The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Epignosis made his first post with a smiley. Last game I saw him as mafia, he roleplayed as his zodiac sign, and used that smiley in every post.

Can you explain why I did that?

Why don't you explain why you did it?

It's funny, and I'm sad I have to explain it, but here you are.

for anyone interested

im selling my wolf reads, buy one get one half off

only until d1, top of the line state of the art, no money back guarantee

this isn't a scam i promise

Beck wrote:for anyone interested

im selling my wolf reads, buy one get one half off

only until d1, top of the line state of the art, no money back guarantee

this isn't a scam i promise

I gave you like five reads, does that mean I get 7.5 in return.

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Epignosis made his first post with a smiley. Last game I saw him as mafia, he roleplayed as his zodiac sign, and used that smiley in every post.

Can you explain why I did that?

Why don't you explain why you did it?

It's funny, and I'm sad I have to explain it, but here you are.

Spoiler: show

Virgo is a virgin, so the entire thing was about getting rejected and not having any sex.

A sad sad tale of a man who slept alone.

Quin wrote:I say we let this happen and if he hasn't lynched all the baddies by Day 4 then we coup detat this son of a bitch and put me in charge.

Challenge accepted. I feel like I'm on a roll. Are you going to kill me if I get too close?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:I say we let this happen and if he hasn't lynched all the baddies by Day 4 then we coup detat this son of a bitch and put me in charge.

Challenge accepted. I feel like I'm on a roll. Are you going to kill me if I get too close?

No, I'll just build a wall and kick you out.

3J is my top suspect. He has projected an eagerness, which I expect, but it's empty. It's void. It looks productive, but it isn't.

Epignosis wrote:3J is my top suspect.

What else is new.

Epignosis wrote:He has projected an eagerness, which I expect, but it's empty. It's void. It looks productive, but it isn't.

True productivity on Day 0 is nearly impossible. That doesn't stop me from trying. Produce something better or kiss my ass.

Rico is good.
MP is bad.
Beck is gab.
JJJ is meh.
SVS is gone.
Leetic is hi.
Boom is high.
Epi is Epi.
Sloonei is circumstantial.
MM is crabs.
Wilgy is $}£*G:".
INH is probable.
Golden is lackluster.
Quin is judicial.
Scotty is me.

Good morning, I'd like to brief you all on what a great morning I've had so far, beautiful morning over by Trump HQ, nice breakfast, Trump Omelette au fromage, absolutely the finest, Trump Apple pie, can't go wrong with apple pies in the morning, Trump Yuge Coffee, best coffee in America, I'll tell you that, folks.

The only thing that saddened this breakfast was the fact that we still can't lynch any crooked democrats just yet - that, and the new Wild Beasts album, what the hell; awful! People are watching us out there and we need to deliver, folks, we need to make it happen. The whole nation is watching and getting angry over this delay. Even received a phone call this morning from a concerned citizen, he said, what the hell are you waiting for. We need to get on it, folks, right away.

In fact, what a surprise, Shillary is the only one who hasn't checked in. Day 1 lynch shoo-in, amirite folks? It's gonna be great.

So I checked the last pages and, wow, you guys sure talked a lot. I thought we were going to do less talking, more voting and lynching. What's up with that, Beck, huh? Still, I think you're a great guy, Beck, blunt talk, looking for answers, gauging for reactions - that's what America needs right now and that's the sign of a Trump voter. (Y)!

Beck wrote:I'm looking largely at his OP. (But when you string his four posts together it's effectively the same read.)

It's a classic in-and-out post in which he enters the thread by posting but exits in the same post, made in jest or otherwise it's something wolves do more often than not.

There's more to it even then that but if you want a read off of one post, I've met me d0 quota.

So this here is an honorable scrutiny into MP's OP's (does it stand for oppie? not surprised, folks, I mean, com'on, coming from a Hippie Gary supporter...) and sounds genuine since you probably don't know the guy, but for my money (and trust me, friend, I have a lot of them, never an issue here), you'll get a lot of in-and-outs from him, depending on how much he can perform at one time. The busier he'll be in RL, the more "hey guys just in for a bit / will try [something] later" his posts are expected to sound like. And it can go both ways, I wouldn't say there's a clear alignment indicator to this, overall.

The biggest issue with MP the OP is why he won't vote for Trump. Sad!

Beck wrote:I guess I'll ask this to anyone willing to answer.

Who are the best wolves in this lineup? Who are the best villagers?

Is there anyone who cannot play one alignment well?

I think I'm the best villager town would be able to come up with. I'm all town can ask for in any game.

I think I'm also the best wolf the forest would be able to come up with. I haven't been wolf in such a long while, though. Sad!

Which brings me to this guy over here:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ricochet... Law of averages suggests that he is mafia, amiright?

Says who?! You have no evidence to back this up, I haven't been mafia in ages, save for one Heist in which I couldn't even go through with it, that's how remorseful I felt about being mafia and plotting against the people of US of A. Bad times, never again!

Shall we pull your averages, instead? I tell you, buddy, I think they'll come out much worse.

I will stamp this with the first official CROOKED LIE Trump debunker! Very shady of you, Mr. Marsh. You are under official Trump scrutiny.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Emoticon casing is town.

Townreading for emoticon casing is bull, tbh. The crooked could attempt anything, especially if it's Mr. Marsh we're talking about. We've just went over the idea of MP trying to say something, but in fact saying nothing, which could fit your description of not trying to incite much. But what if we're dealing with the opposite, all the same. Plus, I tell you, democrats love nothing more than to accuse us of the most inconsequential, unsubstantiated accusations possible. Total bull we hear from them, day after day after day. So unpatriotic! Hence I wouldn't camp "nitpick casing" in village park, not really. I'm fairly sure the democrats will try anything to get under our skin.

Ricochet wrote:Townreading for emoticon casing is bull, tbh. The crooked could attempt anything, especially if it's Mr. Marsh we're talking about. We've just went over the idea of MP trying to say something, but in fact saying nothing, which could fit your description of not trying to incite much. But what if we're dealing with the opposite, all the same. Plus, I tell you, democrats love nothing more than to accuse us of the most inconsequential, unsubstantiated accusations possible. Total bull we hear from them, day after day after day. So unpatriotic! Hence I wouldn't camp "nitpick casing" in village park, not really. I'm fairly sure the democrats will try anything to get under our skin.

If you want to spend your time dealing in "coulds", be my guest. Any post "could" be motivated by anything. That's the point of the game. Right now, on Day 0, I am inclined to lean in the town direction on MM for his accusations -- even the one calling you bad by the law of averages.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:3J is my top suspect.

What else is new.

Epignosis wrote:He has projected an eagerness, which I expect, but it's empty. It's void. It looks productive, but it isn't.

True productivity on Day 0 is nearly impossible. That doesn't stop me from trying. Produce something better or kiss my ass.

I'm going to let you do your thing. If you're good, we'll end up burying the thread for nothing (except good times). If you're bad, then it's not like I can convince anybody to lynch you this early anyway. Am I correct that you've never been lynched on The Syndicate?

Epignosis wrote:I'm going to let you do your thing. If you're good, we'll end up burying the thread for nothing (except good times). If you're bad, then it's not like I can convince anybody to lynch you this early anyway. Am I correct that you've never been lynched on The Syndicate?

I was lynched once in Tree Mafia (mislynch). I was "lynched" but survived in the 2015 GOC (also mislynch). Otherwise no.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Townreading for emoticon casing is bull, tbh. The crooked could attempt anything, especially if it's Mr. Marsh we're talking about. We've just went over the idea of MP trying to say something, but in fact saying nothing, which could fit your description of not trying to incite much. But what if we're dealing with the opposite, all the same. Plus, I tell you, democrats love nothing more than to accuse us of the most inconsequential, unsubstantiated accusations possible. Total bull we hear from them, day after day after day. So unpatriotic! Hence I wouldn't camp "nitpick casing" in village park, not really. I'm fairly sure the democrats will try anything to get under our skin.

If you want to spend your time dealing in "coulds", be my guest. Any post "could" be motivated by anything. That's the point of the game. Right now, on Day 0, I am inclined to lean in the town direction on MM for his accusations -- even the one calling you bad by the law of averages.

My point is that it's facile to offer townreads for this kind of information, detail or action, and townreads are not facile; they're serious business. We need Trump-approved, quality townreads here, folks.

I feel worse about his latter accusation because: a) it's a crooked lie, one of the nastiest so far, in fact, total nasty, shame! and b) try to correlate your "you can be certain that "you're hiding behind your roleplay!!!1111" would become a thing in due time" with people also getting the idea, based on MM's point, that I roll baddie on average; com'on, this is incipient smearing at its best, you cannot townread a Marmot for doing this. No way!

linki:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:3J is my top suspect.

What else is new.

Epignosis wrote:He has projected an eagerness, which I expect, but it's empty. It's void. It looks productive, but it isn't.

True productivity on Day 0 is nearly impossible. That doesn't stop me from trying. Produce something better or kiss my ass.

I'm going to let you do your thing. If you're good, we'll end up burying the thread for nothing (except good times). If you're bad, then it's not like I can convince anybody to lynch you this early anyway. Am I correct that you've never been lynched on The Syndicate?

He was also a coin toss away in Triskaidekaphobia. (Incidentally, his Host Post would have featured music by Beck.)

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Townreading for emoticon casing is bull, tbh. The crooked could attempt anything, especially if it's Mr. Marsh we're talking about. We've just went over the idea of MP trying to say something, but in fact saying nothing, which could fit your description of not trying to incite much. But what if we're dealing with the opposite, all the same. Plus, I tell you, democrats love nothing more than to accuse us of the most inconsequential, unsubstantiated accusations possible. Total bull we hear from them, day after day after day. So unpatriotic! Hence I wouldn't camp "nitpick casing" in village park, not really. I'm fairly sure the democrats will try anything to get under our skin.

If you want to spend your time dealing in "coulds", be my guest. Any post "could" be motivated by anything. That's the point of the game. Right now, on Day 0, I am inclined to lean in the town direction on MM for his accusations -- even the one calling you bad by the law of averages.

My point is that it's facile to offer townreads for this kind of information, detail or action, and townreads are not facile; they're serious business. We need Trump-approved, quality townreads here, folks.

I feel worse about his latter accusation because: a) it's a crooked lie, one of the nastiest so far, in fact, total nasty, shame! and b) try to correlate your "you can be certain that "you're hiding behind your roleplay!!!1111" would become a thing in due time" with people also getting the idea, based on MM's point, that I roll baddie on average; com'on, this is incipient smearing at its best, you cannot townread a Marmot for doing this. No way!

He didn't mean you roll baddie on average; he meant the opposite. "The law of averages" suggests that you're "due" to roll baddie finally. It doesn't matter, because either way the assertion is literally the gambler's fallacy. It doesn't matter, you have the same chance of being anything in this game as anyone else.

All town reads, or anything reads, on Day 0 are facile. I think many players suffer for being unwilling to make facile reads. There's more to it than being right about everything -- I don't even care if I'm right. The read is honest, but it's not as though I am removing MM from the suspect pool for the remainder of the game. It's a starting point. You're the type to waffle yourself into an abyss of uncertainty. I'm the type to take a dang stance.

I actually find you more suspicious than MM at this point, Rico. That you're so offended by such a clearly fallacious and facile accusation as "the law of averages", especially as you interpreted it, gives the impression that you feel you're being correctly accused for an unfair/inaccurate reason.

Ricochet, my accusation was tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by the final word. But hey, I garnered a reaction and now I feel like electing you if you know what I mean.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ricochet... Law of averages suggests that he is mafia, amiright?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I actually find you more suspicious than MM at this point, Rico. That you're so offended by such a clearly fallacious and facile accusation as "the law of averages", especially as you interpreted it, gives the impression that you feel you're being correctly accused for an unfair/inaccurate reason.

I said it's facile for issuing town stamps, not facile for letting it slide, like it's nothing. I mean, it's everyone choice whether to do that or not, but it's not in my repertoire. It's crooked, it's nasty and I've already argued how it can be seed for many ulterior things. I mean, the mere thought of letting crooked lies slide against campaigners for America's future. Preposterous!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ricochet, my accusation was tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by the final word. But hey, I garnered a reaction and now I feel like electing you if you know what I mean.

That's cool, as long as you tell your teammates to do the same. *rubs hands*

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I actually find you more suspicious than MM at this point, Rico. That you're so offended by such a clearly fallacious and facile accusation as "the law of averages", especially as you interpreted it, gives the impression that you feel you're being correctly accused for an unfair/inaccurate reason.

I said it's facile for issuing town stamps, not facile for letting it slide, like it's nothing. I mean, it's everyone choice whether to do that or not, but it's not in my repertoire. It's crooked, it's nasty and I've already argued how it can be seed for many ulterior things. I mean, the mere thought of letting crooked lies slide against campaigners for America's future. Preposterous!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ricochet, my accusation was tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by the final word. But hey, I garnered a reaction and now I feel like electing you if you know what I mean.

That's cool, as long as you tell your teammates to do the same. *rubs hands*

How can it be a lie if it is built upon an implied truth? He implied you're always town, which is generally accurate.

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I actually find you more suspicious than MM at this point, Rico. That you're so offended by such a clearly fallacious and facile accusation as "the law of averages", especially as you interpreted it, gives the impression that you feel you're being correctly accused for an unfair/inaccurate reason.

I said it's facile for issuing town stamps, not facile for letting it slide, like it's nothing. I mean, it's everyone choice whether to do that or not, but it's not in my repertoire. It's crooked, it's nasty and I've already argued how it can be seed for many ulterior things. I mean, the mere thought of letting crooked lies slide against campaigners for America's future. Preposterous!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ricochet, my accusation was tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by the final word. But hey, I garnered a reaction and now I feel like electing you if you know what I mean.

That's cool, as long as you tell your teammates to do the same. *rubs hands*

But Rico, you're my teammate.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I actually find you more suspicious than MM at this point, Rico. That you're so offended by such a clearly fallacious and facile accusation as "the law of averages", especially as you interpreted it, gives the impression that you feel you're being correctly accused for an unfair/inaccurate reason.

I said it's facile for issuing town stamps, not facile for letting it slide, like it's nothing. I mean, it's everyone choice whether to do that or not, but it's not in my repertoire. It's crooked, it's nasty and I've already argued how it can be seed for many ulterior things. I mean, the mere thought of letting crooked lies slide against campaigners for America's future. Preposterous!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ricochet, my accusation was tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by the final word. But hey, I garnered a reaction and now I feel like electing you if you know what I mean.

That's cool, as long as you tell your teammates to do the same. *rubs hands*

How can it be a lie if it is built upon an implied truth? He implied you're always town, which is generally accurate.

I interpreted it as implying the opposite, so at that time it was a lie.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I actually find you more suspicious than MM at this point, Rico. That you're so offended by such a clearly fallacious and facile accusation as "the law of averages", especially as you interpreted it, gives the impression that you feel you're being correctly accused for an unfair/inaccurate reason.

I said it's facile for issuing town stamps, not facile for letting it slide, like it's nothing. I mean, it's everyone choice whether to do that or not, but it's not in my repertoire. It's crooked, it's nasty and I've already argued how it can be seed for many ulterior things. I mean, the mere thought of letting crooked lies slide against campaigners for America's future. Preposterous!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ricochet, my accusation was tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by the final word. But hey, I garnered a reaction and now I feel like electing you if you know what I mean.

That's cool, as long as you tell your teammates to do the same. *rubs hands*

But Rico, you're my teammate.

Ricochet wrote:I interpreted it as implying the opposite, so at that time it was a lie.

I perceive obsessiveness over "lies" to be a scumtell. Marsh was clearly not being entirely serious, and you still felt inclined to fight back against the "lie". Moreover you fought against my frivolous town read. You're suspicious, sir.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I interpreted it as implying the opposite, so at that time it was a lie.

I perceive obsessiveness over "lies" to be a scumtell. Marsh was clearly not being entirely serious, and you still felt inclined to fight back against the "lie". Moreover you fought against my frivolous town read. You're suspicious, sir.

I also contested your frivolous town read (glad you admit yourself you have nothing serious on the table; shady!) on smileys being counted. I told you, townreads need to be strong, America has had it with half-assed optimism and positive thinking.

As for the rest, I contest every form of accusation that's brought against me, whether it's serious or thrown around, whether it's reasoned or comes in a fortune cookie, it's what I do, older story than the Bible itself, folks. If you care to be my sparing partner for the next 20 pages and 200 posts, be my guest.

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I interpreted it as implying the opposite, so at that time it was a lie.

I perceive obsessiveness over "lies" to be a scumtell. Marsh was clearly not being entirely serious, and you still felt inclined to fight back against the "lie". Moreover you fought against my frivolous town read. You're suspicious, sir.

I also contested your frivolous town read (glad you admit yourself you have nothing serious on the table; shady!) on smileys being counted. I told you, townreads need to be strong, America has had it with half-assed optimism and positive thinking.

As for the rest, I contest every form of accusation that's brought against me, whether it's serious or thrown around, whether it's reasoned or comes in a fortune cookie, it's what I do, older story than the Bible itself, folks. If you care to be my sparing partner for the next 20 pages and 200 posts, be my guest.

I don't care that you contest something. I care how you contest it. The combination of "it's a lie!" with "you shouldn't give town reads on this guy" becomes "you shouldn't town read people who lie!", which is scummy.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:"The law of averages" suggests that you're "due" to roll baddie finally. It doesn't matter, because either way the assertion is literally the gambler's fallacy. It doesn't matter, you have the same chance of being anything in this game as anyone else.

So you admit that the suspicion against Rico is built on literally nothing, but you're so far down the reaction based gameplay rabbit hole that you suspect him for it?

All town reads, or anything reads, on Day 0 are facile.

I think many players suffer for being unwilling to make facile reads.

There's more to it than being right about everything -- I don't even care if I'm right.

You're the type to waffle yourself into an abyss of uncertainty. I'm the type to take a dang stance.

I think JJJ is my strongest Republican read right now. He's just randomly throwing admittedly false facts around, and when pressed on whether they're even true, he just shrugs and says "Who Cares?" while saying that anyone who doesn't think with their gut and accept his emotion based ideas as fact is a darn high-faluttin' wafler who's to much of a damn pansy to make a stand.

He's pretty much symbolic of the current state of the GOP.

insertnamehere wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:"The law of averages" suggests that you're "due" to roll baddie finally. It doesn't matter, because either way the assertion is literally the gambler's fallacy. It doesn't matter, you have the same chance of being anything in this game as anyone else.

So you admit that the suspicion against Rico is built on literally nothing, but you're so far down the reaction based gameplay rabbit hole that you suspect him for it?

"The suspicion against Rico" barely even exists, which is the point. MM's accusation was not to be taken seriously, and to suggest otherwise is to imply that MM has no basic understanding of logic. If you don't think reading people based on their reactions to content is a viable method, then you need to show me what you believe is a better way to play Mafia. You make a habit of questioning my methods, but I haven't seen your superior alternative yet. Give me the goods, INH.

insertnamehere wrote:I think JJJ is my strongest Republican read right now. He's just randomly throwing admittedly false facts around, and when pressed on whether they're even true, he just shrugs and says "Who Cares?" while saying that anyone who doesn't think with their gut and accept his emotion based ideas as fact is a darn high-faluttin' wafler who's to much of a damn pansy to make a stand.

He's pretty much symbolic of the current state of the GOP.

You just claimed Democrat. Republicans are the townies.

Good night Mr. Baddie.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I think JJJ is my strongest Republican read right now. He's just randomly throwing admittedly false facts around, and when pressed on whether they're even true, he just shrugs and says "Who Cares?" while saying that anyone who doesn't think with their gut and accept his emotion based ideas as fact is a darn high-faluttin' wafler who's to much of a damn pansy to make a stand.

He's pretty much symbolic of the current state of the GOP.

You just claimed Democrat. Republicans are the townies.

Good night Mr. Baddie.

No, what I meant was that despite all of your gameplay that I disagree with, this still seems par for the course for you, and I don't suspect you for it. That was essentially me saying that you're acting how a civ 3J would act in my limited experience.

or was that meant to draw an almighty "reaction" out of me?

ooh gee wilikers, I hope I reacted appropriately.

insertnamehere wrote:No, what I meant was that despite all of your gameplay that I disagree with, this still seems par for the course for you, and I don't suspect you for it. That was essentially me saying that you're acting how a civ 3J would act in my limited experience.

So you asked me that question up there, flooded the thread with gifs, and then misrepresented everything I've said in a way to make it appear sillier than it was -- all to tell me that you trust me?

I don't believe you. You know I'm town and you're trying to discredit me by pointing to things you think can be portrayed as illogical or unfair. It's a way to weaken my influence without specifically attacking me as a scum read. Nope.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:"The law of averages" suggests that you're "due" to roll baddie finally. It doesn't matter, because either way the assertion is literally the gambler's fallacy. It doesn't matter, you have the same chance of being anything in this game as anyone else.

So you admit that the suspicion against Rico is built on literally nothing, but you're so far down the reaction based gameplay rabbit hole that you suspect him for it?

"The suspicion against Rico" barely even exists, which is the point. MM's accusation was not to be taken seriously, and to suggest otherwise is to imply that MM has no basic understanding of logic. If you don't think reading people based on their reactions to content is a viable method, then you need to show me what you believe is a better way to play Mafia. You make a habit of questioning my methods, but I haven't seen your superior alternative yet. Give me the goods, INH.

Looking at reactions isn't a thing I have a problem with.

What I have a problem with is everyone baitin' like there's no tomorrow, and throwing intentionally false reads around in order to justify any possible case against anyone with a cheap and easy "he reacted weirdly to me acting weirdly; let's lynch 'em"

My radical style of gameplay is to always doubt myself. Yup, this is pretty much the antithesis to you, but I like to hold back and observe people's reactions and gameplay without contaminating the results by inserting myself in the process. And I'm very rarely 100% sure of anyone's alignment. Although, if I am, it's probably Epignosis. And I've been right about him for the last two games.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:No, what I meant was that despite all of your gameplay that I disagree with, this still seems par for the course for you, and I don't suspect you for it. That was essentially me saying that you're acting how a civ 3J would act in my limited experience.

So you asked me that question up there, flooded the thread with gifs, and then misrepresented everything I've said in a way to make it appear sillier than it was -- all to tell me that you trust me?

I don't believe you. You know I'm town and you're trying to discredit me by pointing to things you think can be portrayed as illogical or unfair. It's a way to weaken my influence without specifically attacking me as a scum read. Nope.

You got one thing right, I am, in fact, trying to weaken your influence over the thread. Although it's not because I'm bad and I think you're civ, it's because I think it's important for people to doubt everything they read in a game of mafia, and focus less on brash personalities. And I don't think what you're suggesting at this point would benefit the civ cause, even though I perfectly understand why you're suggesting it.

Can civilians disagree in mafia without calling each other scum? This is like a bizarro version of "can men and women be close friends without romance entering the eqaution?"

insertnamehere wrote:My radical style of gameplay is to always doubt myself. Yup, this is pretty much the antithesis to you, but I like to hold back and observe people's reactions and gameplay without contaminating the results by inserting myself in the process. And I'm very rarely 100% sure of anyone's alignment. Although, if I am, it's probably Epignosis. And I've been right about him for the last two games.

You don't understand my methods if this how you portray them. I constantly doubt myself even if I don't specifically say it. I am rarely 100% sure of anyone either. I might convey a confident persona, but that's a part of the interrogation process. I don't believe that "contamination" is a thing -- sitting around and waiting for baddie reads to happen is a losing strategy. If there isn't at least one person making a concerted effort to drive the thread towards a productive environment of discussion/argument/conflict, then those reads never arrive. People sit on their hands and place uneasy votes based upon a lower quantity of observable evidence, and the results tend to be unfavorable for town factions.

My objective isn't to lynch people based on whatever whims I am experiencing on a given day. My objective is to generate a game thread which promotes the highest-possible chance of facilitating strong reads. I change my mind more than anyone I know for this reason -- the only read that matters is the one that accompanies a final vote. Everything else is a part of the process of arriving at that final vote.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I interpreted it as implying the opposite, so at that time it was a lie.

I perceive obsessiveness over "lies" to be a scumtell. Marsh was clearly not being entirely serious, and you still felt inclined to fight back against the "lie". Moreover you fought against my frivolous town read. You're suspicious, sir.

I also contested your frivolous town read (glad you admit yourself you have nothing serious on the table; shady!) on smileys being counted. I told you, townreads need to be strong, America has had it with half-assed optimism and positive thinking.

As for the rest, I contest every form of accusation that's brought against me, whether it's serious or thrown around, whether it's reasoned or comes in a fortune cookie, it's what I do, older story than the Bible itself, folks. If you care to be my sparing partner for the next 20 pages and 200 posts, be my guest.

I don't care that you contest something. I care how you contest it. The combination of "it's a lie!" with "you shouldn't give town reads on this guy" becomes "you shouldn't town read people who lie!", which is scummy.

I dunno, saying "you shouldn't town read people who lie!" sounds logical to me, I think it makes a lot of sense, let's ask the audience what they think, clap if you think that people who lie should not be town read, are potential crooked democrats or maybe suspicious immigrations who should be thrown out of the country.

*AUDIENCE ROARS AND HELLS YEAH*

There you go.

But I jest. Let's take this part by part and list the parts, I love lists, I'm a great fan of lists, always liked doing lists.

1. If Metalmarsh89's fundamental goal (fundamentalist even! shady!) was to reach and plant the idea that I must be bad in this game, by whatever odd oddity audacity, then it's still a crooked lie.
2. There's still the issue of Metalmarsh89 having been townread for multiple accusations and I've contested both of those angles. You're being reductive now by reducing it just to the crooked lie thing. So the issue is "how" I contested the townreads, I think I did at least half a decent job contesting the townreads, except if point 1 stands, in which case I think I did a pretty decent job overall contesting the townreads.

insertnamehere wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:No, what I meant was that despite all of your gameplay that I disagree with, this still seems par for the course for you, and I don't suspect you for it. That was essentially me saying that you're acting how a civ 3J would act in my limited experience.

So you asked me that question up there, flooded the thread with gifs, and then misrepresented everything I've said in a way to make it appear sillier than it was -- all to tell me that you trust me?

I don't believe you. You know I'm town and you're trying to discredit me by pointing to things you think can be portrayed as illogical or unfair. It's a way to weaken my influence without specifically attacking me as a scum read. Nope.

You got one thing right, I am, in fact, trying to weaken your influence over the thread. Although it's not because I'm bad and I think you're civ, it's because I think it's important for people to doubt everything they read in a game of mafia, and focus less on brash personalities. And I don't think what you're suggesting at this point would benefit the civ cause, even though I perfectly understand why you're suggesting it.

Can civilians disagree in mafia without calling each other scum? This is like a bizarro version of "can men and women be close friends without romance entering the eqaution?"

This one I believe. Your opinion of my methods is such that you believe the town could stand to benefit from avoiding it, and thus you're speaking out against it.

This is the point of hurling accusations. I don't have to believe in the accusation wholeheartedly, it only has to serve a productive purpose -- because now I town read you. This discussion just turned into the same one we had in Battlestar Galactica (I think?) and to a lesser extend in Triskaidekaphobia.

Ricochet wrote:I dunno, saying "you shouldn't town read people who lie!" sounds logical to me, I think it makes a lot of sense, let's ask the audience what they think, clap if you think that people who lie should not be town read, are potential crooked democrats or maybe suspicious immigrations who should be thrown out of the country.

Of course it "sounds" logical. That's why a baddie would promote it. It's the easiest, most obvious manner of shading someone else while seeming like the more reasonable party in the discussion. Here's the problem, Mr. List:

1. I think townies lie just as much as baddies, and perhaps even more than baddies (I lie more as a townie easily).

2. There was no lie.

3. Even if it was a lie, it'd serve no valuable Mafia purpose given that it is so easily revealed to be a falsehood (the frequency with which you draw certain alignments).

But I jest. Let's take this part by part and list the parts, I love lists, I'm a great fan of lists, always liked doing lists.

Ricochet wrote:1. If Metalmarsh89's fundamental goal (fundamentalist even! shady!) was to reach and plant the idea that I must be bad in this game, by whatever odd oddity audacity, then it's still a crooked lie.

What is the "lie"? I do think there's a logical fallacy, but I don't see a lie.

Ricochet wrote:2. There's still the issue of Metalmarsh89 having been townread for multiple accusations and I've contested both of those angles. You're being reductive now by reducing it just to the crooked lie thing. So the issue is "how" I contested the townreads, I think I did at least half a decent job contesting the townreads, except if point 1 stands, in which case I think I did a pretty decent job overall contesting the townreads.

I don't think you did. I think you stated the obvious. "Smileys don't have to be a towntell, scum can make smiley-based reads too!" Well no kidding, dude. Duh. That's not a "point". Scum can do anything at all, the notion of "possibility" and "could" is an extremely broad notion. I saw MM's accusations and I made a gut read in the moment -- it wasn't the one you liked. Too bad.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:
1. I think townies lie just as much as baddies, and perhaps even more than baddies (I lie more as a townie easily).

I can agree with the first part. You know what the opposing view to that is? Townreading. And who did that? Not me!

Jaggy' Jay wrote:2. There was no lie.

I'm not Mafia. I'm not Mafia by virtue of not having been in a while, either. Lie!

Jaggy' Jay wrote: 3. Even if it was a lie, it'd serve no valuable Mafia purpose given that it is so easily revealed to be a falsehood (the frequency with which you draw certain alignments).

This is not about debunking the fallacy. I already did that, straight away - even if I landed in the cornfield of logic, instead of on track with what MM meant, let's put that aside; no biggie! It would or could serve valuable Mafia purposes. If you happen to be civ, just watch what you're doing right now. MM, if mafia, is probably smoking a doobie on the couch, witnessing what he creating with just a simple planted crooked lie.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:1. If Metalmarsh89's fundamental goal (fundamentalist even! shady!) was to reach and plant the idea that I must be bad in this game, by whatever odd oddity audacity, then it's still a crooked lie.

What is the "lie"? I do think there's a logical fallacy, but I don't see a lie.

See above. Time is precious to reiterate the same arguments, we need to focus on making America great again.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:2. There's still the issue of Metalmarsh89 having been townread for multiple accusations and I've contested both of those angles. You're being reductive now by reducing it just to the crooked lie thing. So the issue is "how" I contested the townreads, I think I did at least half a decent job contesting the townreads, except if point 1 stands, in which case I think I did a pretty decent job overall contesting the townreads.

I don't think you did. I think you stated the obvious. "Smileys don't have to be a towntell, scum can make smiley-based reads too!" Well no kidding, dude. Duh. That's not a "point". Scum can do anything at all, the notion of "possibility" and "could" is an extremely broad notion. I saw MM's accusations and I made a gut read in the moment -- it wasn't the one you liked. Too bad.

No idea what you want me to say here. First off, I contested means I challenged your stance. Easy nuff! Then I further substantiated by what you tend describe as "stating the obvious". That ain't my problem, because the "obvious that was stated" actually helps in avoiding exactly what you did - townreading someone for something that could come from any side.

Besides your quote up there is all messed up, because it would mean it refers to Epignosis, not MM. Never once have I addressed the issue of MM align-reading Epignosis, but you townreading MM for making a case about of smiley-usage nuances.

Ricochet wrote:Townreading for emoticon casing is bull, tbh. The crooked could attempt anything, especially if it's Mr. Marsh we're talking about.

White on black, folks!

i have read nothing

protip: i will not read your walls nor will you read mine (because i don't write them)

short and sweet, like i like my women

more villagers itt rn than wolves

maybe no wolves idk

that's my "ive done no reading" read

Ricochet wrote:

Jaggy' Jay wrote:
1. I think townies lie just as much as baddies, and perhaps even more than baddies (I lie more as a townie easily).

I can agree with the first part. You know what the opposing view to that is? Townreading. And who did that? Not me!

How is the opposing view of "townies lie just as much as baddies" "townreading"? I seriously don't understand what you mean, please try to restate it another way.

Ricochet wrote:

Jaggy' Jay wrote:2. There was no lie.

I'm not Mafia. I'm not Mafia by virtue of not having been in a while, either. Lie!

Ricochet wrote:

Jaggy' Jay wrote:What is the "lie"? I do think there's a logical fallacy, but I don't see a lie.

See above. Time is precious to reiterate the same arguments, we need to focus on making America great again.

If that's the perspective you're espousing, then you're espousing a confident mafia read on Metalmarsh89. He cannot be "lying" unless he knows he is stating a falsehood, which is only possible if he is bad. So: are you saying that he is bad?

Ricochet wrote:

Jaggy' Jay wrote: 3. Even if it was a lie, it'd serve no valuable Mafia purpose given that it is so easily revealed to be a falsehood (the frequency with which you draw certain alignments).

This is not about debunking the fallacy. I already did that, straight away - even if I landed in the cornfield of logic, instead of on track with what MM meant, let's put that aside; no biggie! It would or could serve valuable Mafia purposes. If you happen to be civ, just watch what you're doing right now. MM, if mafia, is probably smoking a doobie on the couch, witnessing what he creating with just a simple planted crooked lie.

MM, as a baddie, has no way of knowing how people are going to react to whatever he does. You're saying he projected my support of him and thus also my opposition of those who then questioned my support?

Your assertions continue to veer into stronger language. At this point I am taking for granted that you currently have a baddie read on MM. If that is untrue you'd do well to say so.

Ricochet wrote:No idea what you want me to say here. First off, I contested means I challenged your stance. Easy nuff! Then I further substantiated by what you tend describe as "stating the obvious". That ain't my problem, because the "obvious that was stated" actually helps in avoiding exactly what you did - townreading someone for something that could come from any side.

Besides your quote up there is all messed up, because it would mean it refers to Epignosis, not MM. Never once have I addressed the issue of MM align-reading Epignosis, but you townreading MM for making a case about of smiley-usage nuances.

Yes, I know you were were challenging me and not MM. That's what I'm getting at in this post. You're now espousing language that must logically be associated with Ricochet having a scum read on Metalmarsh89 -- not on JaggedJimmyJay. Everything you're saying is built around this notion that he "lied" about you, which is only plausible if he is bad. Otherwise you're ignoring the potential that he's town and was just making a silly accusation for the sake of it. Is this our reality?

Ricochet and Jay are v/v

certainly not w/w

Beck wrote:Ricochet and Jay are v/v

Perhaps. The most valuable function of the Wall of Text Wars (WoTW) for each of us ought to be the opportunity to determine whether that's the case. I do believe, however, that outside observers are often too quick to judge a WoTW as being town/town -- indeed that's often the specific design of a mafioso engaging in one. I know I do it.

When it comes to Ricochet right now, I am seeing a similar scenario as to what Golden dealth with in the champs finale. He was a townie engaged in a long WoTW with the scum player Silver, who was ranting endlessly about how Golden LIED LIED LIED, and it was just obvious b/s. Rico's conduct is not "obvious", but the parallel is influencing my perspective.

This would be an opportunity for Golden to state his perspective. After having been subject to that, I think he'd be especially qualified to make a judgment in this scenario.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Jaggy' Jay wrote:
1. I think townies lie just as much as baddies, and perhaps even more than baddies (I lie more as a townie easily).

I can agree with the first part. You know what the opposing view to that is? Townreading. And who did that? Not me!

How is the opposing view of "townies lie just as much as baddies" "townreading"? I seriously don't understand what you mean, please try to restate it another way.[/quoet]

"Townies lie just as much as baddies" is the middle ground. Townreading is the far right approach on this axis.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Jaggy' Jay wrote:2. There was no lie.

I'm not Mafia. I'm not Mafia by virtue of not having been in a while, either. Lie!

Ricochet wrote:

Jaggy' Jay wrote:What is the "lie"? I do think there's a logical fallacy, but I don't see a lie.

See above. Time is precious to reiterate the same arguments, we need to focus on making America great again.

If that's the perspective you're espousing, then you're espousing a confident mafia read on Metalmarsh89. He cannot be "lying" unless he knows he is stating a falsehood, which is only possible if he is bad. So: are you saying that he is bad?

How am I espousing (something about this word alluding the word "spouse" in itself is making me uncomfortable; can we change the word? brr!) "confident mafia read". You've just taken the stance that falsehoods could be expressed by either camps. Flippy-floppy!

Anyway, I never made a confident read. The farthest I've gone, I think, was saying I feel "worse" about his accusations, in light of you having townread him. And I do have reasons for that feeling, since there are legit parameters:

1. his accusation was preceded by asking me, in the same style, how mafia am I?
2. his lie itself, via use of fallafellicious projecting
3. his follow-up to my reaction was to potentially proclaim that he rused me and will vote me

Further, I'd be repeating myself by mentioning, yet again, the plausible effects that MM could expect, if bad, from planting such a seed. One of them, i.e. you suspecting me for my reactions and take on the situation, could be well in motion. Who knows what tomorrow might hold? Wake up, America!

Jaggy' Jay wrote: MM, as a baddie, has no way of knowing how people are going to react to whatever he does. You're saying he projected my support of him and thus also my opposition of those who then questioned my support?

Your assertions continue to veer into stronger language. At this point I am taking for granted that you currently have a baddie read on MM. If that is untrue you'd do well to say so.

You're focusing on yourself having supported his statement, not on the information about me that he released into the open. There can be legit baddie intent in making such a release, I don't see what's hard to understand.

We need strong language to unmask the crooked democrats and the perils in our society. (Y)!

Ricochet wrote:No idea what you want me to say here. First off, I contested means I challenged your stance. Easy nuff! Then I further substantiated by what you tend describe as "stating the obvious". That ain't my problem, because the "obvious that was stated" actually helps in avoiding exactly what you did - townreading someone for something that could come from any side.

Besides your quote up there is all messed up, because it would mean it refers to Epignosis, not MM. Never once have I addressed the issue of MM align-reading Epignosis, but you townreading MM for making a case about of smiley-usage nuances.

Yes, I know you were were challenging me and not MM. That's what I'm getting at in this post. You're now espousing language that must logically be associated with Ricochet having a scum read on Metalmarsh89 -- not on JaggedJimmyJay. Everything you're saying is built around this notion that he "lied" about you, which is only plausible if he is bad. Otherwise you're ignoring the potential that he's town and was just making a silly accusation for the sake of it. Is this our reality?

I'm on the opposite trend of townreading him for it, as you have done, to say the least.

If I see a dog about to take a dump in my luxury presidential campaigner Trump Hotel suite pool, I'll shoo it away, not pet him. Bad dog!

linki:

Jaggy' Jay wrote:When it comes to Ricochet right now, I am seeing a similar scenario as to what Golden dealth with in the champs finale. He was a townie engaged in a long WoTW with the scum player Silver, who was ranting endlessly about how Golden LIED LIED LIED, and it was just obvious b/s. Rico's conduct is not "obvious", but the parallel is influencing my perspective.

You do realize you're projecting a baddie conduct out of a different medium in which I haven't even take a peek at, right?

Dunno what I did to make that post end up like that, but not going to edit, since it's forbidden, or EBWOP, since lazy. Careful with the quotes from now on.

Ricochet wrote:How am I espousing (something about this word alluding the word "spouse" in itself is making me uncomfortable; can we change the word? brr!) "confident mafia read". You've just taken the stance that falsehoods could be expressed by either camps. Flippy-floppy!

No. To "lie" means that a deliberate falsehood has been promoted. You're saying that MM's "lie" was to imply that you're mafia-aligned regardless of the logic he used to arrive upon that conclusion.

This means that for MM to truly having been telling a lie, he'd have to know your alignment for certain -- something which shouldn't be possible if he is town. You cannot pretend I am contradicting myself here, because there is only one way for your assertion to make any sense.

Ricochet wrote:Further, I'd be repeating myself by mentioning, yet again, the plausible effects that MM could expect, if bad, from planting such a seed. One of them, i.e. you suspecting me for my reactions and take on the situation, could be well in motion. Who knows what tomorrow might hold? Wake up, America!

This just reads like b/s to me. What you're saying has no actual substance. "MM did a thing because the thing he did might in some roundabout way result in me looking bad." If he had given you an impossible ultimatum, or asked you a loaded question -- that might be more understandable.

Ricochet wrote:You're focusing on yourself having supported his statement, not on the information about me that he released into the open. There can be legit baddie intent in making such a release, I don't see what's hard to understand.

We need strong language to unmask the crooked democrats and the perils in our society. (Y)!

I agree that there's a possible baddie intent. I think it would be stupid, but it exists. Like I said: you're dealing in "coulds" and "maybes". The problem is -- your language is pushing you into a place where you must logically be scum reading MM -- indeed scum reading him more confidently than I ever town read him. I threw out a gut read in a moment's read, but you're restricting yourself to a place where he must be scum and only scum for what you're saying about him to logically function. There is no alternative if you're to be taken at face value.

Ricochet wrote:I'm on the opposite trend of townreading him for it, as you have done, to say the least.

Okay, so why didn't you say this until now? Instead of accusing MM for doing something you find suspicious, you instead set your targets on me for my opposing read. Your bigger concern was that you and I disagreed instead of that you had an actual suspect? I find that dubious.

Ricochet wrote:You do realize you're projecting a baddie conduct out of a different medium in which I haven't even take a peek at, right?

Whether you paid attention to that game is irrelevant. The reason I knew silver was scum in that game was that his behavior was transparently scummy even though I knew nothing about silver as a player whatosever. It's a face value read which does not demand much contextual basis. Golden may be able to qualify this either way though I think.

Hello I will not be able to say anything or engage in anything game-related here until late tonight or early tomorrow. I apologize. Everyone do Day 1 things and I'll be back later.

Everyone else: I don't expect you to read our text walls. Once we've had our chat and I am satisfied with whatever conclusion I come to I'll summarize it.