The Syndicate

I voted Dom as well.

Less worried about a lack of posts and more worried about what's in the posts that Dom has made.

Someone once told me adverbs were scummy.

/determined to shoehorn deader posts into having content

I like MP. I imagine him as a talking sock and that makes me smile.

sig wrote:Well my streak of smartness could only last for one phase I guess.

I'll buy what LC is selling here, doesn't make much sense to lie about it.

I'll be looking through the last phase, see who defended Sprit's and why they did. Off the top of my head I remember both Dom and Quin having a negative reaction to my idea, with Dom going so far as to vote for me.

Marmot voted for you as well, pointing out the initial sign up from Glor was unenthusiastic and INH pushed the "Sig's assertion is invalid" point. I pointed out that a pattern of one is not a pattern and voted for the other leading candidate.

I wouldn't take disagreeing with you alone to be scummy. I also think that if someone said you were tunneling based on meta that could have easily been wrong and not looking at much else, I wouldn't disagree with them.

Fact of the matter is, Glor/Sp2 was mafia. So if I'm already suspicious of a player, these actions certainly make them look worse.

So who already looks bad from that group? And who looks worst attacking you/defending Glor? I'd say Dom.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 36#p321136
^Calls you out for hedging (disagree) and contradiction (disagree) while saying she (he?) suspects Glor. Saying you suspect someone while voting for the player trying to lynch them? Now that's hedging. That sounds like a fake statement to me designed so Dom can say "I said I suspected Glor" should Glor be lynched and flip mafia.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 05#p320605
^Distancing. Never follows up with these accusations and when an actual train starts, does not get on.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 39#p320239
^Does not want to discuss Glor's difficulties with being honest. Best way to not have your scum teammate that won't lie get lynched? Get people to not discuss your scum teammate that won't lie. Note that several strategic discussions about plays that Snow Dog, DDL and Zebra had made already happened and Dom did not weigh in.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 71#p319671
^During discussion of who Klaus should role check, calls Ishmael a huge threat, even though he isn't. This would benefit the mafia if Klaus followed Dom's suggestion.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 49#p319949
^Backpedals when her post is called suspicious.


Lots of Dom posts I don't like. Not a single one that makes her look like a civ to me.

Way to rain on our parade, LC.

I believe you though cause reasons.

Long Con wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Long Con wrote:EBWOP: I meant a "low-poster", not a "low player", which is a mistake one can make as a Civvie, as an Indy, or...as a baddie.

So what you're saying is you have an alignment.

*jots down notes*

Hey, lemme see those notes, I wanna see what are you writing about me...as a baddie.

Hahaha.

Not the best use of a post restriction I've ever seen but it's pretty funny.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:

LoRab wrote:

I would like to point out that I would bet that the Lotab kill probably had someone involved in the decision who knew she was in Israel. Most likely a friend of hers, letting her enjoy her trip without worrying about mafia. Why else would a mafia team kill her when she is busy and fairly disengaged from the game?

Mr. Poe is a civilian.

And everyone should know Lorab is on a trip because she said so on thread.

Long Con wrote:EBWOP: I meant a "low-poster", not a "low player", which is a mistake one can make as a Civvie, as an Indy, or...as a baddie.

So what you're saying is you have an alignment.

*jots down notes*

insertnamehere wrote:wait a sec

Epi and LC are VFD.

that's a really likely possibility.

Vanilla...facing....dragons?

insertnamehere wrote:yo, spacedaisy. I see you browsing this thread.

What are your thoughts on how things are developing?

insertnamehere wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'd extend the same query to Sig and Soneji

hell, throw JoH in there too, I'm feeling generous

Gee thanks.

No surprises with Epi and Spirityo's votes.

Voted LC.

If you're a townie, sorry.

If you're scum, Merry Christmas.

Finding INH to be more convincing than LC. Confused by the accusations of "no conviction" in INH. Seems to have some conviction from where I'm standing. I'm more worried about accuracy than conviction. Completely agree that LC's focus has been on discrediting DDL in general than addressing accusations of noncommitalness/blending, which I think was the most important point brought up. (I do agree with LC on the specifics of the Glor statement. But that goes back to attacking the accuser, not the accusation.)

Finding Epi's vague/wavering defense of LC to be utterly unconvincing. Then again, I'm used to an investigator being able to come out and say "I copped LC town" (or whatever). Not sure if this is normal Epi beating around the bush about night results. INH's discussion of a previous game and rock song titles leads me to believe it is not.

DrWilgy wrote:Thank you LC.

General consensus. Do we think more baddies are openly discussing or hiding in the background?

I think business around Christmas time don't target one alignment over another.

Long Con wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:The "amount of jokes to amount of people declaring me scum/voting for me" ratio is surprisingly high, here.

I'm a little lost on your meaning - you mean that people make more jokes the more they are accused?

I mean that there's more jokes when people are accused than I would expect.

But I suppose some of that comes from being from a home site that expects claims when accusations get somewhat serious (and somewhat serious is a much higher threshold than here). That can't happen here so...idk what I expect when you come close to getting lynched, especially early.

@Epi

It seems scummy to me to say that you think someone is town but refuse to say why. If you are right, you get to say "I told you so" and if you are wrong you can say "Eh, it was gut. I was 60% sold on him."

Plus, like INH said, this type of statement convinces nobody.

But what do I know? Every time I take a stance, someone tells me I'm getting someone's meta wrong.

The "amount of jokes to amount of people declaring me scum/voting for me" ratio is surprisingly high, here.

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:THE CASE AGAINST LONG CON

Epignosis wrote:I am willing to vote sprityo, LC, or DDL of those three names.

DDL is, let's say, a kind of incendiary guy.

I agree with the initial idea behind DDL's case against LC. LC has latched onto a few things DDL said that admittedly don't make complete sense, but are just used to augment the core of his rhetoric. LC took those things, and now is trying to completely invalidate DDL's case, regardless of the good points he made about LC.

LC was blendy and noncommital as hell, up until DDL posted a case on him. LC then dedicated himself to poking holes in that case, and trying to lynch DDL, who is an easy-ass target at this point due to how he racked up the votes on D1.

It's not genuine.

It's not real baddie-hunting.

It's an OMGUS, despite how many discrediting adjectives LC uses to describe DDL's case.

I defended you in the last game. Hadn't you wished people would have listened to me then?

I say LC is good. Am I wrong or are we Mafia teammates?

Epignosis wrote:I am willing to vote sprityo, LC, or DDL of those three names.

What is a GTH and a CFD?

sig wrote:

Long Con wrote:

sprityo wrote:From me personally or in Florida posts? Because I'm pretty sure we've established he was just having a bad time. Unless you're dig, and insist on following a meta

Also, *sig

dog*

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Posting my intention to vote DDL per Quin's argument and Snow Dog's horrendous defense of himself.

That really surprises me a lot, after the post of yours which I just quoted above... which states that your town read of DDL just got townier.

DDL = bad because of a possible connection with Snow and misrep of LC plus pinging others

But that second one is better than Gloryo = bad cause replacement, Sig = bad cause his case on Gloryo is reaching or LC is bad cause not being committal enough. None of that is even slightly convincing to me.

Explain how this makes me bad? I'm quite confused with this logic.

Don't ask me. I don't think it's a good argument, either.

Trying this part again.

And yeah, even if DDL and Snow are likely not on a team (my previous thought) instead of likely on a team (where I'm trending to but not 100% sold on), it doesn't mean Snow being mafia makes DDL not mafia. It just makes it more likely.

Long Con wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Posting my intention to vote DDL per Quin's argument and Snow Dog's horrendous defense of himself.

That really surprises me a lot, after the post of yours which I just quoted above... which states that your town read of DDL just got townier.

It wasn't that strong of a town read on DDL.

And yeah, even if DDL and Snow are likely not on a team (my previous thought) and not likely are on a team (where I'm trending to but not 100% sold on), it doesn't mean Snow being mafia makes DDL not mafia. It just makes it more likely.

I'm much more sold on Snow = bad because no defense, not being helpful or scumhunting and the possible connection with DDL than

DDL = bad because of a possible connection with Snow and misrep of LC plus pinging others

But that second one is better than Gloryo = bad cause replacement, Sig = bad cause his case on Gloryo is reaching or LC is bad cause not being committal enough. None of that is even slightly convincing to me.

If most people think DDL + Snow Dog = super unlikely w/w combo, I'll not go that direction. Like I said, struggling with the meta a bit and the argument that this is too obvious of a play for them or too obvious of a solution for Quin is something that I'm having to take everyone's word for as I've never played with any of them before.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Someone convince me whom to vote for. What's out there?

Snow Dog's posts in the last two pages suck.

Epignosis wrote:I don't know that what you just saw about Snow Dog could be considered a defense, but there you are.

Part of my problem with it.

Posting my intention to vote DDL per Quin's argument and Snow Dog's horrendous defense of himself.

I would much rather lynch Snow Dog and if two other players who haven't already voted were willing to do so, I'd vote for Snow Dog instead. If DDL flips town, I'm not convinced Snow is town. If Snow flips town, I'm more okay with DDL. I also don't think it's super fair to lynch Player A based on Player B putting forth a bad defense unless you're going to lynching Player B first. But I'd rather DDL go than the other players with 2 votes at this point.

Suuuuuper unconvinced by Snow's defense.

"Your accusation is bullshit cause it's not true and btw, I'm not gonna defend myself."

Lol okay.

Are we even allowed to alignment claim?

*misrepresenting not misreported

Good God.

*reaching not teaching

Eaap or whatever

Long Con wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:And by "hate" I mean "live" cause it justifies my town read on DDL.

How does that work?

And I realize that you probably meant "love" and not "live", that's fine... I mean how does Snow Dog's vote reasoning justify your town read of DDL?

Do you mean that Snow Dog is so obviously wrong in his assessment that DDL must be the opposite of what he said?

More like Snow Dog's posts seem scummy. Willful OMGUS or uncooperativeness.

If Snow Dog is a wolf and is against DDL, my town read of DDL based on other things looks better.

But Quin says DDL and Snow Dog are mafia together?

Do you agree with that assessment, LC? Assume DDL flips town. What's your gut read of Snow. What if DDL flips mafia?

I get your argument against DDL and I also get the defense of "but DDL isn't in LC's head and wastnt trying to misrepresent." My general thought is not to vote for either of you because neither argument against the other is that convincing but I'm willing to listen to a restatement/rebuke of arguments if you want to be more convincing.

Thoughts on all open trains in a bit after I put the little one to bed.

Epignosis wrote:I like that it's Day 2 and I already have a decent number of people on the Nice list.

I need to work on my Naughty list.

Long Con, your name is on one of these lists.

Presumably nice cause why else bring it up without voting for LC?

Why the nice list?




Having more trouble than I expected with meta. Sig/Spiritwo and LC/DDL and even Snow/Zebra/Son/DDL/Golden are all things I feel I could evaluate better knowing the meta better.

I think Sig is reaching with the replacement scum tell thing. Once does not a pattern make. That said, teaching isn't inherently wrong or scummy if you're not misreported.

Chaos Marmot is awfully passive for his nickname. Not more than everyone else. I just see more chaos out of Snow Dog.

I'm behind. Whatever.

Snow Dog wrote:

Golden wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?

Not voting as any kind of deliberate choice is very much frowned upon in our history.

Having said that, I generally agree that any slight read is better than randomising.

I'm not convinced it was entirely random, though. Perhaps random within a pool, or perhaps not random at all.

linki - what kind of cookie?

It wasn't entirely random i confess. It was a straight choice between DDL and Jack. The two guys who wanted me lynched. I chose DDL because I read somewhere that he was more likely bad.
I was tired, I needed to go to bed and I had to vote. Plus I wanted to give a nod to Vompatti's playstyle as I had done DrWilgy earlier.

Man, I hate this post. Like OMGUS at best. Something worse, more likely.

And by "hate" I mean "live" cause it justifies my town read on DDL.

Feeling I should have been harsher on Snow.

Nachomamma8 wrote:Not sure why DDL saying that Golden is a civ sets off your buddying sense for him and not others, especially when others have managed to be more persistent, loud, colorful, or kissassy with their civ reads.

I like this post, even though I disagree. Liking Nacho in general. We can kill the whale and escape together.

Epignosis wrote:To those who voted Sprityo last time around: Why did you vote for him instead of soup?

Time was running out. There were ~4 players lynchable strictly for low participation. Scotty and LC were on Spirityo. DDL had gathered some votes but I disagreed with his lynch. Sonji had one or two and I disagreed with his lynch but not strongly. So I had decided a low poster was best to go and Spirityo was about the only one available. I didn't like getting lead by Scotty and LC so I threw out a random nonparticipany as an alternative and was okay with how Scotty reacted, though I guess the bar was pretty low.

So at the end, I voted Spirityo.

Quin wrote:I didn't do much anyway, but now I'll definitely be phone posting while we do Christmas things.

I voted for DDL. I think he's bad.

Spoiler: show

Snow Dog wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:And with that, I'm gonna vote LC in order to attempt to put another option in the table.

Despite voting for you first time round I have good feelings about you. I won't be voting for you this time.

Spoiler: show

Snow Dog wrote:

Golden wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?

Not voting as any kind of deliberate choice is very much frowned upon in our history.

Having said that, I generally agree that any slight read is better than randomising.

I'm not convinced it was entirely random, though. Perhaps random within a pool, or perhaps not random at all.

linki - what kind of cookie?

It wasn't entirely random i confess. It was a straight choice between DDL and Jack. The two guys who wanted me lynched. I chose DDL because I read somewhere that he was more likely bad.
I was tired, I needed to go to bed and I had to vote. Plus I wanted to give a nod to Vompatti's playstyle as I had done DrWilgy earlier.

And if he's bad, Snow Dog is his teammate.

I don't get it. And this is supposedly too obvious for a great player like Quin, yeah?

Feeling stupid/drunk.

Halp.

DrWilgy wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Can docs target themselves?

Duh

My home site generally doesn't allow self targeting docs, which I like.

It does allow targetting the same player twice in a row (except for silencing), but I prefer the rule against doing that here.

Town reading Nacho.


Got a few Night Phase questions that probably should have been asked earlier.

If you get blocked or otherwise fail, does the mod tell you.

If you cop player a and get misdirected to player b, does the mod say "player b is town" or just "town"?

Can docs target themselves?

Does the mafia have to choose a hitman to forgo night action to make the kill?

Spacedaisy wrote:Well shit. That was bad.

Jack: Could you tell me what you dislike?

About your vote?

You express suspicion about Markot like 5 times and explain this suspicion of him 1 time, weakly, by qualifying your reasons with "I think" after expressing suspicion of several other players for the same thing but without the qualifier.

Why MM over the others you said were posting but not engaging? You mention MM a lot more but don't give more reasons for voting for him.

Posting edit whatever

"Like" means "like to keep around" not "like for a lynch."

Sorta figured out how to ISO on this board.

Okay with Soirityo lynch. Like Lorab much better. Like Dom a bit worse. Macro about the same.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Fwiw Jack, LoRab has zero votes.

That was meant to be a hypothetical but I left off an "if."

Dislike Daisy's vote. Dislike MP's more but I've discussed mafia theory enough this game.

I actually find Dom's relative silence and post about Klaus and cult worse than the other two low posters we were discussing. Not that a one post read is worth much on D1.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Now wait a second jack.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?

Yeah?

You suggested anyone willing to randomize to not vote at all.

Now you're randomizing a low poster.

What changed your mind?

Two big differences between what I criticized and what I'm doing.

1) My pool is shortened significantly

2) I haven't voted. I've asked Scotty for his opinion on switching from one player within the pool that he (a potential scummer) chose and a player chosen at random.

1) That's not the impression I got from your original post. I saw you criticize "random voting at all".

2) This is true. So why would you randomize LoRab instead of looking at sprityo? Or all low posters for that matter?

Linki: Hey!

1) If I randomize the whole field, my statement applies. Lorab has 2 votes, Spirit has 2 votes and DDL has 2 votes and I like DDL best of the three, it is in my interest to vote one of the two non DDL players. Yes, it would be better to make a real decision but even with dice, I'd want to be the determiner in that situation, at least partially.

2) I'm not a random number generator. By my watch, there wasn't much time to dig up 6 different player's posts on a site I don't know how to use well. I'd rather have heard from Scotty in this specific situation.

Scotty wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Now wait a second jack.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?

Yeah?

You suggested anyone willing to randomize to not vote at all.

Now you're randomizing a low poster.

What changed your mind?

Two big differences between what I criticized and what I'm doing.

1) My pool is shortened significantly

2) I haven't voted. I've asked Scotty for his opinion on switching from one player within the pool that he (a potential scummer) chose and a player chosen at random.

Dude I don't know shit.

I also don't know shit in this game.

But I do know that you can do you, and I have no idea whether or not LoRab is a better or worse pick.

But I'm curious if you have an aversion to voting sprityo, jack

Nah, not really.

Just don't like being lead around in general.

I like Spirityo as a lynch candidate better than anyone else with 1 or more votes.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Now wait a second jack.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?

Yeah?

You suggested anyone willing to randomize to not vote at all.

Now you're randomizing a low poster.

What changed your mind?

Two big differences between what I criticized and what I'm doing.

1) My pool is shortened significantly

2) I haven't voted. I've asked Scotty for his opinion on switching from one player within the pool that he (a potential scummer) chose and a player chosen at random.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Now wait a second jack.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?

Yeah?

sig wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:@SpaceDaisy

In the interest of fairness, I will debate and analyze game theory to the ends of time cause I really like it.

So I'm not a baddie but I'd be doing much of this culture reading/mechanic strategy debate anyhow.

I dislike this post, I say the same thing when I'm mafia.

But I wouldn't believe you cause you've been MIA during all the game theory discussion.



Linki? @Scotty

I'll join the low poster train.

A random roll of the low posters gets Lorab.

If I rejected your suggestion of Spirityo right now and voted Lorab, what would you think of that?

a2thezebra wrote:If it is, I call bullshit. If you didn't suspect him at all you should have and would have made that abundantly clear.

Disagree.

Agree with your thoughts on policy lynches.

Re: "Funny how Jack thinks Snow was joking when he never said that during our exchange."

Well, I've never played with Snow before and hadn't played in Monkey Island. I have seen players claim to be actually playing without reading their pm. *shrug*

With context, things are more clear. Your posts, too.

Epignosis wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:I randomised and voted DDL, k?

I really wish he wouldn't do it a second time because I'm tired of making excuses for him, but this is Snow Dog making fun of Vompatti.

Appreciated. So I take this to mean Snow's vote is not random per Snow himself?

Spacedaisy wrote:EBWOP: My post should have read, "That doesn't satiate my concerns, it illustrates it."

EBWOP means what?

insertnamehere wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Especially considering you were the first to voice suspicion of him for his claim of not reading his role card.

linki - Way to misrepresent. I never suspect people for not agreeing with me. I clarified their positions for you and if you naturally disagreed then you would have responded by voicing your disagreement. Instead you didn't respond at all.

Because, frankly, I thought the entire Snow Dog debate meant nothing, and I gleaned literally nothing from it. I didn't think it had any value, and I'm just as confused of the alignment of anyone involved as I was before.

I forgot to respond, because I didn't care enough about it to. I didn't fall one way or the other, so I didn't agree or disagree with your "clarifications."

Nothing to you, maybe. Nothing for alignments today, maybe.

Lots of useful information about how different players play the game. Very worthwhile to me.

@SpaceDaisy

In the interest of fairness, I will debate and analyze game theory to the ends of time cause I really like it.

So I'm not a baddie but I'd be doing much of this culture reading/mechanic strategy debate anyhow.

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'm leaning DDL with my vote. The call for a policy lynch/vig kill on snow dog for starters. Then after that the arguing game theory just stands out more to me than anything else anyone else has done.

How rare do you feel a successful policy lynch is?

Depends on how you quantify success.

I'm not a fan of actual policy lynch but rather bluntly calling out what I think is poor play. Anybody who lets you policy lynch then won't stop the thing after getting lynched imo. But you'll at least get them to think about it and either defend it or change their ways.




If I'm suspicious of Golden, and I'm not entirely sure at this point, it's for saying some of my logic that I don't think is bad is bad and for defending Zebra.

I don't agree about the contradiction that Epi sees in lecture (let's say "inform about meta") vs accuse.

What is "Linki"?

What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?

Before Zebra came in, I said not reading a role was a terrible idea and someone who would do so or pretend to do so sounded like a good D1 lynch target. Idk what everyone else thinks or thinks I think but I don't think you should actually decide who to vote for on D0 based one one post with one short post. In my mind, it should have been clear that I and MM were not strongly against Snow.

DDL is another matter and I'll not speak for him.

My continued addressing of the topic was primarily in relation to Zebra. I am not of the opinion that Snow was doing more than joking.



Logical inconsistencies/problematic stuff in Zebra's posts:
1) Says she never lies as scum but advocates townies lying to get reactions.
2) Says townies lying or acting scummy should be excused because they could just be trying to get a reaction

There's also a bit of OMGUS because I'm annoyed that she keeps arguing against positions I haven't taken or have since clarified (no, I was not calling for an immediate lynch of Snow Dog at the expense of any other options and no, the idea that Snow could have been a lying townie was not something that simply didn't cross my mind).

There's also my concern that Zebra ignored points 1 and 2 when called on them.

Your characterization of Zebra as someone who ignores facts that don't suit her when she's town is duly noted and appreciated.

I'm going to disagree with your summary of my read on Zebra as "genuine."

I do not view the way she went about that as "genuine."

She saw a very weak attack on a player, mischaracterized the severity and completeness of the reasoning of said attack, put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defense of what was probably a joke and then didn't answer multiple questions regarding her posts.

I don't view that as a townie trying their best.


@Snow

What did you think of Zebra's initial defense of you?

Corrections:

Swap I and Do in my first sentence about Sonji.

DDL is calling for a Snow vig kill, not lynch.

Golden wrote:@Jack - I didn't miss those posts, but they represented a progression from the starting point. In the particular post that really set zebra out, you did LIST three possibilities, and not the fourth. I don't know how you can say that's 100% false - here's the post:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

Do you disagree that you set out three but not a fourth in that post? Do you disagree that zebra primarily was pointing out views about that fourth position that you did not include?

You say 'you dismissed it outright'. Well, you dismissed it outright to the point you did not consider it in your post. No-one can be expected to know (in that moment) that you had considered it in your mind.

My post that you are objecting to is analysing why I do not agree with soneji's assertions about zebra. Do you agree with them? Let's not make it about you for a second - for the purposes of my point, you're just a bystander who happened to be there when the action went down. Do you think zebra asked you to consider 'so many angles'? Do you think zebra was trying to paint you (and/or DDL) as scum? Do you disagree that your statements (and DDL's) were quite definitive in your perspective of lynching Snow Dog?

Do you, yourself, find zebra suspicious for the way in which she engaged you?

Do you, yourself, find soneji's synopsis of zebra's behaviour compelling and genuine?

"It's not hard to look at this list and see JoH deliberately blatantly ignoring an option."

That's the bit of your post I don't like cause I wasn't and my later posts addressed it. But I see what you're saying. As of that first post, okay. It was an assumption on Zebra's part and perhaps an understandable one but like LC said, there are infinite possibilities and removing the far fetched ones is reasonable.



Do I agree with Sonji's analysis and find it convincing.

Do I think I was asked to consider angles I had not? No. Angles Zebra though I had not considered. Probably.

Was Zebra trying to paint us as scum? No, not primarily. If anything, I consider buddying with Snow as a more likely evil plan. Easy enough to assume Snow wasn't going to get lynched and DDL and I probably weren't either, at least not over this exchange. Buddying is more lasting and more likely to succeed.

Do I disagree about my statement and DDL's being definitive? I disagree about mine. I suppose I don't about DDL. He was still calling for a Snow lynch last I checked.

Do I think Zebra's posts were suspicious? Yes. Culture issues aside, there were some nonsensical statements relating to "dismissed" options and lying as town but not lying as scum that were totally ignored by Zebra. This makes me think she got what she wanted, a buddying with Snow and looking like she was mixing things up and attempting to solve. She had no interest in taking things further than that and discussing her own inconsistencies.

Do I find Sonji to be genuine? Yes. Our styles seem to match up so when he says something about strategy that I have expressed in the past in other games, I believe that is his opinion. That doesn't mean he's town but his statement comes across as genuine.

Golden wrote:

Soneji wrote:The easy route doesn't allow you to paint people as scum. For all the angles Zebra expects DDL and Jack to have considered, at a time when no decision or claim can even be close to final, she overlooks angles herself like culture clash and approaches their statements as definitive in terms of Snow Dog being their day one lynch.

I'll be voting Zebra for now.

Their statements were incredibly definitive. DDL said Snow Dog should either be policy lynched if not lying or, if lying, there was a 99% chance of being bad.

JoH listed three possibilities, truthful scum, truthful town, lying scum, but did not consider lying town. That's not 'all the angles zebra expects them to consider'. It was one - and a pretty blatant one at that. It's not hard to look at that list and see JoH as potentially deliberately not considering one option.

Zebra did not (although others did) expect them to consider the 'it's just day zero banter, referencing monkey island' angle, which might be what you would call 'culture clash'. By the way, DDL has been at this site nearly as long as me, and he's an ambassador, so I hardly think his views can be construed as 'culture clash'. He knows what to expect.

And in all of that, I did not see zebra rushing to call either Jack or DDL as scum. She just engaged them in a dialogue about why their perspective was limiting (which it was). I haven't really got a sense of how firmly Jack or DDL have stuck to their guns yet since I haven't finished a catchup, but I'd hope that they'd listen to the many people who (correctly) identified that Snow Dog was referencing Monkey Island.

Also, votes are permanent, so forget 'for now'... you voted zebra.

This is the most suspicious thing I've seen. It's incredibly misrepresentative of what occurred, and it's just a bizarre vote, almost like 'I'm voting zebra because I also experience culture clash at this site, and zebra doesn't seem to consider that'. I'm going to be strongly considering a vote for soneji.

The underlined section is 100% false. As previously discussed, I considered the option of "lying town" and have several times posted about how such a play would be poor strategy in my opinion. Because it would be such poor strategy, I dismissed the scenario outright.

Zebra then said that my logic was not sound because I had dismissed the other three scenarios for similar reasoning.

I then asked for clarification because I didn't understand what Zebra meant by my reasons for dismissing the other scenarios because I had not dismissed them. Zebra didn't respond.

I'm surprised you missed all the posts about this and are still operating under the idea "Jack did not consider that Snow could be a lying townie."

Scotty wrote:I don't wanna talk about Glorf's moral principals.

Look y'all, life is like a box of chocolates mmk? Sometimes you get cherry cordial, and you didn't want cherry cordial. Sometimes you pop an almond in your mouth and you're allergic to almond. Next time just stick to an apple or something that has no chance to let you down.

FUJI APPLE FOR OFFICE 2020

Here's what I wanna talk about: the fires at the beach. Why were there fires at the beach?

And has anyone not checked in yet?

Probably because the story starts with a fire in the movie and presumably the books.

Long Con wrote: Playing Mafia while being unwilling to lie is like playing futbol/soccer while being unwilling to kick the ball. Lying is what the game is about; there is no moral issue.

That's what I was afraid of.

I think a better metaphor would be playing Call of Duty but refusing to shoot anyone because you are ethically against killing someone else. But you're okay with leading them into a claymore mine trap.

The ethical dilemma doesn't apply because you are not killing people. You are playing a game. Plus, you're splitting hairs with not shooting people but being perfectly happy to lead them to their deaths. Additionally, you're going to tick off your teammates and possibly offend your opponents by not playing the game to the best of your ability.

So too, refusing to lie while being willing to decive is trying to find a loophole in morality. And nobody is going to consider you dishonest for lying in mafia as it is an essential mechanic to the game.

@Glor

Forgive me.

What deep moral principles, exactly, cause you to not be able to claim your alignment?