The Syndicate

oh ok. we have a bit of that over in RYM but its unreliable so it never holds water.

I cannot imagine how you do not think anything I've said is alignment indicative.

Long Con's interactions.
I think the most we can pull from this is whether or not the whole bea vote / fake bea vote thing was a bussing/backtracking.

But there's some nuggets in that there spoiler bocks, I reck'n.

Namaste ole.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:You've still not told me why I'm scum as a result of those antics though.

I have told you exactly why I think you are scum. I think you pulled a move with LC, to give you cred and to get him off to prepping A World Reborn, which is going to take a huge amount of his time and effort.

Not to mention, I haven't bought a single thing you've been selling this entire game. You are just really off, man. Your questioning of Diiny, your case on LC... it's all shoddy.

What was my move with LC? Are you saying my antics were the "move", or just my aggression against him in general?

My case on LC was 100% correct -- I didn't believe his claim that his bea suspicion was a ruse despite multiple people telling me I should think otherwise including you. If you're town, then I have a comparison to make which might resonate with you. Remember in RYM#87 on Day 1 (when I was still town), and we disagreed on sanmateo? You wanted to lynch him and I didn't -- in the end it turned out you were correct. Consider this a reversal of that incident. I'm not convinced that you were protecting LC and will consider the possibility that you're town especially now in light of this weird duel you've proposed which would be a problem for any alignment I might assign to you.

Golden wrote:I just believe you are bad through and through - I don't have to justify it any more than that. This is supatown golden, and you haven't ever been in my crosshairs before. So get ready for a bumpy ride.

This is promising to be an unfortunate introduction.

Golden wrote:(Of course, JJJ, it is possible you can convince me you are civ. I'm not saying it's impossible. My read back is likely to open up new questions for you. However - I think it is probably 90% likely that you are in fact bad, so it will take some convincing.)

I'll be the judge of whether you're giving me a chance to convince you. Remains to be seen. Review my posts and ask your questions.

Golden wrote:linki - I did not instruct anyone where their FOCUS should be - I instructed you what you should encourage in terms of voting (no reason you can't choose to vote between two people and continue to focus on others). Two very different things.

I don't think that's a realistic idea -- people would be inclined to discuss their votes more than anything else. But I'll consider the possibility that you really believe in it anyway.

An Epigstyle read post to go with my Epig vote: All players that start with M are town reads for me.

linki @Golden: Because you're being hyper-inconsistent, as if to call attention to yourself; that could go either way, alignment-wise.
linki @Strawhenge: You are the fucking man.

The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

motel room wrote:

Matt F wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:17 fucking guests lmao

LOL

One of those might be me. Are hidden members counted as guests?

Why would you go hidden?

I noticed jay had that setting too, pretty sure.

I set it that way when I originally joined The Syndicate. I think it's out of the spirit of the game when people say things like "so and so is online and not talking" or whatever. In a perfect world everyone is hidden, in my opinion.

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

truthfact

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My case on LC was 100% correct

So it was. Imagine that!

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

Are you saying that the (first?) most pingy is the Seaside comment? That's what strikes out to me the most.

motel room wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

truthfact

Agreed, not a great look for Sorsha. Good eye, Strawhenge.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My case on LC was 100% correct

So it was. Imagine that!

sarcasm ejaculation.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My case on LC was 100% correct

So it was. Imagine that!

Rest. Of. The. Post.

Sorry, I should have used orange

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

Are you saying that the (first?) most pingy is the Seaside comment? That's what strikes out to me the most.

I think that one actually reflects decently well on Seaside. I read it as LC seeing an opportunity to policy lynch someone for a dumb reason and taking advantage.

Eek, the hostel people have emerged for breakfast and are conquering the computer space! I must begone!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

Are you saying that the (first?) most pingy is the Seaside comment? That's what strikes out to me the most.

I think that one actually reflects decently well on Seaside. I read it as LC seeing an opportunity to policy lynch someone for a dumb reason and taking advantage.

Interesting.

Polite request that as many people as possible express their thoughts on this matter. I think it looks bad for Seaside, JJJ seems to think it "reflects decently well" for him. What are your thoughts?

linki: Toodle-oo

OK, JJ, I can probably compartmentalise this suspicion somewhat at times...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My case on LC was 100% correct -- I didn't believe his claim that his bea suspicion was a ruse despite multiple people telling me I should think otherwise including you.

I've never known you to be SO determined about your suspicion as to ignore the multiple people telling you that all know the persons meta, versus yourself who does not. In fact, you almost invariably take it on board in a very measured and careful way. This time you did not.

Your entire behaviour around that end day comes across to me as someone who knew what way LC would flip. Could you be a civilian info role? No - I don't see you ever doing antics that crazy and overt if you had a civilian info role.

@JJ - go enjoy sweden. We can continue this later

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

Are you saying that the (first?) most pingy is the Seaside comment? That's what strikes out to me the most.

The Seaside thing comes in at close third. The most pingy was the bea thing. I could go both ways on what that could implicate for bea.

I'm thinking that it was probably a tunneling that he just backed out on when he saw that nobody was biting. bea has seemed alright to me so far.

linki: JJJ, wert Seaside, it could go both ways on that too.

linki 2: JJJ, run.

Golden wrote:I don't see you ever doing antics that crazy and overt if you had a civilian info role.

I do actually. That is perfectly plausible to me. I still have a strong scum read on JJJ, but I must be honest about these differences.

Strawhenge wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

Are you saying that the (first?) most pingy is the Seaside comment? That's what strikes out to me the most.

The Seaside thing comes in at close third. The most pingy was the bea thing. I could go both ways on what that could implicate for bea.

I'm thinking that it was probably a tunneling that he just backed out on when he saw that nobody was biting. bea has seemed alright to me so far.

linki: JJJ, wert Seaside, it could go both ways on that too.

linki 2: JJJ, run.

That's a disappointingly neutral response, Strawhenge. But I appreciate the honesty, or well-cloaked deceit, whichever it is.

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Ooooh... Looks like it's time to play favorites!

I'm voting Long Con for Syndicate because I think he'll be a good leader and MetalMarsh for RYM because he's actually one of us.

Also thanks Sorsh!

Looking through Long Con's posts...

I see Sorsha voted LC in Dusk 0. But I forgot, Sorsha doesn't like me looking at Day/Dusk 0 stuff. My apologies.

Anyway, back to reading LC (btw Straw, NICE POST on LC. I'd still like to read everything myself but much appreciated)

I was writing up a three scenario liklihood ranking in my opinion for Long Con\Bea just then and as I typed this I realised it made no sense --
"Long Con (scum) playfully voted Bea (scum) and backpedalled from pressure"

so it's down to only

Long Con (scum) voted Bea (town) and backpedalled from pressure > Long Con (scum) playfully voted Bea (scum) and "backpedalled" from pressure so that he would be a lynch target in a scum designed gambit.

Long Con wrote:Rbzmncaeaei, I take offense that you accuse me of not reading everything. I read everything, and bea is the one who raised my eyebrow. Unlike you, I have a job, and I have kids, and I have responsibilities, so I don't always have time to write hour-long posts that broadcast every thought I have about every post in the game. I read, I analyze, and I consider who I think is bad. I don't feel the need to respond to every conversation that has gone on in the game.

Suspect my suspicion all you want, but don't accuse me of not reading every post, because that is not true.

With this and Rbz's subsequent post that seemed hella apologetic and genuine, I now have RBZ as town or SK, but not Mafia.

And no, I didn't just say this because RBZ thinks I'm town. :P

Long Con wrote:Day 0 counts as much as we want it to count, as far as I know. If someone did something suspicious on Day 0, then it's valid to suspect them for it during the remainder of the game.

However, I find a preoccupation with Day 0 to be suspicious in and of itself, because there has been plenty of content during Day 1 to sift through. Focusing on Day 0 seems like an angle, a weak way to have conversation and seem to be involved.

That was awfully nice of scum to tell us that a preoccupation with Day 0 is suspicious. I wonder who else has been saying stuff like this?

Matt F wrote:

Long Con wrote:Day 0 counts as much as we want it to count, as far as I know. If someone did something suspicious on Day 0, then it's valid to suspect them for it during the remainder of the game.

However, I find a preoccupation with Day 0 to be suspicious in and of itself, because there has been plenty of content during Day 1 to sift through. Focusing on Day 0 seems like an angle, a weak way to have conversation and seem to be involved.

That was awfully nice of scum to tell us that a preoccupation with Day 0 is suspicious. I wonder who else has been saying stuff like this?

Oooh! Oooh! I know!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

Didn't see that coming, did you?

And with that, I'm off to my subconscious for the night. Happy searching, everyone.

That very post from JJJ is another one which pinged me a lot even at the time. For the person who was elected to say that the dusk 0 poll was unlikely co-ordinated was very self serving.

Long Con, JJJ, bea, ricochet, Dr Wilgy, sig.. one more... possibly MM.

That's where my head is at right now.

It's actually kind of insulting how dumb some of you think I am.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

Are you saying that the (first?) most pingy is the Seaside comment? That's what strikes out to me the most.

I think that one actually reflects decently well on Seaside. I read it as LC seeing an opportunity to policy lynch someone for a dumb reason and taking advantage.

Interesting.

Polite request that as many people as possible express their thoughts on this matter. I think it looks bad for Seaside, JJJ seems to think it "reflects decently well" for him. What are your thoughts?

linki: Toodle-oo

Which post of seasides do you want us looking at? Please quote it.

Sorsha wrote:It's actually kind of insulting how dumb some of you think I am.

What is this based on friend?

6 pages during a 5-hour sleep. Something something fml

What about that! Scum Con in action again. Definitely fooled me.

I fear my Skittles chart will have mostly gone to shit now, but on the plus side, I prefer looking into connections, once a mafia flips.

Elohcin wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Knock knock, Eloh!

Who's there?

Tell.

---

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:JJJ, I've seen you supatown. My De Niro game, my god did you supatown.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:@Rus

Same reason I'm obviously town. Supatowning. It doesn't have to be agreed upon, as long as there is content, and that content appears genuine.

Supatown? Supatowning? How do you know this word? Where have you heard it?

Golden wrote:
PS - I've been Long Con's partner before and pulled exactly the same move with him, and we were both willing to do it, because we figured it would create the best cover ever.

Golden wrote:
King Arthur, here we bloody well come.

omg, are you referencing meta? How am I supposed to think there's evidence to believe it?

@rico - lets go for the threepeat.

So far, your approach to me calling you 'aggressive' is you to semantically question how defense can be aggressive.

Then, you semantically question how I can simultaneously question two different people about statements about their own meta, just because their comments are opposites.

Now, you are semantically raising that I am pointing out things that have happened in the past, merely because I have also referenced events that happened in past games (that, by the way, I am not asking you to go read).

The single connection going all the way through this is this - you haven't voted for me once, and yet you continue to go after me with semantics. I do not find your semantics in any way relevant or persuasive. I do not keep a spreadsheet of all the games I've played to help me figure out what is going on in this one. I play on my gut, because my gut works for me. You will never get past my gut with semantic arguments.

Oh, but by the way - I'll allow others to do the talking about those games for me, should they choose to. If they don't, then you have no more reason to think they are relevant than I have to think your own self-reference is relevant. If they do talk about it, then you have an objective frame of reference to work off. Which is a difference.

Golden wrote:@rico - lets go for the threepeat.

So far, your approach to me calling you 'aggressive' is you to semantically question how defense can be aggressive.

Then, you semantically question how I can simultaneously question two different people about statements about their own meta, just because their comments are opposites.

Now, you are semantically raising that I am pointing out things that have happened in the past, merely because I have also referenced events that happened in past games (that, by the way, I am not asking you to go read).

The single connection going all the way through this is this - you haven't voted for me once, and yet you continue to go after me with semantics. I do not find your semantics in any way relevant or persuasive. I do not keep a spreadsheet of all the games I've played to help me figure out what is going on in this one. I play on my gut, because my gut works for me. You will never get past my gut with semantic arguments.

I fear you are hooked on the semantics. You even asked me back then

Golden wrote:@Rico

Your rebuttal to me appears to be that I should know how intense you get when defending yourself, but then you want to be pedantic at me about how can you be both aggressive and defensive. Do you think your use of 'intense' and my use of 'aggressive' might be talking about one and the same?

And now you flip the burger that I am the one questioning how my defense is aggressive. I never did that. I never questioned you semantically on calling me aggressive. I questioned you on calling me aggressive.

As for point #2, yes, I am growingly questioning how is it that I appear to be the only player on the player that you do not subject to any meta or do not take in consideration any meta reference. You did that to b24 and suddenly you're referencing yourself some meta cues. Yet I am your "case by case"/"gut" example, for some odd reason. All I'm saying is that if you're thinking of player's past games (or, in fact, your own past games), you should be more than capable (or at least willing) to treat me the same. How you handle my meta references, in terms of trust/distrust, afterwards, is entirely fair game and up to you.

I'm sorry, do I need to instantly vote for you, just because I question some of your methods (partly directed at me) and "go over semantics"?

I don't keep a meta spreadsheet, either, but unlike you, I am open to include meta in my research or point to it when I think it consistently defends me. Actually, I say "unlike you", because you claim you go by gut and game-by-game, but in fact you also were open to include meta in your research (on b24, on JJJ) and to point at it if it backs up something you did. Your open to all of this, except for your views on me, apparently.

so i got meself a scum

EBWOP: the only player on the planet*

wtf I thought I slept well

MacDougall wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:The thing about Sorsha is the second most pingy one. He was asked directly by another player, and gave a really dodgy response.

Are you saying that the (first?) most pingy is the Seaside comment? That's what strikes out to me the most.

I think that one actually reflects decently well on Seaside. I read it as LC seeing an opportunity to policy lynch someone for a dumb reason and taking advantage.

Interesting.

Polite request that as many people as possible express their thoughts on this matter. I think it looks bad for Seaside, JJJ seems to think it "reflects decently well" for him. What are your thoughts?

linki: Toodle-oo

Which post of seasides do you want us looking at? Please quote it.

yeah, i don't even know which post we are talking about and i made it (apparently)

motel room wrote:Long Con
8
Choutas (12), sig (16), seaside (17), DrWilgy (18), motel room (31), bcornett24 (32), JaggedJimmyJay (34), Russtifinko (35) 21%

I still want to hear why Choutas voted Long Con.
I think sig was genuine and worked this case.
If it wasnt weekend time I would check the circumstances of seaside's vote.
I can read an entire post by DrWilgy and somehow not register.
I'm a top bloke.
bcornett was saving himself so he's town - he could've gone with llama that hadn't lost steam yet i dont think, why bus LC when he has the "saving himself" get out of jail vote.
JJJ will be discussed a fair bit I guess.
Russtifinko just came out of nowhere an plopped a vote on huh.

if you are going to give bcornett that benefit of the doubt, you have to give me the same.

@rico - I have taken into account on you exactly the same amount of meta as I have on anyone else, which you well know. That amount is 'when I've played with you'. I have not gone away and researched anyone beyond my own experience with them. My experience with you, as I stated, is that you do not have a meta. That IS taking into account meta, you are the one who wants to make it look like I'm being inconsistent when I am in fact not at all.

Ricochet wrote:I fear you are hooked on the semantics. You even asked me back then

I will continue to be hooked on semantics for as long as you continue to attempt to use semantic arguments to take your point. Nice use of quote, but lets put that in context, eh?

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:Rico on this page is making me vote rico. I'm not a fan of the slightly defensive rico I'm seeing. I still need to go back and think about why I feel bad the whole time. It does start a bit with hearing that even he and MR F were going at it in the other thread. Aggressive rico bothers me. In the words of llama, I think there is precedent for rico playing the Detective Aggressive Scumhunt von Threadleader style.

I'm surprised, we've played enough games before for you to have an idea of how intense I can get in rebuttals. Same as it ever was! Also, I don't get where I've been aggressive, nor where I've been DAS von T so far, maybe you can expand on that. Finally, at the risk of being deserving of pedantic pink yet again, you're "not a fan of "slightly defensive rico", then you're bothered by "aggressive rico". Well, which one am I?

YOU are the one getting semantic over the use of the word aggressive. You were happy to use the word 'intense' to describe your defense, but rejected the word 'aggressive'.

My response (that you quoted) was me pointing out the fact you were being semantic.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Oh, that's fine. Days are better anyway.

less chance for Crosseyed and Painless to role check you?

You take in account a meta that you say I do not have? This sounds like "non-religion is still a religion"

inb4 "getting semantical"

The only disclaimer I can accept is that you limit yourself to active experience, ergo some of my defensive episodes from previous games happened mostly when you were out. I acknowledge I may have pressed too much on those episodes being something that you should have in mind or anything.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I fear you are hooked on the semantics. You even asked me back then

I will continue to be hooked on semantics for as long as you continue to attempt to use semantic arguments to take your point. Nice use of quote, but lets put that in context, eh?

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:Rico on this page is making me vote rico. I'm not a fan of the slightly defensive rico I'm seeing. I still need to go back and think about why I feel bad the whole time. It does start a bit with hearing that even he and MR F were going at it in the other thread. Aggressive rico bothers me. In the words of llama, I think there is precedent for rico playing the Detective Aggressive Scumhunt von Threadleader style.

I'm surprised, we've played enough games before for you to have an idea of how intense I can get in rebuttals. Same as it ever was! Also, I don't get where I've been aggressive, nor where I've been DAS von T so far, maybe you can expand on that. Finally, at the risk of being deserving of pedantic pink yet again, you're "not a fan of "slightly defensive rico", then you're bothered by "aggressive rico". Well, which one am I?

YOU are the one getting semantic over the use of the word aggressive. You were happy to use the word 'intense' to describe your defense, but rejected the word 'aggressive'.

My response (that you quoted) was me pointing out the fact you were being semantic.

Nah. Nah. Take a lot a these spins.

You are either pushing the wrong angle or misunderstanding. I wasn't semantic about intense vs. aggressive. I was semantic in finding it contradictory that you'd call me defensive and aggressive in the same suspicion post. Those are opposites for me, on a basis level of how a player behaves (i.e. he either defends or is aggressive in tackling others).

The "intense" referred to the "defensive", because I can only claim I'm intense in defending. Which is my point and was all along.

I cannot be claiming that I'm intense in being agressive OR that I'm intense as in aggressive, because:

1) I never claimed I'm aggressive.
2) I never claimed intense = aggressive (you have my clarification post on that)

So as I've said, you're either hooked on something odd here or you've misunderstood what I meant by intense. Intense defense, not intense anything else.

inb5 "getting semantical"

inb6 getting semantical.

I rejected that explanation the first time and I reject it again. Your explanation for what YOU meant is irrelevant, your original meaning of your post is not important. The point is that you tried to use semantics against me. Three times now. And don't pretend you didn't, because in the same post you objected to me saying aggressive, you yourself admitted to being intense in your defense - even though you were responding to me saying 'slightly defensive'. You knew absolutely what I meant, and you chose to use the words I used against me while ignoring the clear intent of the words. That is what using semantics is.

PS, I don't actually care what disclaimer 'you can accept' nor (to JJJ) do I care about someone saying 'I will be the judge of whether or not you have given me the chance'.

Neither of you get to decide where my vote goes, I do. And it will go where it goes no matter what you can accept. If you think this makes me scum, then vote for me.

I'm going to go eat my hat in the corner. What a result!! Nice job people. Sorry I was trying to save him
Just goes to show that the more you play with a person, the less you retain your basic instincts of sniffing out his bullshit, which is my explanation to why those who didn't know LC were better judges than those who do know him.

And I was spending way too much time thinking about flower's strategy, hence the questions about what would happen in case of a tie. Time that I'll never get back I guess I don't have to worry about that any more.

I just saw the result because I don't have time, and you all just posted like crazy when I was asleep. I'll try to catch up next day, because I won't be here until Saturday evening, but for the sake of my sanity, try to get some rest (i.e., slow down with the posts) during the night :P

Someone should probably tell her that it's day again.