The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What I like about llama is that he has drawn attention to himself deliberately and doesn't seem to give a damn. He made the game's first accusation, he assumed a confident posture in that read, and then he placed the game's first vote. At face value I like that kind of behavior.

Yes, well, there was sort of a gambit named after him once upon a time.

I know, I know, this isn't relevant to what you had to say blah blah blah.

If you recall, the Llama Gambit is designed for use by civilian players only. It makes no sense for a baddie to employ it.

Quin wrote:Not voting Sorsha.

Me neither.

Sorry llama- looks like nobody ever believes you.

Sorsha wrote:Llama jumped on my check in post literally two minutes after I posted it. My initial gut reaction was that it was a joke because I don't see how anything I said in that post could be found to be suspicious. So I responded with a joke. In hind sight, sure I should have made sure that he was actually serious about it but being jumped on like that right out of the gate isn't something I'm accustomed to.

I can understand. It's jarring for anyone to be facing an accusation so quickly after a game begins. His accusation came two minutes after your post, as you said, and then your joke response to that came 11 minutes after that. To me that looks a player who is briefly frozen by unexpected pressure searching for a way to approach it.

Sorsha wrote:All for one line and an emoticon? Seriously? How am I supposed to respond to that?

In terms of defense, you're probably not supposed to respond to that. Some accusations don't facilitate defense. It isn't ideal, but a civilian must still render them when they apply. Instead of a defense, I would anticipate a more exploratory response to llama than the one you provided -- even if you believed it was a joke.

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Not voting Sorsha.

Me neither.

Sorry llama- looks like nobody ever believes you.

I don't mind. I'd rather be right than popular.

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Not voting Sorsha.

Me neither.

Sorry llama- looks like nobody ever believes you.

What has inspired your stances?

Quin wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin's immediate response to being given an early positive read was to poke me about it. I like.

The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.

You are very insistent on that point. I disagree.

'Insistent' is painting the conversation in the wrong light.

Three posts about the same thing.

Quin wrote:I notice that there's no overlap. You should talk about that.

Quin wrote:I just think it's worth noting that of the eight people (about half the roster) you got something from, none of them gave you anything but a one-way read.

Quin wrote:The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.

"Insistent" is very accurate. Why is it the wrong light? What, exactly, is your problem with this analysis?

I take it your reads are currently pretty cut and dry? What are they?

This is an unusually defensive reaction, and I don't see how it follows my disagreement with your viewpoint on JJJ's reads.

Long Con has been moved into the Hunters column.

I felt good about her 'look at this clusterfuck of WIFOM' defence. It sounds honest enough.

Long Con wrote:

I take it your reads are currently pretty cut and dry? What are they?

This is an unusually defensive reaction, and I don't see how it follows my disagreement with your viewpoint on JJJ's reads.

You ought to answer his questions.

Long Con wrote:

Quin wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin's immediate response to being given an early positive read was to poke me about it. I like.

The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.

You are very insistent on that point. I disagree.

'Insistent' is painting the conversation in the wrong light.

Three posts about the same thing.

Quin wrote:I notice that there's no overlap. You should talk about that.

Quin wrote:I just think it's worth noting that of the eight people (about half the roster) you got something from, none of them gave you anything but a one-way read.

Quin wrote:The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.

"Insistent" is very accurate. Why is it the wrong light? What, exactly, is your problem with this analysis?

I take it your reads are currently pretty cut and dry? What are they?

This is an unusually defensive reaction, and I don't see how it follows my disagreement with your viewpoint on JJJ's reads.

1. Asking to talk about a thing a noticed.
2. An elaboration of my original point.
3. A clarification about what my point was, because 3J misinterpreted it. This post wouldn't have existed if it didn't have to.

So yes, the wrong light.

And my reaction was based on the inference that if you disagree with me, you probably sit in the same camp as 3J where your reads aren't muddled with both civ and scum behaviours. It wasn't even a defence.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Not voting Sorsha.

Me neither.

Sorry llama- looks like nobody ever believes you.

What has inspired your stances?

Uh...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:

I take it your reads are currently pretty cut and dry? What are they?

This is an unusually defensive reaction, and I don't see how it follows my disagreement with your viewpoint on JJJ's reads.

You ought to answer his questions.

Ought I?

thellama73 wrote:Long Con has been moved into the Hunters column.

That was easier than I thought.

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:

I take it your reads are currently pretty cut and dry? What are they?

This is an unusually defensive reaction, and I don't see how it follows my disagreement with your viewpoint on JJJ's reads.

You ought to answer his questions.

Ought I?

thellama73 wrote:Long Con has been moved into the Hunters column.

That was easier than I thought.

Yes please.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Not voting Sorsha.

Me neither.

Sorry llama- looks like nobody ever believes you.

What has inspired your stances?

Uh...

I thought the timing of your post implied a new thought had emerged relating to Sorsha's defense. Okay.

Long Con wrote:Ought I?

Do whatever you like. I find your post evasive though.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Not voting Sorsha.

Me neither.

Sorry llama- looks like nobody ever believes you.

What has inspired your stances?

Uh...

I thought the timing of your post implied a new thought had emerged relating to Sorsha's defense. Okay.

Why did you say "stances?" Why the plural? Did I express more than one opinion that I need to elaborate on?

Epignosis wrote:Why did you say "stances?" Why the plural? Did I express more than one opinion that I need to elaborate on?

I was speaking to both you and the player you quoted (Quin).

Quin wrote:And my reaction was based on the inference that if you disagree with me, you probably sit in the same camp as 3J where your reads aren't muddled with both civ and scum behaviours. It wasn't even a defence.

Did you infer that? That was the wrong inference.

I believe that there was scant little by which to judge folks with on Day Zero. Recalling my earlier reread after JJJ challenged everyone to do paragraphs like him, I had trouble forming any real reads on anyone without pushing the bounds of believability and genuine scumhunting. There were half the players that he got ZERO reads on in either direction. So expecting him to have TWO dichotomous reads on a single player is asking more than I think is reasonable.

I'd still like to know what your reads are.

To be clear: I didn't intend to suggest other people should write paragraphs like I did. I was just being silly.

And if you don't have 'reads' you can just substitute it for 'vibes'.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:Ought I?

Do whatever you like. I find your post evasive though.

Well, since we're making inferences these days, I infer that you think I am being evasive because I'm bad. Allow me to correct you. I am not being evasive, I just usually need to play a bit longer before getting reads. I liked your Sorsha paragraph, and when I looked over the rest of Day Zero, I found nothing that inspired much of a read on anyone.

Linki: Quin, my biggest vibe is the way you reacted to me disagreeing with your viewpoint. It's not a good look.

Biggest?

What is your smallest, and your middlest?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Why did you say "stances?" Why the plural? Did I express more than one opinion that I need to elaborate on?

I was speaking to both you and the player you quoted (Quin).

Ah, a plural pronoun. I see.

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:Ought I?

Do whatever you like. I find your post evasive though.

Well, since we're making inferences these days, I infer that you think I am being evasive because I'm bad. Allow me to correct you. I am not being evasive, I just usually need to play a bit longer before getting reads. I liked your Sorsha paragraph, and when I looked over the rest of Day Zero, I found nothing that inspired much of a read on anyone.

Linki: Quin, my biggest vibe is the way you reacted to me disagreeing with your viewpoint. It's not a good look.

I can believe that you'd have few meaningful reads. It's very early. Why did you elect to skip Quin's question about this though and wait until my prodding to answer it?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:Ought I?

Do whatever you like. I find your post evasive though.

Well, since we're making inferences these days, I infer that you think I am being evasive because I'm bad. Allow me to correct you. I am not being evasive, I just usually need to play a bit longer before getting reads. I liked your Sorsha paragraph, and when I looked over the rest of Day Zero, I found nothing that inspired much of a read on anyone.

Linki: Quin, my biggest vibe is the way you reacted to me disagreeing with your viewpoint. It's not a good look.

I can believe that you'd have few meaningful reads. It's very early. Why did you elect to skip Quin's question about this though and wait until my prodding to answer it?

It's because people fear the Jagged Toothed JimmyJay.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:Ought I?

Do whatever you like. I find your post evasive though.

Well, since we're making inferences these days, I infer that you think I am being evasive because I'm bad. Allow me to correct you. I am not being evasive, I just usually need to play a bit longer before getting reads. I liked your Sorsha paragraph, and when I looked over the rest of Day Zero, I found nothing that inspired much of a read on anyone.

Linki: Quin, my biggest vibe is the way you reacted to me disagreeing with your viewpoint. It's not a good look.

I can believe that you'd have few meaningful reads. It's very early. Why did you elect to skip Quin's question about this though and wait until my prodding to answer it?

My direct answer to Quin's question would have downplayed the oddness of his attitude toward me. I think it was more illuminating to focus on that attitude.

Not a lot of baddie vibes yet. Feel good vibes about most of the 'Hunters' but I don't really let that affect my suspicions that much. It's like, I feel good about them because they're active, and I feel suspicious because they could easily do that as a baddie. A baddie can do it if they're experienced and good at Mafia. All the people doing it fall under that category.

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:Ought I?

Do whatever you like. I find your post evasive though.

Well, since we're making inferences these days, I infer that you think I am being evasive because I'm bad. Allow me to correct you. I am not being evasive, I just usually need to play a bit longer before getting reads. I liked your Sorsha paragraph, and when I looked over the rest of Day Zero, I found nothing that inspired much of a read on anyone.

Linki: Quin, my biggest vibe is the way you reacted to me disagreeing with your viewpoint. It's not a good look.

I can believe that you'd have few meaningful reads. It's very early. Why did you elect to skip Quin's question about this though and wait until my prodding to answer it?

My direct answer to Quin's question would have downplayed the oddness of his attitude toward me. I think it was more illuminating to focus on that attitude.

Not a lot of baddie vibes yet. Feel good vibes about most of the 'Hunters' but I don't really let that affect my suspicions that much. It's like, I feel good about them because they're active, and I feel suspicious because they could easily do that as a baddie. A baddie can do it if they're experienced and good at Mafia. All the people doing it fall under that category.

There's no reason we couldn't have had both conversations at once.

You're spending time answering as to why you wouldn't answer me rather than discussing my attitude, which is...why you didn't answer me. Meh.

Quin wrote:It's because people fear the Jagged Toothed JimmyJay.

I don't.

I'm going to think on what's been said so far. Given the 24/24 cycles, it's increasingly imperative that this game not be plagued by inactivity and I fear a continuously exploding thread will promote that.

In my opinion, there's a lot of civ on civ squabbling going on up in here, and a lot of baddie coasting and laughing. Also, a lot of Llama going to bed.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Llama jumped on my check in post literally two minutes after I posted it. My initial gut reaction was that it was a joke because I don't see how anything I said in that post could be found to be suspicious. So I responded with a joke. In hind sight, sure I should have made sure that he was actually serious about it but being jumped on like that right out of the gate isn't something I'm accustomed to.

I can understand. It's jarring for anyone to be facing an accusation so quickly after a game begins. His accusation came two minutes after your post, as you said, and then your joke response to that came 11 minutes after that. To me that looks a player who is briefly frozen by unexpected pressure searching for a way to approach it.

How about a player who is playing while at work and isn't actually sitting here staring at the game thread waiting on a reply?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sorsha wrote:All for one line and an emoticon? Seriously? How am I supposed to respond to that?

In terms of defense, you're probably not supposed to respond to that. Some accusations don't facilitate defense. It isn't ideal, but a civilian must still render them when they apply. Instead of a defense, I would anticipate a more exploratory response to llama than the one you provided -- even if you believed it was a joke.

In my experience not replying to an accusation, vague or otherwise, is not wise.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm going to think on what's been said so far. Given the 24/24 cycles, it's increasingly imperative that this game not be plagued by inactivity and I fear a continuously exploding thread will promote that.

I disagree. Speak when you need to- otherwise some people get behind and feel like they can't catch up. It's why I started putting a bunch of my content in a single post. Yes, it's a long post, but people who see that they have two pages to catch up on instead of three or four will be more inclined to do so rather than vote randomly or do whatever it is their defeated instincts lead them to do.

thellama73 wrote:In my opinion, there's a lot of civ on civ squabbling going on up in here, and a lot of baddie coasting and laughing. Also, a lot of Llama going to bed.

Good night. That opinion makes me feel suspicious, because I do not understand how a Civ could formulate it. In the parlance of our times: how the f*ck would you think that?

IF it's true that the main arguments are Civ on Civ, then there are four players who know that for sure, and correctly identifying such a thing could be a way to get that baddie some buddying-style Civ cred. As in, each Civ in this big Civ on Civ conflict can think "I'm a Civ, so Llama is at least reading me right and trying to steer this game in the right direction!"

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In my opinion, there's a lot of civ on civ squabbling going on up in here, and a lot of baddie coasting and laughing. Also, a lot of Llama going to bed.

Good night. That opinion makes me feel suspicious, because I do not understand how a Civ could formulate it. In the parlance of our times: how the f*ck would you think that?

IF it's true that the main arguments are Civ on Civ, then there are four players who know that for sure, and correctly identifying such a thing could be a way to get that baddie some buddying-style Civ cred. As in, each Civ in this big Civ on Civ conflict can think "I'm a Civ, so Llama is at least reading me right and trying to steer this game in the right direction!"

This.

I've really only formed two reads as of right now. The rest is loose thoughts floating through my gray matter.

LC is my current townread, and Llama is my current scumread. Will elucidate further when I have time to do so. Hopefully, that'll be in an hour or less.

ELUCIDATIONS ON LLAMA:

If we're looking for the person who has talked the talk about catching baddies only to fail at walking the walk, Llama is at the top of the list.

Now, excepting the Denim Mini role which is filled with secrets, and the bizarre super-duper top secret role that isn't even listed on the role list, it's so damn secret, there's no way Llama could start the game with info on Sorsha's alignment. (Which is more or less irrelevant to Llama, anyway.)

Nevertheless, Llama comes out the game swinging at Sorsha. With no real reasoning and no real attempt to convince anyone else of Sorsha's scum-mery.

It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

And then you have posts like this:

thellama73 wrote:I tend to view the game in terms of Hunters and Blenders. Some skilled baddies are able to seem like Hunters, but most Hunters are good. A lot of civilians are Blenders because that's just their playstyle, but a Blender is more likely to be bad.

So far:
A Person
Boomslang
Dragon D Luffy
DrWilgy
Elohcin
insernamehere
Long Con
Made
Metalmarsh89
MovingPictures07
ninjuukyugou
and Sorsha are Blenders

Epignosis
JaggedimmyJay
Quin
and Scotty have shown at least some signs of being Hunters.

I always find it funny that the people who make these reductive lists about who is playing the game as opposed to just, y'know, playing the game never deign to put themselves in the less analytical category.

This type of stuff always feels fake and ingratiating to me, like Llama is trying to push a narrative that benefits himself and not the civilians. Plus, I'd say that those four he singled out as "hunters" (as opposed to hunter-gatherers, I suppose) would most likely post frequently and aggressively tackle the game regardless of alignment, making this false hunter/blender dichotomy utterly irrelevant when it comes to actually telling who is good and who is bad.

But, it does clue us into what Llama was trying to accomplish with his throwaway accusation and vote. He's trying to look like a hunter without doing as much hunting as he possibly can. He instantly starts picking on someone who may not necessarily be in the top five post count players in every game they play, (i.e. a "blender") and zeros in on them.

It seems to be working out pretty well for him.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What I like about llama is that he has drawn attention to himself deliberately and doesn't seem to give a damn. He made the game's first accusation, he assumed a confident posture in that read, and then he placed the game's first vote. At face value I like that kind of behavior.

When these attention-getting maneuvers are pretty hollow and self-serving, it's a bad thing, and something Llama shouldn't get a pass on.

Other hot takes on Llama's posts:

Dislike him discouraging Scotty from inquiring about role secrets and mechanics, could be attempting to hint there.

As LC correctly identified, the "high posters are civs, low posters are sitting back and laughing" post is buddy-buddy and another example of Llama, the gifted writer that he is, inventing a narrative instead of trying to baddie-hunt.

Oh, and LC is my townread because I agree with him on things. It's Day 1, that's as good as it's gonna get.

insertnamehere wrote:It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

Is your discussion empty?

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

Is your discussion empty?

No.

Next question.

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

Is your discussion empty?

No.

Next question.

Are you bad?

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

Is your discussion empty?

No.

Next question.

To elaborate: It'd be empty if I was suspecting Sorsha. The discussion about Sorsha is what I'm calling empty, not the one about Llama.

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

Is your discussion empty?

No.

Next question.

Are you bad?

No.

Next question.

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

Is your discussion empty?

No.

Next question.

Are you bad?

No.

Next question.

Would you please change your avatar?

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

Is your discussion empty?

No.

Next question.

Are you bad?

No.

Next question.

Would you please change your avatar?

I most likely will, if people are having some kind of problem with it.

Does it annoy you?

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:It's an empty move with an empty meaning that serves to generate empty discussion.

Is your discussion empty?

No.

Next question.

Are you bad?

No.

Next question.

Would you please change your avatar?

I most likely will, if people are having some kind of problem with it.

Does it annoy you?

Well, it does, but I'm not the kind to ask someone to change anything simply out of annoyance.

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Is your discussion empty?

No.

Next question.

Are you bad?

No.

Next question.

Would you please change your avatar?

I most likely will, if people are having some kind of problem with it.

Does it annoy you?

Well, it does, but I'm not the kind to ask someone to change anything simply out of annoyance.

Would fixing the glitch end the annoyance, or is it the flashing light?

Also, what do you think of my case against Llama?

What's up with that avatar? I don't like the pixelly flash of the face, and I don't really get what it's from.

To INH:

I don't know the technical specifications of your avatar. Do what you will.

I don't agree with your case against llama. At the same time, I think you are a civilian for raising it.

Why don't you agree with it? I thought it was like he was watching my head-movies and writing a full report on them.

Long Con wrote:Why don't you agree with it? I thought it was like he was watching my head-movies and writing a full report on them.

Because I think INH is nitpicking.