The Syndicate

Tranq wrote: Floyd, i went through your posts, looks like you started playing mafia roughly 1 month ago. What do you mean when you say "a vague reason is always a suspicious reason"? The always part. This doesn't seem like something a relatively new player would say.

I'm feeling ok with a vote on Floyd today.

MacDougall wrote:

juliets wrote:

MacDougall wrote:If I am forced to choose between sig and nutella I couldn't care less. Juliets is scum though.

What makes you think that?

You just are. I think everyone feels it too.

No hard feels though. Your posts just have that faux contributive feel about em. You are lovely and all but yeah I think u got dat scumcard. Do you enjoy playing as a big bad?

Imma vote you and I hope some others do too.

MacDougall wrote:You guys should shut up and vote for juliets if you want to lynch a scum.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - Just because I didn't use an example of what you said to your liking doesn't mean I misquoted you. Why play dumb?

I didn't accuse you of misquoting something I said. I accused you of inappropriately extrapolating something I said.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:This goes back to what Epi said earlier about thinking sig was scum even in BTSC; if your meta is so scummy that people are afraid to lynch you just because the constant scumtells are consistent with your style of play, then there's no way to get you lynched if you are in fact scum, which sig is here.

That's not what I said.

Golden wrote:No. I wish I did. It's entirely gut, no info on either him or nutella.

I do feel, though, like nutella is racking up the connections while literally no-one but me is coming to sig's defence. I think thats what it is mostly. It doesn't even feel like anyone is subtly leading the thread away from him. Sig had such an early and easy bandwagon, with no-one who wanted to stand up for him. It seemed very easy.

@HB - I'm not surprised you are having second thoughts. The whole thing sounded like a distance to begin with. If nutella was lynched today and came back bad, I'd be after you tomorrow.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:You guys should shut up and vote for juliets if you want to lynch a scum.

Did you do what I suggested?

TinyBubbles wrote:tentative vote on sorsha it was gonna be her or nutella for me, cause they sound like they are intentionally drawing attention to each other and their posts about the matt/mac controversy were similar in timing.
and sorry for not posting more! real life has kept me busy

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:No. I wish I did. It's entirely gut, no info on either him or nutella.

I do feel, though, like nutella is racking up the connections while literally no-one but me is coming to sig's defence. I think thats what it is mostly. It doesn't even feel like anyone is subtly leading the thread away from him. Sig had such an early and easy bandwagon, with no-one who wanted to stand up for him. It seemed very easy.

@HB - I'm not surprised you are having second thoughts. The whole thing sounded like a distance to begin with. If nutella was lynched today and came back bad, I'd be after you tomorrow.

A distance from what? You're saying I was deliberating distancing from nutella since the start?

Golden wrote:Thats what it looks like to me. Defensive but keeping the option open to vote that way? The post where you suggested you'd vote her ahead of sig, while being her number one supporter. It reads all wrong to me.

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - But it wouldn't be a proper defense, because it wouldn't change the fact that he did say what he claims he did not say. You sure have a talent for dodging the main point of an argument in favor of an insignificant detail. Sure it's technically a defense, but so is this:

"You're bad because X, Y, and Z."
"No I'm not because I'm not."

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - Just because I didn't use an example of what you said to your liking doesn't mean I misquoted you. Why play dumb?

I didn't accuse you of misquoting something I said. I accused you of inappropriately extrapolating something I said.

Wrong again. Please stop making claims that are so easy to disprove.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:This goes back to what Epi said earlier about thinking sig was scum even in BTSC; if your meta is so scummy that people are afraid to lynch you just because the constant scumtells are consistent with your style of play, then there's no way to get you lynched if you are in fact scum, which sig is here.

That's not what I said.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:Thats what it looks like to me. Defensive but keeping the option open to vote that way? The post where you suggested you'd vote her ahead of sig, while being her number one supporter. It reads all wrong to me.

I was sig's #1 supporter yesterday, and caught flak for that. The bandwagon-happy folks this day aren't giving me a lot of leeway.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:HBoy - your defence of nutella sounds sincere. But it looks like it is either sig or nutella. Will you put your money where your mouth is and show you prefer a nutella lynch to a sig one?

@Sig - you better be as worth my effort to save as I think you are.

To be completely honest, I'm now having second thoughts. I hadn't given nutella's history much attention prior to the votes building on her, but I legitimately don't see a case against her. Your point about potential hypocrisy in latching onto the Bubbles case while not answering your own "Are you civ?" question is probably the closest to a tangible case, but even still it's so shady. If I was asked multiple questions, I could easily gloss over that part. Not to mention you could go WIFOM and ask whether a scum player would be more eager to answer it.

The way I see it, both the nutella and sig cases are fluff. However, nutella is at least answering the criticism against her more clearly. The defensive part of me wants to keep sig alive, but the pragmatic part is now asking "What's the use if people are just going to keep hounding him?" I think if nutella lasted another day, this stuff would die down. If sig lasts another day, it could just be another day (at some point in the future) of the same old crap. That's what happened on Talking Heads; almost lynched him day 1, things quieted down, then around day 9 or something people are suddenly like "Hey, let's hit the reset button and go sig all over again!"

a2thezebra wrote:inb4 Epi tries to argue that the phrase "That's not what I said" is more commonly interpreted as an accusation of inappropriate extrapolation than misquotation.

MacDougall wrote:Stop making non juliets related posts. She didn't even argue when I called her scum. She is definitely scum. I can tell because I am the Mac Daddy.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - But it wouldn't be a proper defense, because it wouldn't change the fact that he did say what he claims he did not say. You sure have a talent for dodging the main point of an argument in favor of an insignificant detail. Sure it's technically a defense, but so is this:

"You're bad because X, Y, and Z."
"No I'm not because I'm not."

Yes, it's a proper defense:

"I like pie more than cake."
"CAFETERIA LADY, HE SAID HE WANTS PIE."
"That's not what I said."
"Dude, you said you like pies."
"You're full of shit. I don't like pie."

Similar sit.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:inb4 Epi tries to argue that the phrase "That's not what I said" is more commonly interpreted as an accusation of inappropriate extrapolation than misquotation.

Where you come from, is inb4 a proper rhetorical tool? It isn't. It only means you've already seen what's wrong with your argument.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - But it wouldn't be a proper defense, because it wouldn't change the fact that he did say what he claims he did not say. You sure have a talent for dodging the main point of an argument in favor of an insignificant detail. Sure it's technically a defense, but so is this:

"You're bad because X, Y, and Z."
"No I'm not because I'm not."

Yes, it's a proper defense:

"I like pie more than cake."
"CAFETERIA LADY, HE SAID HE WANTS PIE."
"That's not what I said."
"Dude, you said you like pies."
"You're full of shit. I don't like pie."

Similar sit.

Not a similar situation at all. Here would be the proper equivalent:

You: "I like pie more than cake."
Me: "Well, he did say he likes pie more than cake. And I do too. I want pie. CAFETERIA LADY GET ME SOME DAMN PIE"

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am using your words to cultivate my own argument.

MacDougall wrote:Stop making non juliets related posts. She didn't even argue when I called her scum. She is definitely scum. I can tell because I am the Mac Daddy.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:inb4 Epi tries to argue that the phrase "That's not what I said" is more commonly interpreted as an accusation of inappropriate extrapolation than misquotation.

Where you come from, is inb4 a proper rhetorical tool? It isn't. It only means you've already seen what's wrong with your argument.

It means that I can predict how out-of-touch you are with reality.

sig wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Stop making non juliets related posts. She didn't even argue when I called her scum. She is definitely scum. I can tell because I am the Mac Daddy.

Are you being serious?

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - So I see that you've seen what's wrong with your argument.

a2thezebra wrote:

sig wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Stop making non juliets related posts. She didn't even argue when I called her scum. She is definitely scum. I can tell because I am the Mac Daddy.

Are you being serious?

I think he is serious with the read itself but he knows he has no rational argument to back it up so he's just asking our vibes to parallel his. I can respect that.

linki@Epi - So I see that you've seen what's wrong with your argument.

Turnip Head wrote:juliets who are you going to vote for?

juliets wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:juliets who are you going to vote for?

I don't know yet. I'm hoping something will convince me about one of the main contenders. Otherwise I might vote for floyd based on Tranq's line of thought. That's really my last resort though.

Golden wrote:Lol. Fair enough. I didn't remember that. Being stuck between two people you really think are civ is rough.

sig wrote:Could you point it out?

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - So I see that you've seen what's wrong with your argument.

I'm not making an argument, genius. You are.

sig wrote:@Turnip what do you think about Zebra, and zebra what do you think about Turnip curious with how the day phase went what your views on each other are know opposed to last phase.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - So I see that you've seen what's wrong with your argument.

I'm not making an argument, genius. You are.

Wrong again. For someone who clearly is a superior rhetorician (and I am not being sarcastic), you sure are bad at communicating here. I'm referring to your initial argument that I misquoted you. Yes, misquoted you. Your ego is too big to admit being wrong so you pretend that the intentions of your original statement were different than what they actually were. It's a bit sad tbh.

MacDougall wrote:

sig wrote:Could you point it out?

She knows I am civ. You can tell by the way she phrased the first sentence and also the defense of me when I was absent was confident because she knows my alignment.

Sorsha wrote:I can see how sig talking about what the mafia is “currently” doing could be seen as a slip up. Looking back through his posts I noticed he spoke earlier about what the mafia might do. Sometimes players can’t help but talk about their role, in this case I can see it that perhaps sig can’t help but talk about his alignment. There are two voters for sig that make me hesitant to vote for him though:

Luke voted for sig and I’m getting strange vibes from that vote. Luke has posted very little in the way of suspicions so far, his day one vote was for Tranq and he questioned MM but never followed up with it. Did MM’s answer satisfy you Luke? Were you suspicious of MM and that’s why you asked him that or were you thinking that Epi was suspicious too and wanted to compare reasons? Or something else?

Right now I could see Luke’s vote as either A) a bandwagon from the opposite baddie team or B) distancing from a baddie teammate

Also a bit suspicious on the sig votes so far is from DF. He missed the first vote. That post is also really just echoing other players too, nothing original. His latest post seems a bit better and has some original thought in it so it lessens my suspicion of him a little bit, still a bit pinged by this vote though.

Tranq missed the vote yesterday but has managed to vote in each of the night polls. Night 0, Night 1

TinyBubbles has four posts so far. Here she wants timmer to post more (lol really?) More than what? At that point you both had two posts. I don’t know, maybe she heard talk about timmer in BTS and thought she’d prod him. Just seems a little odd seeing as he was then killed that night.

Here she seems to think that her track record of being civ in other games has anything to do with her alignment in this game

And here she votes for scissors which conveniently gets her off the poll today. I don’t know if the host handed out info about the night poll again or not but if he did it one night I imagine he did again last night.

At this point I'd be most likely to vote for one of these players, sig, luke and bubbles being higher priority.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:Lol. Fair enough. I didn't remember that. Being stuck between two people you really think are civ is rough.

This I think reflects worse on you. If I said I would stick to my guns and still vote nutella, and she flips scum, you are the one that comes out way ahead, having the earliest case against her for the self-admitted mildest of pings. Especially since you openly admit to not touching the Dom/SVS/Epi trifecta, which still has an inherent link to the nutella case due to SVS' involvement, ergo you're narrowing things in your favor. If I switch to get sig lynched, no matter how he flips you can still say that I buckled on my vow; with two scum factions plus recruiting third-parties, a sig scumflip doesn't preclude me from a nutella partnership. Saying "If nutella was lynched today and came back bad, I'd be after you tomorrow" is a direct threat to try and make me go vote sig, as to not confirm a nutella flip. I don't know if it exactly fits the definition of a catch-22, but it's close to it. I'm also noting that your general tone in the game so far reminds me of your one scum game on RYM; in your town games you are always confident in your lynches. Your scum game, you were kind of like "Eh..." right up to the end.

a2thezebra wrote:

sig wrote:@Turnip what do you think about Zebra, and zebra what do you think about Turnip curious with how the day phase went what your views on each other are know opposed to last phase.

What exactly do you mean by this?