The Syndicate

It was a tight fit. The Trump campaign bus was filled with everyone Donald considered his Inner Circle. They were shaken not only by the suddenness of the meeting but also the fact that each one of them was shaken down and stripped of all electronic devices before they were allowed to climb aboard.

Time passed, adding to the anxiety. Donald was a prompt man, so this delay was uncharacteristic. Little did they know that it was strategic. Inside his private limo, Donald watched everyone's behavior on a laptop.

"Good work, son," Donald said to Barron. He patted him on the head. "You have a real gift with these technologies. That's the key to success- find something you're good at and stay focused."

"Thanks dad," the boy replied.

Donald reached for the door and paused. "You watch them close. We'll watch back over the recording together later. This is very important, son. You're doing me a great service."

"Good luck, dad."

"I don't need luck. I'm Donald J. Trump."

"And don't you forget it," Barron quipped with a smile.

"That's my boy," Donald grinned. He left the limo and walked over to the tour bus.

Everyone inside jumped when the door flew open. There before them stood their boss, looking sour as ever.

"Good morning, everyone. I'll keep this brief. You all remember Paul Manafort's recent departure, I'm sure." Heads nodded. "But how many of you know why he left our campaign?"

"His ties to dirty Ukrainian money," someone offered.

"That's the story being sold by the press but, as is usual, they don't know the whole truth." He let everyone react to this cryptic news for a minute before continuing.

"Paul Manafort is a good friend and close ally. But the Paul Manafort that we had been working so closely with for months was not the real Paul Manafort." Another pause. He wanted Barron to get a good look at everyone's reactions.

"The man we thought to be Paul Manafort was actually Lawrence O'Donnell, a dirty rotten socialist news guy from MSNBC." Bewildered looks flooded the bus. Head shaking and gasps of disbelief carried on for a over a minute. Questions came from all directions but Donald just raised his hands, commanding silence.

"O'Donnell had had some work done to make him look more like Paul. I found this all out just a few hours before he offered his resignation. That son of a bitch thinks he made a clean break and we're going to let him continue thinking that. He doesn't know it but we're watching. Boy are we watching him closely. Believe me, very closely.

"I'm sure several of you have questioned the things that the fake Paul Manafort recommended during the course of this campaign. Now you know why some things may have seemed a little off. He was a spy, a plant, a saboteur. I've had plenty of time to think about this and I have reached the conclusion that O'Donnell was not acting alone." Once again, he paused to let his words sink in and simmer.

"There have been information leaks and poor judgement on policy stances and speech content. But no undue influence on this campaign comes from outside this Inner Circle."

"Dad, what are you saying?" asked Donald Jr.

"What I'm saying, Donny, is that I believe that some of the people on board this very bus are Democrat plants trying to hurt this campaign.

"Every single one of you is being issued new phones, computers, and tablets. Until we ferret out any remaining spies, consider yourselves under surveillance. We're going to meet daily to discuss this matter and work to rid ourselves of any more shenanigans. I expect to see all of you this evening at dinner, where we'll discuss our opinions on who needs to be let go first. You're all dismissed."

Jaggy' Jay wrote:

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.

You're suddenly narrowing the logic after having previous said that lies can come from either side.

MM's assertion that I am mafia, regardblablabla-, is a falsehood, yes. I have not reached a conclusion on whether it comes from a cognizant MM i.e. a mafia who would know fo' sho' (as my African-American friends use to say all the time; sup!) that I'm not mafia. If a bunch of others would say it, would I need to automatically reach the same conclusion? This doesn't make much sense. Head hurts!

Jaggy' Jay wrote:

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.

Let me put this in perspective, as if coming from a potential crooked democrat Marmot.

> lemme throw this crooked lie to him
> he'll probably react strongly to it
> he might get flak for reacting strongly to it
> he might become a suspect
> this might work out
> hillary witness me!

Just like in politics.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:

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.

Are you serious? I did both of those things, exactly in that chronological order.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:

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.

But you're bringing up contextual basis - meta, might be said - to fortify your face value read that you're inclined to develop towards me. I get what you're saying, but there's no reason to bring up the "hey this reminds me of other player, other game, other place", because a) I've not been in contact with that medium, to possibly be linked with being inspired by the same tactic, b) baddie language and behaviour is not universal, to just pick this "silver"'s behaviour out of the baddiebook and apply it to me.

Dunno about you, I'm taking a breather for now. Taco time!

Ricochet wrote:

Crooked Hillary and Low-Energy Jeb were tied on the Day 0 poll. I broke the tie with my preference.

This thread has become a discussion of what the definition of a "lie" is. How fitting.

insertnamehere wrote: 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.

Yeah, you really got me with that, "He's either Shawn or a confused civilian but totally not Yin oh no wait he's Yin."

You should be a politician.

G-Man wrote:"Good work, son," Donald said to Barron. He patted him on the head. "You have a real gift with these technologies. That's the key to success- find something your good at and stay focused."

I know something I'm good at.

Ricochet wrote:Dunno about you, I'm taking a breather for now. Taco time!

Me too. Something tells me we're not on the same page in this discussion at all, because everything you say continues to be unrelated to what I mean. I don't know if it's miscommunication or if you're just skirting points. I feel like I'm saying "It's a nice day outside" and you're responding with "No it is NOT Sunday".

This Wall of Text War has proceeded long enough. I'll consider it while I frisbee. Or I probably won't.

Epignosis wrote:

G-Man wrote:"Good work, son," Donald said to Barron. He patted him on the head. "You have a real gift with these technologies. That's the key to success- find something your good at and stay focused."

I know something I'm good at.

Serves me write for writing my post in a hurry in Notepad instead of Word. Thank you for pointing that out.

Ricochet wrote:

Guess I won't be winning any hosting awards this year.

Beck wrote:MovingPicture07

Just so you know, Beck, around here a vote in the poll is the vote that counts at the end of the day. Declaring your vote in the thead is awesome and helpful to hosts, but in this game you also need to cast your vote in the poll at the top of the page. Votes in this game are changeable, so you will be able to change your vote in the poll if you wish to later.

thanks will do

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote: 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.

Yeah, you really got me with that, "He's either Shawn or a confused civilian but totally not Yin oh no wait he's Yin."

You should be a politician.

I thought you were Yin ever since my team failed to NK you, I just didn't announce so in the thread.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

Why would we go to the trouble of researching something and forming our own opinions when we can get a nice tidy, completely unbiased five word long summary from FOX News or Breitbart that tells us how to feel about things?

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

It's a concerted effort to prevent people from throwing their arms up at the first glance at the sequence of large posts and ignore the game thread. Like I've said: I'm trying to be accomodating on Day 0s, against my own personal desire to blow a game thread up from the word go. I actually let that get away from me a little bit here by getting into this debate with Rico at all, but oh well.

I don't trust people to try their best if they are confronted by a bigger and meatier thread than they'd like. It's an annoying concession, but it's probably necessary.

Anyone who actually gives a shit is obviously welcome to read everything. I would prefer that. I stand nothing to gain from telling people to skip to the cliff notes anyway -- I'm the one accusing Rico. He stands to benefit more than I do from people ignoring everything, especially given the tendency for people to see a big exchange like that and just default to "they're both town".

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

Why would we go to the trouble of researching something and forming our own opinions when we can get a nice tidy, completely unbiased five word long summary from FOX News or Breitbart that tells us how to feel about things?

You've given us very little so far other than to criticize the play of someone you have declared a town read for.

If you think my methods are unhelpful, then take a look in the freaking mirror dude. This is useless.

I voted for Epignosis.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted for Epignosis.

I'm voting you for missing the draft.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

I agree with this. But at the same time, what JJJ said about 'being satisfied with the conclusion' makes me feel good. It tells me he's not just trying to shake off the attention.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

Why would we go to the trouble of researching something and forming our own opinions when we can get a nice tidy, completely unbiased five word long summary from FOX News or Breitbart that tells us how to feel about things?

You've given us very little so far other than to criticize the play of someone you have declared a town read for.

If you think my methods are unhelpful, then take a look in the freaking mirror dude. This is useless.

The latter part is CWAC (which stands for Contributing Without Actually Contributing btw). You're saying you won't do something, but not why. Others being unhelpful is no excuse to have said behavior.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted for Epignosis.

Reasons?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I do believe, however, that outside observers are often too quick to judge a WoTW as being town/town

FAR too often.

I don't understand rico's recent issue with people townreading people. It's a good thing to be doing or am I missing the point?

In the spirit of politics, I'm going to close my eyes and pick a random target. That person will be my first suspect.

Oh I landed on Jay. This will be fun. I'll uh... I'll read your posts in the morning, okay?

I thought what Sloonei did would be fun too.

I randomised who my first vote would be. Epignosis, apparently.

Fine with me, though, because I find him coming off worst in the Jay/Rico exchange.

Golden wrote:I thought what Sloonei did would be fun too.

I randomised who my first vote would be. Epignosis, apparently.

Fine with me, though, because I find him coming off worst in the Jay/Rico exchange.

He must really look bad if he comes off worst in an exchange which he was not involved in.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I do believe, however, that outside observers are often too quick to judge a WoTW as being town/town

FAR too often.

I don't understand rico's recent issue with people townreading people. It's a good thing to be doing or am I missing the point?

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:I thought what Sloonei did would be fun too.

I randomised who my first vote would be. Epignosis, apparently.

Fine with me, though, because I find him coming off worst in the Jay/Rico exchange.

He must really look bad if he comes off worst in an exchange which he was not involved in.

Indeed!

It was this post that I think looks bad, which would not have happened but for the fact of a Jay/Rico exchange.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

@Rico - I've an idea for you - why not respond to the substance instead of throwing omgus shade at me. I can't misrepresent something that I've merely described as an 'issue', and I've also gone on to ask if I'm missing the point. I don't think Jay understood what you were getting at bringing up 'townreading', and I certainly didn't, but you do appear to have an issue with it.

What's more, you take issue with Jay for townreading something that 'could come from any side'. The number of times I've given people town points for things and others disagree with my reasoning... and they don't feel like the mater is townie... it happens all the time. And sometimes I was right to give the townie points, and sometimes I was wrong, but what I learn is the things that people give townie points for are not universal.

So, what I want to understand is, what is your issue with townreading? You seem to be suggesting it is the opposite to.. something. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

If literally your only point is that you think Jay's townread of MM isn't genuine and so Jay is therefore bad (with MM or without him) then ok... but that isn't the way it reads to me. It seems like you are trying to express something more complex.

PS - I warned you of this in the last game and I'll warn you of it again in this one. If you draw conclusions that I'm bad because I'm not your image of what 'golden' is, then that's on you not me. Learn fast. My wife is 8 months pregnant, and I would be getting stern looks if she knew I'd signed up for the game. I have to work extra hard at work because I never know what day I'll not be turning up the next day so I have to be keeping on top of every little thing... mafia is very much secondary to me at the moment. I'm not phoning it in, but I am also not going to be a paragon of effort, either.

Goldeen wrote: @Rico - I've an idea for you - why not respond to the substance instead of throwing omgus shade at me. I can't misrepresent something that I've merely described as an 'issue', and I've also gone on to ask if I'm missing the point. I don't think Jay understood what you were getting at bringing up 'townreading', and I certainly didn't, but you do appear to have an issue with it.

Goldeen wrote: What's more, you take issue with Jay for townreading something that 'could come from any side'. The number of times I've given people town points for things and others disagree with my reasoning... and they don't feel like the mater is townie... it happens all the time. And sometimes I was right to give the townie points, and sometimes I was wrong, but what I learn is the things that people give townie points for are not universal.

So, what I want to understand is, what is your issue with townreading? You seem to be suggesting it is the opposite to.. something. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Goldeen wrote: PS - I warned you of this in the last game and I'll warn you of it again in this one. If you draw conclusions that I'm bad because I'm not your image of what 'golden' is, then that's on you not me. Learn fast. My wife is 8 months pregnant, and I would be getting stern looks if she knew I'd signed up for the game. I have to work extra hard at work because I never know what day I'll not be turning up the next day so I have to be keeping on top of every little thing... mafia is very much secondary to me at the moment. I'm not phoning it in, but I am also not going to be a paragon of effort, either.

Ok, I'm misrepresenting the word issue.

So, ilk reframe.

Lately, Rico seems to suspect people a lot for handing out town reads.

Better? I'm not sure how you would suspect someone without you seeing there being some kind of issue, but whatevs.

Now address the substance, which you didn't do. Townies give town reads for all sorts of reasons all the time. Recently, you seem to ignore this and throw out mafia reads for people who do it. Why?

You say the thing that jay gives a read on isn't alignment-indicative, but that's really not relevant at all. What's relevant is whether you believe that jay believes it is, and that's an entirely different question and one you seem to skim over.

I don't like your or epi's role in this. I think you have given out a scum read (however mild) for something that is... Wait for it... Not alignment indicative. At best, it's hypocritical. At worst, you made a mistake and you are trying not to backpedal through role play. I can see a rico/epi team as very plausible here.

Rico: Golden asked you for clarification, and instead of clarifying anything you just accused him of misrepresenting you. You also did that without saying he's suspicious. You've ignored the notion of "misinterpretation", jumped straight to "misrepresentation", and thrown shade at Golden where it had no sensible place in the conversation. You specifically stated that his error was not fully reading the thread, and yet you still employed accusatory language.

This is similar to what you did with MM. You jumped straight to "he lied" without even considering a universe in which he was incorrect.

I could see the Epi post Golden referenced as a potential problem:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

At this point Epi suspects me in nearly every game, and I could see him forcing himself back into that realm as a baddie to maintain appearances. For him to suspect me more for saying that appears rather cooked.

leetic wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

Why would we go to the trouble of researching something and forming our own opinions when we can get a nice tidy, completely unbiased five word long summary from FOX News or Breitbart that tells us how to feel about things?

You've given us very little so far other than to criticize the play of someone you have declared a town read for.

If you think my methods are unhelpful, then take a look in the freaking mirror dude. This is useless.

The latter part is CWAC (which stands for Contributing Without Actually Contributing btw). You're saying you won't do something, but not why. Others being unhelpful is no excuse to have said behavior.

This one I don't understand. It looks like you picked a post of mine at random and then tacked an equally random accusation to it. There's an air of opportunism in that.

There's no effort to appear contributory in a post I utilize to gripe at someone. The only function of that post was to gripe at someone. You suggest I said "I won't do something", and I don't know what you're talking about. What did I say I wouldn't do?

Goldeen wrote:Ok, I'm misrepresenting the word issue.

Goldeen wrote: So, ilk reframe.

Lately, Rico seems to suspect people a lot for handing out town reads.

Goldeen wrote: Now address the substance, which you didn't do. Townies give town reads for all sorts of reasons all the time. Recently, you seem to ignore this and throw out mafia reads for people who do it. Why?

You say the thing that jay gives a read on isn't alignment-indicative, but that's really not relevant at all. What's relevant is whether you believe that jay believes it is, and that's an entirely different question and one you seem to skim over.

Rick O'Shay 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.

Goldeen wrote: I don't like your or epi's role in this. I think you have given out a scum read (however mild) for something that is... Wait for it... Not alignment indicative. At best, it's hypocritical. At worst, you made a mistake and you are trying not to backpedal through role play. I can see a rico/epi team as very plausible here.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:Rico: Golden asked you for clarification, and instead of clarifying anything you just accused him of misrepresenting you. You also did that without saying he's suspicious. You've ignored the notion of "misinterpretation", jumped straight to "misrepresentation", and thrown shade at Golden where it had no sensible place in the conversation. You specifically stated that his error was not fully reading the thread, and yet you still employed accusatory language.

This is similar to what you did with MM. You jumped straight to "he lied" without even considering a universe in which he was incorrect.

Ricochet wrote:

Goldeen wrote: I don't like your or epi's role in this. I think you have given out a scum read (however mild) for something that is... Wait for it... Not alignment indicative. At best, it's hypocritical. At worst, you made a mistake and you are trying not to backpedal through role play. I can see a rico/epi team as very plausible here.

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

I've decided that it's unlikely you're misunderstanding both Golden and I on nearly every point we make, and it's more likely that you're skirting those points to fit the argument you want to portray.

VOTING RICOCHET

Epignosis wrote: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.

I'd like to return to this post. There's an irony about it.

Epignosis has presented suspicion of me, which I expect, but it's empty. It's void. It looks like a substantive accusation, but it isn't.

What you've done in this post, Epi, is say things. You've made assertions. What you haven't done is point to a specific post (like you often do as a townie, for example in Triskaidekaphobia when you hated my assertion that sig was providing cop cover). Instead, you've thrown an umbrella over my entire post history and pretended that's sufficient. There's nothing for me to answer to other than the accusation itself -- there can be no substantive defense against an insubstantial accusation.

I could say: "Epi makes bad posts" and I'd be saying just as much as you said.

Quin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: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.

My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?

I agree with this. But at the same time, what JJJ said about 'being satisfied with the conclusion' makes me feel good. It tells me he's not just trying to shake off the attention.

I'm uncertain what you mean by this Quin. Could you expand on how yellow leads you to orange?

Sloonei wrote:In the spirit of politics, I'm going to close my eyes and pick a random target. That person will be my first suspect.

Oh I landed on Jay. This will be fun. I'll uh... I'll read your posts in the morning, okay?

You'd better have enough time to play out this method, sir.

Jaggy' Jay wrote:
I've decided that it's unlikely you're misunderstanding both Golden and I on nearly every point we make, and it's more likely that you're skirting those points to fit the argument you want to portray.

VOTING RICOCHET

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

Rick O'Shay 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.

Rick O'Shay wrote: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!

Rick O'Shay wrote: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.

Rick O'Shay wrote: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.

My "town read" is no stronger than your "not town read" or whatever you want to call it. I leaned one way and you leaned another. Golden's point is that if MM's behavior is not alignment-indicative, then it is hard to understand why you'd contest one read while making an opposing read (Golden can clarify this if I am misinterpreting). They're both illogical in that hypothetical universe where it's NAI.

Scotty wrote: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.

I highlighted the ones that look like they could be actual reads. I dunno though. I'm glad to see you making some reads on Day 1 if so. What inspires them? If I didn't highlight a real read, talk about that too.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My "town read" is no stronger than your "not town read" or whatever you want to call it. I leaned one way and you leaned another. Golden's point is that if MM's behavior is not alignment-indicative, then it is hard to understand why you'd contest one read while making an opposing read (Golden can clarify this if I am misinterpreting). They're both illogical in that hypothetical universe where it's NAI.

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My "town read" is no stronger than your "not town read" or whatever you want to call it. I leaned one way and you leaned another. Golden's point is that if MM's behavior is not alignment-indicative, then it is hard to understand why you'd contest one read while making an opposing read (Golden can clarify this if I am misinterpreting). They're both illogical in that hypothetical universe where it's NAI.

I'm not talking about the emoticon casing either. I'm talking about his comment about you. The one you keep illogically calling a "lie".

I should be able to respond to this within the next hour. Let me just click the button. Okay, I've clicked the button. Now I'm going to go make a sandwich, maybe catch the next episode of my current Hulu binge. At some point by its finish this page should have loaded.

OH! Here it is.

Ricochet wrote:

Let me borrow your own language then, Trumpochet: scumreading for joke gambler's fallacy casing is bull.

MM, you need to get in here and speak on your own behalf.

Other people make posts. Do things. Make waves.

I'll leave you alone for now, Rico. Take some time to make your own reads of everyone else.

Moved my vote to LEETIC until I have a response to this.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'll leave you alone for now, Rico. Take some time to make your own reads of everyone else.

Wah wan wah weh wah

Zoot boot lute trumplewumpy scoot

Yan yan bleedoh

Zoot boot lute trumplewumpy scoot

Rah rah rah rah

Lai lai laia-hah

DrWilgy wrote:Wah wan wah weh wah

Zoot boot lute trumplewumpy scoot

Yan yan bleedoh

Zoot boot lute trumplewumpy scoot

Rah rah rah rah

Lai lai laia-hah

That's right, Wilgy. *pets*