calculated misrepresentation of my response to Russ in order to put more heat on me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

MacDougall wrote: I totally see what you're saying yo
Particularly how MP just let's it go
When you look closer you can see
How this tactic came out of BTSC
It just doesn't have any flow

I'm not convinced you actually believe this. Convince me.

Enrique wrote:Golden, the proposed BTSC pairing would be MP and Russ, not me. I think there's a lot pointing towards something going on there, but I'm also hesitant to say they're in a team because if they are then every move related to each other has been so sloppy. It shouldn't be this easy to draw connections, and they should know better than that. The way they interact with each other is so bizarre.

Enrique wrote:Okay, whether Russ is indie or bad I don't know. I don't think he's up to any good, regardless.

Russtifinko wrote:Ok, so for the srs bsns I promised:

1) Voting Tatooine. Less for movie reasons and more because if we want info about Jabba's plans and our operatives found his plans in his palace, it makes sense to think his palace is a good place to start the search.

2) DDL, I can't decide whether it's civ-ish or a baddie move to run through all the possible ways you'd catch a baddie based on the planet mechanic before we get a chance to actually use any of the methods. Consider me slightly pinged, there.

This is the controversial first post that got people talking about him in the first place. We've already gone over how problematic the first point is, but the first time this post was brought to attention was in regards to the second point. I'm talking about MP's infamous softball.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:2) DDL, I can't decide whether it's civ-ish or a baddie move to run through all the possible ways you'd catch a baddie based on the planet mechanic before we get a chance to actually use any of the methods. Consider me slightly pinged, there.

I want everyone to discuss this.

How are these two statements compatible?

Reading this whole thing over again FINALLY allowed me to understand what was happening Russ and Zebra both look at DDL thinking "well, that's one way to appear civvie, but revealing this in the thread only helps the baddies avoid falling into that pattern." See, my problem with this would be the fact that the knowledge would be more useful to the baddies in their BTSC than sharing it with the thread, but this is caked under so many layers of WIFOM I won't bother making and argument for or against it. It just is.

Then there's this:

zebra, I'm actually NOT pinged by DDL's logic here. He's right - if Tarkin chose one planet that gets blown up, the baddies know which one it is, so you can be damned sure they'll avoid voting last at that planet and only that planet. The rest of us will try not to vote last on EVERY planet. So if DDL hadn't said anything, we could've looked hindsight to see if anyone who normally votes late voted early on the day the planet blew up.

What pinged me was that he blew this angle by explaining it, and then went hyper-meta with it. And I'm also slightly pinged that you were so quick to join me here, but with a different point.

"That pings me, this pings me." This confuses me, because as far as I can tell, that's Zebra's main issue with DDL as well. Yet he's playing it as if sharing that opinion is a bad thing?

a2thezebra wrote:I've never played with him before (either that or it's been far too long) so does he normally make a suggestion and then proceed to shoot down that very suggestion in the same post?

Yeah, right? As far as I can tell, all Zebra did was agree with him. I don't think she had a problem with DDL's logic as much as she just didn't understand it, and that's very fair, but it was not her issue.

Russtifinko wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Russ looks very civ to me

MacDougall wrote: I think Russ, has by and large come across quite well, except for the point that bcornett swiftly pointed out, and that you did not point out despite apparently being onto him as scum.

It looks to me like you are scum and you are day 1 distancing a scum teammate. Your case on him has all the hallmarks of it. You have confirmation bias when it comes to his posts.

His (Enrique's) response to bcornett's Russtifinko suspicion looks genuine and should Russ be scum, he would not be in my opinion.

Mac, c'mon, man. You can't say twice that I look really civ to you and then give two examples where you'll be sure of someone's alignment if I flip bad. You're setting me up for one of your "I don't think he's bad but we should kill him anyway" lynches.

Russ really doesn't like having friends in this game. Pings all over the place, especially for the people vouching for him. Not a word on MP and his softball, however. (Keeping in mind this whole discussion came from the post MP first pointed out, but not from the "civ-ish or baddie vs slightly pinged" aspect that MP focused on the entire time).

Then this happens? His first ever mention of MP.

Russtifinko wrote:Late night at work and I have to Skype the fiancee about our Seattle trip that starts tomorrow. Sorry for the flyby vote.

Going with MP, because he's bad to the bone.

How's that for baddie distancing, Mac?

Huh? That's a nice WIFOM covered in sarcastic orange but I don't understand the point of this vote.

Russtifinko wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Late night at work and I have to Skype the fiancee about our Seattle trip that starts tomorrow. Sorry for the flyby vote.

Going with MP, because he's bad to the bone.

How's that for baddie distancing, Mac?

An elaboration when you have the opportunity would be nice, Russ.

Not much to it, really. You're a troublesome sort, and it's a Day 1 vote. I had like 3 minutes and didn't know if I'd be back before the deadline.

For what it's worth, Enrique looks worse than Matt to me. But if I'm being honest, that's probably almost entirely because he voted me and Matt didn't, so my thoughts there might not be worth much.

Linki: Sorry Matt!

"No reason!"

MovingPictures07 wrote:Oh, okay, fair enough I suppose. Let me know if you have any concerns that I can address.

"Fair enough!"

Wait, what? What the hell is this interaction? Am I missing something?

No, seriously. What? Everything about the way they play it off confuses me. "How's that for baddie distancing?" It's so in-your-face I almost have trouble believing it happened. I would have bought a scenario where Russ was trying to get MP's name linked to him, but then MP is just like "hmm, okay!" and I just have no idea of anything anymore.

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Zebra what the hell are you doing? You gave Golden and I shit for interacting with one another because it was distracting or whatever and now you are filling the thread with black or white reads on every player sometimes based on nothing at all. It's incredibly hypocritical.

Cry me a river and call me when you've read my posts. For the last time I wasn't giving you two shit for interacting with each other at all, I was giving you two shit because your conversation was getting worse and worse in regards to tunneling and bias-based content. I've seen conversations like those benefit scum in plenty of games; never have I seen scum benefit from someone posting their detailed reads. To call it hypocritical is further demonstrating how little you actually understand what I was in fact criticizing. Do you really think that I, Zebra, was boo-hooing earlier at the presence of content itself? Try again.

a2thezebra wrote:Is there a third option for who gives a shit? You guys are going back-and-forth about an issue that boils down to insignificant nonsense regardless of which one of you is right.

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Is there a third option for who gives a shit? You guys are going back-and-forth about an issue that boils down to insignificant nonsense regardless of which one of you is right.

How is exploring intention behind in thread play insignificant nonsense Zebra?

But the disagreement has no effect on the intention. The disagreement is about what a post was referring to, and either way you interpret it the intention is the same: undefined.

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Zebra what the hell are you doing? You gave Golden and I shit for interacting with one another because it was distracting or whatever and now you are filling the thread with black or white reads on every player sometimes based on nothing at all. It's incredibly hypocritical.

Cry me a river and call me when you've read my posts. For the last time I wasn't giving you two shit for interacting with each other at all, I was giving you two shit because your conversation was getting worse and worse in regards to tunneling and bias-based content. I've seen conversations like those benefit scum in plenty of games; never have I seen scum benefit from someone posting their detailed reads. To call it hypocritical is further demonstrating how little you actually understand what I was in fact criticizing. Do you really think that I, Zebra, was boo-hooing earlier at the presence of content itself? Try again.

Golden wrote:

Matt F wrote:Golden

Nothing sticks out really, but he seems more playful then usual so far. Typically at around this time, if civ, Golden is picking a fight with another civ. Why hasn't that happened yet Golden?

Thats kind of low. Often by this point I'm picking a fight with a baddie.

But, this is one of the most common and yet untrue accusations that gets levelled at me. If you looked back at the games I've played on this site, you'll see I've been lynched early several times as civ for not having 'picked a fight' yet - most notably in economics where I was lynched day one and then got to sub in as a baddie and clean everyone up. No early fights in Biblical where I was civ. But I did have early fights in Bullets over Broadway where I was Indy.

Since you came back, you have played 4 games early with me. In Dune zebra and I got into a fight, but it was not me that 'picked it'... I said I had a small ping and he overreacted. In Talking Heads I had some dialogue going on with Rico, but it could hardly be called a fight (any more than the posts I exchanged with Mac today). The first time I picked a fight was day 2, and it was with the specific goal of getting people to lynch me. And World Reborn, you didn't see me go straight out and pick fights in that one either (although because it is ongoing, I recognise we can't dialogue on what that means).

Long story short - you are raising a false indicator of my affiliation. (And I think your representation that I am 'more playful' is incorrect too... I always try to be playful. It makes things fun for me.)

Matt F wrote:Golden

Nothing sticks out really, but he seems more playful then usual so far. Typically at around this time, if civ, Golden is picking a fight with another civ. Why hasn't that happened yet Golden?

a2thezebra wrote: linki - How nice, another reason to make my read more confident. Why are you so certain that Golden hasn't already picked a fight with another civ, Matt? Could this be a scumslip that Mac is your teammate?

Golden wrote:As far as day one policy lynches go, lynching lurkers would be fine with me.

I've now seen several games here where the entire scum team lurk and play the game of trying to get the higher poster players to take each other out.

a2thezebra wrote:MacDougall

Let's jump right in.

MacDougall wrote:

Enrique wrote: I haven't voted at all. I was just wondering if there was a reason not to.

You're right, scum would heavily contemplate the potential of such a thing since their numbers are fewer ergo their demise has more of an impact on their team.

Well I see Mac's suspicion of Enrique was less humor-based from the start than I remembered it was...my response to this particular post is pretty much:

Enrique wrote:huh

That said, when Mac elaborated on his issue with Enrique later I was much more convinced and I think Enrique's responses to it have made him look worse. But I'll get to that when I get to that.

MacDougall wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks for analyzing this poll, folks!

I'm voting Alderaan, just to make the poll a bit more interesting, and because some people think it sounds OK. I doubt Epi made the results obvious though, if there are any (besides serving as a mechanic for the role that Golden pointed out).

I'm glad that in our first game together you get to be scum and I get to be civ.

Another bold suspicion from Mac. It also demonstrates why I disagree with Mac's MP suspicion; like I said earlier, he's just not used to MP's play style. If this post pinged him, anything MP says will ping him as well. However, as far as Mac's alignment is concerned, I think this looks good. - Cool, so I guess that gives MP carte blanche to be a scum read for me and get away with it because apparently I'm just wrong. There's nothing unusual about the posts I've called out at all. That's why MP himself apologised and corrected himself on quite a few of my points. Even he, the person I was calling scum could see the value in my suspicions, yet you don't. How weird is that?

MacDougall wrote:Requesting a policy lynch of MattF.

I did not think he was joking when he said this, but since he hasn't bothered Matt since (I think?) I do now. If it were anyone but Mac I would've concluded it was a joke when I first read it anyway.

This is a side issue (read: non-alignment-indicative) that I feel I should point out.

MacDougall wrote:The last thing you want to be doing is identifying a scum player by YOUR ping and telling them to stop what they are doing right? Is what you are criticising Zebra for scummy to you? If so, say so! If not, what is there to gain by telling her to pipe down?

Mac, I think you're one of those people that easily misinterprets a suggestion from another player as some form of censorship, for lack of a better word. I say this because you made a similar accusation to me when I expressed dislike of your later spat with Golden. I did not get the impression from DDL that he was trying to silence me in any sort of way, and as DDL clarified in response to this, I was correct. - One of those people? Like who else? I wasn't wrong about either of you. You both attempted to silence people because you disagreed with their suspicions, or at best vociferously criticised to the point of it coming across like you were intending to get us to stop proceeding on what I feel are valid points. Disagree with me, sure, but the way you've been talking to me, and particularly about me, well tbh it actually hurts my feelings. It makes me feel like you think I am stupid.

You then proceeded to make gargantuan posts on every player with a HUGE colourful stamp on them. Talk about target painting sheesh, and talk about white noise. Half of your HUGE colourful stamps are based on next to no in thread content, and then you you refer to me below as misguided and earlier as distracting in my efforts. Unless you have the most amazing insight into this game, you almost certainly have just painted a huge TOWN sign on scum players and vice versa, with in many cases next to no thread evidence to do so. And you call me misguided and criticise my scum hunting. That's not fair at all.

After that, there's no specific post that I feel is worth noting. - Wow. So of all my posts there are just a couple of worth, the rest are worthless. Cool I'm really keen to put in the time to scum hunt now... I will say overall Mac is coming across as very genuine, and is playing a well-intended but somewhat misguided game. By misguided I mean that a lot of his conclusions seem to be missing crucial factors, and he's been tunneling a few players (Enrique, MP, Golden) pretty badly considering that it's Day 1. I fling shit everywhere, yes, but I try not to bite down on any particular conclusion until I'm certain. But hey, I'll take any attempts at scumhunting over a lurker any day. GTH, I think Mac is:

TOWN

a2thezebra wrote:If you two were arguing about what MP's actual motivations would be for making any given statement then it would be fine.

linki - Because it's annoying, pointless, and distracting.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Is there a third option for who gives a shit? You guys are going back-and-forth about an issue that boils down to insignificant nonsense regardless of which one of you is right.

OK, so now I'll seriously consider a vote on zebra - the so-called champion of throwing stuff out and getting people talking wants to shut down my dispute with Mac. Why?

MacDougall wrote:Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

That's a statement which I can only call target painting. Accusing someone of 'taking something out of context' is accusing them of having ulterior motives.

You don't think it is worth talking about how ridiculous that is? I do. Mac isn't merely wrong. He's pushing illogical shit. This should have you writing in caps.

I feel ok about Mac about it, but big ping on you!

a2thezebra wrote:Is there a third option for who gives a shit? You guys are going back-and-forth about an issue that boils down to insignificant nonsense regardless of which one of you is right.

Golden wrote:Thanks for your psychoanalysis of MP, Mac. Lets see which of these is most likely to be true. Occam's Razor time.

1) MP claimed Enrique had never said something that he had said, but he only did it because he was putting it 'in context' and so was able to ignore the fact that Enrique said what MP claimed he did not say. MP fully knew that Enrique HAD said what MP claimed he hadn't, but he went ahead and said it anyway, knowing that you, Mac, would understand the so called 'context' of his post didn't include Enrique's actual response, that he claimed didn't exist. Then, when I pointed this out to him, he said 'thank you' to me, rather than him deciding to clarify that he intended that statement only to be read in context. He said thank you because he, the overlord of engaging people in the thread, and whom I have a very good working relationship with, wouldn't want to engage with me. Just because. But he also asked me for a gth read on you. Because he only wants to engage me a little bit.

2) Or... MP stated his (at the time) current thoughts on Enrique but had missed Enrique's post, and when he said 'thanks for pointing it out' he meant it, because I was helping him figure out where he stood on Enrique (whether it changes his mind or not), while at the same time clearly engaging me by asking me questions.

I dunno, take your pick people.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

MP was referencing enrique's initial reactions to my initial suspicions and his lack of response to them, anything that enrique said subsequent was not on the table.

Nope, I had the context exactly right. MP said he found Enrique suspicious because 'he hadn't given a thought process behind his change in view' when in fact Enrique had. The fact that MP said that in the context of also responding to other posts is not important. It demonstrated to me that MP's suspicion was based on the fact he had missed Enrique's post, and if anything was being swayed by posts from you saying Enrique hadn't responded... even though Enrique subsequently did.

@zebra - nope. Marmot can pretty much get away with anything. He went through a period of being lynched day one over and over and over and basically always flipping civ. So, now we recognise that it isn't alignment-related behaviour. It's just him.