The Syndicate

Hello! Devin here checking in. Sorry for missing Day 0. I've been on 6 day vacation. Attempting to catch up at work now.

Draconus?

FZ. wrote:Host, are we allowed to talk about the items from the night?

You may talk about whatever you like. That doesn't mean talking is in your best interest.

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

S~V~S wrote:Draconus?

I was tired of my old name, so I asked MP to change it to one that I use on just about everything else I'm on.

Well, I'm pretty much caught up. Still not sure who I will be voting for, though. I will think more on this tonight and tomorrow. Laters.

Draconus wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Draconus?

I was tired of my old name, so I asked MP to change it to one that I use on just about everything else I'm on.

He's not omniscient, you see. :P

I still won't be voting for Matt F today.

FZ. wrote:Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:Zebra - I have never suggested Mac is bad for his behaviour or 'tried to make him look bad', so I'm not sure where you get that from. I didn't really get any suspicion from BR either, although I'd have to read that back.

I did, however, point out the inherent contradiction/irony in Mac's sentiment vs his posts, and talked his thinking through with him, and was satisfied with his answers. If I had voted for Mac on day one, it would not have been because I thought it was bad - it would have been to solely to fulfil his own reasoning for what makes a good policy vote on day one. Having backed down somewhat from the 'I will vote him forever in any game we both play' aspect, though, means I see nothing in Mac's position that is specifically unhelpful to the town - at least beyond day one. I don't specifically oppose policy lynches on day one, I just am unlikely to ever agree to the policy reason.

Putting this post in other words, ping! I now have my first real candidate for a vote. I found zebra to be a relatively fair and astute analyst of what was going on in the thread in Talking Heads. That post, though, was not a fair analysis. It felt to my like an artifical 'taking of sides' in a conflict that didn't exist, a setting up for a future vote for me or BR, and it caught my eye.

This is gold. This is really gold. This is the fucking jackpot, baby. Okay. Oh boy. Alright. Here goes. Deep breath. Let me get this straight. Wow. Here we go.

I pinged you because I made a post that could be interpreted as an opportunity to set up a future vote for you or BR. The reason you claim that it could be interpreted this way is because I seem to have taken a definite stance in an imaginary conflict. What was that stance again? Oh yeah, that you and BR may have been a little opportunistic with your interactions with Mac. Keep in mind, I didn't say that I was intending to vote for you or that what you two did was a serious "ping" for me, I only said that I was suspicious, and I said that with good reason. It seemed to me that you were the ones who could have been setting up a potential vote. Why else would you go after someone with genuine, serious arguments, when they are clearly trolling, as if Mac's absurd actions could potentially put his alignment on trial? But lo, that is in fact what I am doing! My bad. So just to recap, my suspicion of either you guys maybe setting up a potential mislynch is opportunistic, but when you suspect that I am doing the exact same thing with way less reason to believe so, it's not opportunistic, because...you really think I wouldn't notice the over-the-top hypocrisy of such an accusation? What makes this even better is that I merely suspected you, whereas for the exact same reason (but to a less rational extent!) you not only suspect me, but have made me a "real candidate for a vote"! Good luck.

I agree. This is the jackpot.

Your stance was that we may have been opportunistic?

Lets look at what you said...

a2thezebra wrote:I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

You said nothing about 'opportunistic'. You said that I and BR were trying to make his behaviour 'look suspicious' - when I was absolutely not.

And then when I called you on it, you had a massive reaction.

MacDougall wrote:I believe that Golden is not part of a network of united evil you guys and I will play as such until such time as he loses my trust.

FZ though. The guy is pure evil. I insist he be held down and have clamps tightened to his nips and be tickled with feathers while being spanked lightly by a raincoat wearing Serbian aristocrat.

I'm not sure I understood this post, but if you're trying to say I'm bad, the least you could do is get my gender right

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

I agree this is a slight ping to me can't give a good reason why it just is.

I've heard of policy lynches I'm not a fan of them at all. I'm wondering if zebra really thinks Mac thought votes weren't changeable or if zebra is just saying that. I think Mac would've voted for MAtt and ended the day with this vote regardless. So this almost seems like Zebra is covering for Mac's vote by saying it was a joke and we shouldn't pursue/question Mac about it.

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I am the perfect day 1 lynch in every game I play. As a townie I distract from genuine scum hunting with tunneling, a lack of focus and volumes upon volumes of posts trying to get people to ignore their genuine scum hunting efforts and follow my uninspired scumdar ... and of course there is as good a chance that I'm scum as anybody else. I'm a policy lynch for myself in every game I play. I make no apologies for this.

Fixed that for you.

But seriously people, I think we can chalk this up to Mac making a mistake by failing to read the rule that says you can't change your vote, (which to be fair, I almost did myself, and only didn't because I checked the rules for whether my vote should be bolded or underlined or whatever else) and now that his vote is permanent he's just having fun pretending that his mistake (which was ironically originally intended to poke fun at yours truly) is in fact a genuine permanent vote backed up by reasoning. I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly. Mac has even stated openly that what he is doing is encouraging game-related discussion right off the bat, which it is. Incidentally, that's the main reason I placed an imaginary vote on Matt F in the first place.

I wouldn't say Mac's behavior is overly suspicious just slightly what I find more suspicious is Zebras defense of Mac's vote and saying people shouldn't suspect him, I can also see what Golden says about Zebra potential setting up for a future lynch.
Out of the Golden/Zebra exchange I think GOlden comes out looking better as of right know I could place my vote on Zebra.

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

Then vote for me. I just told the truth. I don't remember anyone ever using a "policy" lynch. I still don't think following a "policy" lynch is a good idea. also, oh my goodness, BR used an emot. Would have been better if I hid behind a

Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.

Yeah, I didn't see anything wrong with BR's post.

I also don't see zebra as bad, nor Golden.

Sig, on the other hand feels like someone trying to take advantage of others' finger pointing

I'm weighing in on what others have said so far, I've only seen a few things that I find pingy which I mentioned.

What do you both think about my thoughts on zebra in regards to Mac's vote?

Suddenly lines are being drawn, this is good stuff. Useful stuff. I like it.

I still see Zebra as more bad than Sig. Sig's posts come across as genuine, his normal self, and don't say anything blatantly wrong. Zebra, on the other hand, twisted what was already in the thread.

Sig is one of those people who always seems to ping people on day one, just for the way in which he says things.

sig wrote:I'm weighing in on what others have said so far, I've only seen a few things that I find pingy which I mentioned.

What do you both think about my thoughts on zebra in regards to Mac's vote?

I don't see why he'd have to defend his vote. Mac said it's a serious vote. Why does zebra need to speak on Mac's behalf?

Golden wrote:Suddenly lines are being drawn, this is good stuff. Useful stuff. I like it.

I still see Zebra as more bad than Sig. Sig's posts come across as genuine, his normal self, and don't say anything blatantly wrong. Zebra, on the other hand, twisted what was already in the thread.

Sig is one of those people who always seems to ping people on day one, just for the way in which he says things.

You and zebra just look to me like a civ vs. civ fight. He misinterprets your words thinking you looked at Mac as bad because of his vote, and you misinterpret his words thinking he was saying you or BR were setting up things for a later lynch. Don't see either as bad, but rather a waste of time butting heads.

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

Then vote for me. I just told the truth. I don't remember anyone ever using a "policy" lynch. I still don't think following a "policy" lynch is a good idea. also, oh my goodness, BR used an emot. Would have been better if I hid behind a

Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.

Like I said, I don't think following a policy lynch is a good idea either. Your tone just stood out to me. What does the shrug mean BR? What does it mean?!

FZ. wrote:

Golden wrote:Suddenly lines are being drawn, this is good stuff. Useful stuff. I like it.

I still see Zebra as more bad than Sig. Sig's posts come across as genuine, his normal self, and don't say anything blatantly wrong. Zebra, on the other hand, twisted what was already in the thread.

Sig is one of those people who always seems to ping people on day one, just for the way in which he says things.

You and zebra just look to me like a civ vs. civ fight. He misinterprets your words thinking you looked at Mac as bad because of his vote, and you misinterpret his words thinking he was saying you or BR were setting up things for a later lynch. Don't see either as bad, but rather a waste of time butting heads.

No. I did not misinterpret his words in that way. Once again, here is what he said.

a2thezebra wrote:I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

He sais I was 'trying to make mac's behaviour look suspicious'. What did I do to do that? Having talked through it with Mac and come to the view that Mac was ok with me, what did I do to make Mac look suspicious? Just talk to him about his posts?? Would the civilian thing to do be just to ignore Mac? Why would any civilian mindset find that suspicious?

Zebra didn't say I was setting up for a later lynch, and I've never suggested he did so it's hard for me to have misrepresented that. I accused HIM of setting up for a later lynch of me or BR. And then overreacting to me calling him out, rather than actually talking through his thinking. Just read the first sentence he had in context. I have my first, day one, ping... and that's the response? Really? It's so overblown!

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

Then vote for me. I just told the truth. I don't remember anyone ever using a "policy" lynch. I still don't think following a "policy" lynch is a good idea. also, oh my goodness, BR used an emot. Would have been better if I hid behind a

Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.

Like I said, I don't think following a policy lynch is a good idea either. Your tone just stood out to me. What does the shrug mean BR? What does it mean?!

What would you have done had she used the bigger shrug ?

So far I am seeing Zebra as civ; it's been a while since i played with her, but she had a slicker feel when she was bad, not unlike boo, and i am not seeing that at all here. My sureness about Golden in Recruitment (I was positive he was on the other baddie team in that game) has made me leery of my gut on him. I do agree that sig is pretty siglike, although I don't necessarily agree with the opinions of any of these people.

I need to reread from the beginning, I think, in order to have a better grip on everyone else. It feels like a lot of people are not posting.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

Then vote for me. I just told the truth. I don't remember anyone ever using a "policy" lynch. I still don't think following a "policy" lynch is a good idea. also, oh my goodness, BR used an emot. Would have been better if I hid behind a

Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.

Like I said, I don't think following a policy lynch is a good idea either. Your tone just stood out to me. What does the shrug mean BR? What does it mean?!

What would you have done had she used the bigger shrug ?

I'm not sure.

Golden wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Golden wrote:Suddenly lines are being drawn, this is good stuff. Useful stuff. I like it.

I still see Zebra as more bad than Sig. Sig's posts come across as genuine, his normal self, and don't say anything blatantly wrong. Zebra, on the other hand, twisted what was already in the thread.

Sig is one of those people who always seems to ping people on day one, just for the way in which he says things.

You and zebra just look to me like a civ vs. civ fight. He misinterprets your words thinking you looked at Mac as bad because of his vote, and you misinterpret his words thinking he was saying you or BR were setting up things for a later lynch. Don't see either as bad, but rather a waste of time butting heads.

No. I did not misinterpret his words in that way. Once again, here is what he said.

a2thezebra wrote:I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

He sais I was 'trying to make mac's behaviour look suspicious'. What did I do to do that? Having talked through it with Mac and come to the view that Mac was ok with me, what did I do to make Mac look suspicious? Just talk to him about his posts?? Would the civilian thing to do be just to ignore Mac? Why would any civilian mindset find that suspicious?

Zebra didn't say I was setting up for a later lynch, and I've never suggested he did so it's hard for me to have misrepresented that. I accused HIM of setting up for a later lynch of me or BR. And then overreacting to me calling him out, rather than actually talking through his thinking. Just read the first sentence he had in context. I have my first, day one, ping... and that's the response? Really? It's so overblown!

Yeah, okay, I mixed things up. Sorry. I still don't get a baddie vibe. Was the reaction overblown, definitely. Does it automatically mean baddie? Not in my book

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

Then vote for me. I just told the truth. I don't remember anyone ever using a "policy" lynch. I still don't think following a "policy" lynch is a good idea. also, oh my goodness, BR used an emot. Would have been better if I hid behind a

Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.

Like I said, I don't think following a policy lynch is a good idea either. Your tone just stood out to me. What does the shrug mean BR? What does it mean?!

What would you have done had she used the bigger shrug ?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is jokey Marsh a good Marsh?

sig wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

I agree this is a slight ping to me can't give a good reason why it just is.

I've heard of policy lynches I'm not a fan of them at all. I'm wondering if zebra really thinks Mac thought votes weren't changeable or if zebra is just saying that. I think Mac would've voted for MAtt and ended the day with this vote regardless. So this almost seems like Zebra is covering for Mac's vote by saying it was a joke and we shouldn't pursue/question Mac about it.

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I am the perfect day 1 lynch in every game I play. As a townie I distract from genuine scum hunting with tunneling, a lack of focus and volumes upon volumes of posts trying to get people to ignore their genuine scum hunting efforts and follow my uninspired scumdar ... and of course there is as good a chance that I'm scum as anybody else. I'm a policy lynch for myself in every game I play. I make no apologies for this.

Fixed that for you.

But seriously people, I think we can chalk this up to Mac making a mistake by failing to read the rule that says you can't change your vote, (which to be fair, I almost did myself, and only didn't because I checked the rules for whether my vote should be bolded or underlined or whatever else) and now that his vote is permanent he's just having fun pretending that his mistake (which was ironically originally intended to poke fun at yours truly) is in fact a genuine permanent vote backed up by reasoning. I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly. Mac has even stated openly that what he is doing is encouraging game-related discussion right off the bat, which it is. Incidentally, that's the main reason I placed an imaginary vote on Matt F in the first place.

I wouldn't say Mac's behavior is overly suspicious just slightly what I find more suspicious is Zebras defense of Mac's vote and saying people shouldn't suspect him, I can also see what Golden says about Zebra potential setting up for a future lynch.
Out of the Golden/Zebra exchange I think GOlden comes out looking better as of right know I could place my vote on Zebra.

I don't find BR's post pingy. I just don't see it. However, I do agree with you about Zebra...wow what a suspicious reaction. And that he went in and changed all the "you"s to "I"s in the post Mac wrote about Matt is very disconcerting.

Cryptic Marsh is bad Marsh.

Linki, I think the point of the you/I thing was to point out that Macs points could apply equally well to himself. I thought it was funny, actually, lol

FZ. wrote:

Golden wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Golden wrote:Suddenly lines are being drawn, this is good stuff. Useful stuff. I like it.

I still see Zebra as more bad than Sig. Sig's posts come across as genuine, his normal self, and don't say anything blatantly wrong. Zebra, on the other hand, twisted what was already in the thread.

Sig is one of those people who always seems to ping people on day one, just for the way in which he says things.

You and zebra just look to me like a civ vs. civ fight. He misinterprets your words thinking you looked at Mac as bad because of his vote, and you misinterpret his words thinking he was saying you or BR were setting up things for a later lynch. Don't see either as bad, but rather a waste of time butting heads.

No. I did not misinterpret his words in that way. Once again, here is what he said.

a2thezebra wrote:I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

He sais I was 'trying to make mac's behaviour look suspicious'. What did I do to do that? Having talked through it with Mac and come to the view that Mac was ok with me, what did I do to make Mac look suspicious? Just talk to him about his posts?? Would the civilian thing to do be just to ignore Mac? Why would any civilian mindset find that suspicious?

Zebra didn't say I was setting up for a later lynch, and I've never suggested he did so it's hard for me to have misrepresented that. I accused HIM of setting up for a later lynch of me or BR. And then overreacting to me calling him out, rather than actually talking through his thinking. Just read the first sentence he had in context. I have my first, day one, ping... and that's the response? Really? It's so overblown!

Yeah, okay, I mixed things up. Sorry. I still don't get a baddie vibe. Was the reaction overblown, definitely. Does it automatically mean baddie? Not in my book

Fair enough.

FZ. wrote:Is jokey Marsh a good Marsh?

Inconclusive.

Ugh. Got called into work. I will try to look at stuff tonight/tomorrow morning, but I have to close then open. Most people seem like themselves and I'm not getting much in terms of vibes. Per normal more who I feel good about atm rather than bad.

In general, I'm not a super fan of the idea of policy lynches. Not sure I understand like at all how lynching someone based on playtime alone even on day 1 is better than random.

SVS is scum. Bank on that.

I am on vacation on my phone so making huge cases is not really fun so imagine there are lots of quotes here and a great case and then vote.

Also I see that my policy lynch idea generated some fab discussion so I feel justified.

bea wrote:Ugh. Got called into work. I will try to look at stuff tonight/tomorrow morning, but I have to close then open. Most people seem like themselves and I'm not getting much in terms of vibes. Per normal more who I feel good about atm rather than bad.

In general, I'm not a super fan of the idea of policy lynches. Not sure I understand like at all how lynching someone based on playtime alone even on day 1 is better than random.

Bea my sweet cherub. You may disagree ethically but surely the simple idea of random lynching a potentially disruptive townie who may be scum is beneficial to lynching a random. Is that so hard to rationalise?

I think there has been enough discussion on the subject for the logical validation of the idea to have no question about it. There are arguments for it but disputing the logic and reason of it at this juncture is suspicious.

MacDougall wrote:SVS is scum. Bank on that.

I am on vacation on my phone so making huge cases is not really fun so imagine there are lots of quotes here and a great case and then vote.

Also I see that my policy lynch idea generated some fab discussion so I feel justified.

Awesome. Drop that nugget on the thread and say that you are unable to justify

Pull those quotes or gtfo. I will be happy to refute anything you bring since i am not bad.

Whew; I thought I had a lot of catch-up to do, but I had a blessedly short two pages. Commentary on what I've read and general thoughts:

1) I don't care much for policy lynches except for their amusement factor at times (as in, some of the reasons people use amuse me, but the voting itself isn't helpful for mafia-hunting).
2) It's weird to say this as a low-poster myself, but I don't like voting for people who are outspoken on Day 1, and would like to look at people avoiding posting in the thread. I find voting outspoken weirdos on Day 1 encourages baddies to keep low and quiet for half the game, only to screw the civs over behind the scenes for days. I'll be happy to vote an outspoken, contributing weirdo later with more evidence
3) I find none of the "major pings" people are having to be much of anything to go off of so far.
I agree with BR's stance on policy lynches, so there's that.
From what I remember of Zebra's gameplay, her reaction to being accused doesn't ping me and looks pretty normal. I am, however, keeping an eye on who chooses to jump on this "suspicion." It seems too easy.
I agree that while Mac's stated reasons for policy-voting Matt are sound (gauging reactions, starting conversation), I also agree with FZ that the execution of said reasons has not allowed those reasons come to fruition, and has only resulted in our discussing policy lynches in general and not much baddie hunting.

Damn! I always underestimate how long these posts take to write! I have to shower and get ready for trivia, but I figured I'd at least share my thoughts so far, as incoherent/incomplete as they may be. As far as voting, I'll likely either vote someone jumping on a tenuous suspicion without contributing to it with their thoughts, or someone who I believe is hiding in the shadows for far too long by tomorrow. I'll attempt to keep up via phone and whatnot.

S~V~S wrote:

MacDougall wrote:SVS is scum. Bank on that.

I am on vacation on my phone so making huge cases is not really fun so imagine there are lots of quotes here and a great case and then vote.

Also I see that my policy lynch idea generated some fab discussion so I feel justified.

Awesome. Drop that nugget on the thread and say that you are unable to justify

Pull those quotes or gtfo. I will be happy to refute anything you bring since i am not bad.

How do you sleep at nighy lying through your teeth like that?

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MacDougall wrote:SVS is scum. Bank on that.

I am on vacation on my phone so making huge cases is not really fun so imagine there are lots of quotes here and a great case and then vote.

Also I see that my policy lynch idea generated some fab discussion so I feel justified.

Awesome. Drop that nugget on the thread and say that you are unable to justify

Pull those quotes or gtfo. I will be happy to refute anything you bring since i am not bad.

How do you sleep at nighy lying through your teeth like that?

I sleep super fine. Again, bring the quotes. I saw you posted and i was all excited, but all it was was more hyperbole.

Give me something to work with. And an FYI, my Dad is actual Clan MacDougall.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

Then vote for me. I just told the truth. I don't remember anyone ever using a "policy" lynch. I still don't think following a "policy" lynch is a good idea. also, oh my goodness, BR used an emot. Would have been better if I hid behind a

Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.

Like I said, I don't think following a policy lynch is a good idea either. Your tone just stood out to me. What does the shrug mean BR? What does it mean?!

What would you have done had she used the bigger shrug ?

So far I am seeing Zebra as civ; it's been a while since i played with her, but she had a slicker feel when she was bad, not unlike boo, and i am not seeing that at all here. My sureness about Golden in Recruitment (I was positive he was on the other baddie team in that game) has made me leery of my gut on him. I do agree that sig is pretty siglike, although I don't necessarily agree with the opinions of any of these people.

I need to reread from the beginning, I think, in order to have a better grip on everyone else. It feels like a lot of people are not posting.

Here is a quote. Look at what you have posted.

1. A slicker feel when she was bad? I would say this if I was bad and trying to mingle.
2. Leery of gut.
3. But don't hang me on my suspicions please. I need to re-read the thread first.

Go on then. Re-read the thread and we shall continue this topic afterwards.

S~V~S wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MacDougall wrote:SVS is scum. Bank on that.

I am on vacation on my phone so making huge cases is not really fun so imagine there are lots of quotes here and a great case and then vote.

Also I see that my policy lynch idea generated some fab discussion so I feel justified.

Awesome. Drop that nugget on the thread and say that you are unable to justify

Pull those quotes or gtfo. I will be happy to refute anything you bring since i am not bad.

How do you sleep at nighy lying through your teeth like that?

I sleep super fine. Again, bring the quotes. I saw you posted and i was all excited, but all it was was more hyperbole.

Give me something to work with. And an FYI, my Dad is actual Clan MacDougall.

How is what I said hyperbole? Why were you excited about me posting? That's cool bout yo dad. Does he wear a kilt?

I do think Zebra feels different when she is bad than she does here. And yeah, in the gave I referenced, I tunnelled hard on Golden and I was 100% wrong. So I am leery of my gut thought on him.

And what is bad about rereading?

Linki, I thought you gave me something to work with and i was disappointed, Mac. And he does not wear kilt, but my husband did.

*game not gave, plus World Series is starting, so bbl

S~V~S wrote:I do think Zebra feels different when she is bad than she does here. And yeah, in the gave I referenced, I tunnelled hard on Golden and I was 100% wrong. So I am leery of my gut thought on him.

And what is bad about rereading?

Linki, I thought you gave me something to work with and i was disappointed, Mac. And he does not wear kilt, but my husband did.

You saw me post, got excited and thought I was giving you something to work with and was disappointed that I hadn't made a post with what you perceive as pressuring content. Is that right?

Nothing is wrong with rereading but contextually it felt like it was placed at the end of your post to reduce the validity of your post so that people wouldn't challenge it.

Golden wrote:I agree. This is the jackpot.

Your stance was that we may have been opportunistic?

Lets look at what you said...

a2thezebra wrote:I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

You said nothing about 'opportunistic'. You said that I and BR were trying to make his behaviour 'look suspicious' - when I was absolutely not.

And then when I called you on it, you had a massive reaction.

Yeah...the implication of the original post was that it seemed opportunistic. Sorry for not actually using the word itself, I was unaware merely demonstrating a hypothetical example of opportunistic behavior was not good enough for you, otherwise I would have. And I had a massive reaction because I was blown away that you would even attempt any of this, and considering that your response consists pretty much entirely of a minor linguistics correction and the suggestion that I was being over-defensive (oh, sorry...you didn't actually use that word, so we'll all just ignore what the word means for the sake of a weak attempt at a misdirection) while ignoring everything else that I had to say, I believe you reaffirmed how warranted my "massive reaction" was.

sig wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

I agree this is a slight ping to me can't give a good reason why it just is.

Ping ping! The content of the section I bolded here is how I feel about the content of the section I bolded here.

sig wrote:I've heard of policy lynches I'm not a fan of them at all. I'm wondering if zebra really thinks Mac thought votes weren't changeable or if zebra is just saying that. I think Mac would've voted for MAtt and ended the day with this vote regardless. So this almost seems like Zebra is covering for Mac's vote by saying it was a joke and we shouldn't pursue/question Mac about it.

If I seemed defensive of Mac in an unwarranted way it's because I sensed opposition to Mac that was far more unwarranted. But you wouldn't have anything to say about that, I see. Just me.

sig wrote:I wouldn't say Mac's behavior is overly suspicious just slightly what I find more suspicious is Zebras defense of Mac's vote and saying people shouldn't suspect him, I can also see what Golden says about Zebra potential setting up for a future lynch.
Out of the Golden/Zebra exchange I think GOlden comes out looking better as of right know I could place my vote on Zebra.

sig, if you're civilian and you care about me thinking that, you wouldn't do well to put words in my mouth. I am not saying that people shouldn't suspect Mac at all, I only said (accurately) that some of the suspicions I sensed towards him was suspicious. Opportunistic, if you will. Which is also what this is looking like.

Black Rock wrote: Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.

Good observation. sig had no original reason to agree either, but feigned that he did by wording it differently.

As a side note, I think it's interested that my suspicion of you, which Golden and sig thought quite scummy, has not gotten a response when Turnip Head has, at least at this point. Still catching up here.

FZ. wrote:Yeah, I didn't see anything wrong with BR's post.

I also don't see zebra as bad, nor Golden.

Sig, on the other hand feels like someone trying to take advantage of others' finger pointing

Right now I'm in full agreement with this, assuming "BR's post" is referring to the one Turnip Head quoted.

Golden wrote:...Would the civilian thing to do be just to ignore Mac? Why would any civilian mindset find that suspicious?

Zebra didn't say I was setting up for a later lynch, and I've never suggested he did so it's hard for me to have misrepresented that. I accused HIM of setting up for a later lynch of me or BR. And then overreacting to me calling him out, rather than actually talking through his thinking. Just read the first sentence he had in context. I have my first, day one, ping... and that's the response? Really? It's so overblown!

You are correct, I don't think there was much misinterpretation on my part as well as yours. The civilian thing to do would not be to ignore Mac (I mean, that works too I guess), but simply to not interrogate him as if what he was doing was a serious tactic, when it clearly wasn't. You and BR weren't the only ones that were talking to BR so why would I single you two out if my issue was that anyone was talking to him at all? It was the way you were talking to him. It seems more likely to me that your posts with him had a scum motivation than a town one. My response was overblown because I found the hypocrisy of your accusation astonishing. And not talking through my thinking? Did you even read my response, or just check off the amount of punctuation marks, call it overblown, and then call it a day?

Elohcin wrote:I don't find BR's post pingy. I just don't see it. However, I do agree with you about Zebra...wow what a suspicious reaction. And that he went in and changed all the "you"s to "I"s in the post Mac wrote about Matt is very disconcerting.

Why in the world is a joke disconcerting?

S~V~S wrote:Linki, I think the point of the you/I thing was to point out that Macs points could apply equally well to himself. I thought it was funny, actually, lol

Thanks and thank you!

Overall, I'm a bit alarmed that in general people seem to be more wary of my most definitely meta-supported "overreaction" than the incredibly fake and misleading arguments Golden has been making, regardless of whether that makes him a civvie that can't admit how hilariously hypocritical and unwarranted his initial suspicion was, or simply an opportunistic baddie. But on the bright side, this could help me and others get some leads on scummy folk. Maybe it is already.

a2thezebra wrote:a minor linguistics correction!

Apparently, the difference between me suggesting Mac is suspicious and suggesting Mac is not suspicious is a 'minor linguistics correction'. No - it's not. I'm not fiddling around with semantics. You said you found me suspicious for something I did not do. Apparently, because I should have just assumed Mac was being silly, when he looked pretty deadly serious given his large font in two different games.

Now you are calling me semantic, basically picking up on what FZ said about misrepresenting (I note you never said that I did that until after FZ did...) - but what, exactly, have I misrepresented? You've made a whole lot of jokes about how semantic I've been, but did you or did you not say you found me 'suspicious'? Did you or did you not say it was because I was painting Mac as suspicious'? Did you or did you not overreact? These are literally the only three things I've claimed you expressly did in your posts. Can you reject any of them?

Here is something deadly serious - if Mac had not satisfied me with his answers, he would have absolutely gotten my vote. But he did - he explained his motivations, which were completely unclear to me off the back of the two posts that apparently you alone have the key to understand they were 'silly' (I'm not even sure Mac would call them silly - even in hindsight, I read them as a mix of genuine frustration and game strategy, nothing silly about either of those things).

And apparently I'm 'checking off your punctuation marks'. Really? You think I'm epi? I haven't mentioned an adverb once. If you cannot see how you continue to completely overblow this, it's actually insane. I'm not writing your posts for you. You are the one who said you suspected me for something that never happened. You said I was trying to make Mac suspicious. I will ask you, for the second time, where is your evidence? What posts do you have to support that I was doing that?

I don't understand what you mean by my suspicion being hypocritical, but I do know that when I'm bad and being called out on day one my best defence is a good offence. You've had one today, being so incredulous that I could even suspect you at all. Let alone how my suspicion is either 'fake' or 'misleading'. Perhaps instead of just throwing out accusations, you could back them up?

Yes, I am voting zebra

I would refer people to Aces in Roger Rabbit for further information. If Zebra is civilian, I will be gobsmacked.

a2thezebra wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I don't find BR's post pingy. I just don't see it. However, I do agree with you about Zebra...wow what a suspicious reaction. And that he went in and changed all the "you"s to "I"s in the post Mac wrote about Matt is very disconcerting.

Why in the world is a joke disconcerting?

Maybe you should have used sarcastic orange.

a2thezebra wrote:Overall, I'm a bit alarmed that in general people seem to be more wary of my most definitely meta-supported "overreaction" than the incredibly fake and misleading arguments Golden has been making, regardless of whether that makes him a civvie that can't admit how hilariously hypocritical and unwarranted his initial suspicion was, or simply an opportunistic baddie. But on the bright side, this could help me and others get some leads on scummy folk. Maybe it is already.

Overreactions are a big scum tell imo. Unless you're MP, then its normal

All this gold and I'm going to end up like Bogie's character in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:a minor linguistics correction!

Apparently, the difference between me suggesting Mac is suspicious and suggesting Mac is not suspicious is a 'minor linguistics correction'. No - it's not. I'm not fiddling around with semantics. You said you found me suspicious for something I did not do. Apparently, because I should have just assumed Mac was being silly, when he looked pretty deadly serious given his large font in two different games.

Please demonstrate to me the actual inconsistency that you're pulling out of thin air. You did suggest Mac is suspicious. The minor linguistics correction refers to you responding to me by focusing on how I didn't actually use the word "opportunistic", when that doesn't even matter if it was a valid point because what I suggested in the original post perfectly implies opportunism. To say you actually did not do what I think you did is a bit much to ask me and others to accept objectively; what I speculated that you did is just that, speculation, and I did not demand that everyone else echo my thoughts, in contrast to what you seem to be doing here. Simply telling us that the way you acted with MacDougall was not setting up a potential mislynch does not prove that is what you could have been doing. And yes, you most definitely should have assumed Mac was being silly. Everyone but you and BR did, or at the very least found it confusing and/or disingenous, hence my initial perfectly warranted suspicion of you two for taking an accidental vote followed by insanely over-the-top false reasoning, in addition to spam for crying out loud, as something worth tackling in a serious manner. That is scummy.

Golden wrote:Now you are calling me semantic, basically picking up on what FZ said about misrepresenting (I note you never said that I did that until after FZ did...) - but what, exactly, have I misrepresented? You've made a whole lot of jokes about how semantic I've been, but did you or did you not say you found me 'suspicious'? Did you or did you not say it was because I was painting Mac as suspicious'? Did you or did you not overreact? These are literally the only three things I've claimed you expressly did in your posts. Can you reject any of them?

I did say you found me suspicious. I did say it was because you were painting Mac as suspicious. My overreaction is relative. If you define my initial response as a defense for myself, sure. But from my point-of-view it was more of an attack on you than a defense on me, in which case I would not say it was an overreaction because your behavior was, and still is (perhaps even more so), hilariously objectionable to me. When did I say that I didn't say that? This is getting old now, your arguments are getting more and more desperate. You are looking for inconsistencies when there are none. Here's an example of your misrepresentation: this very section I'm responding to by making it look like the arguments in plain sight was what I claimed you were misrepresenting when none of them were!

Golden wrote:Here is something deadly serious - if Mac had not satisfied me with his answers, he would have absolutely gotten my vote. But he did - he explained his motivations, which were completely unclear to me off the back of the two posts that apparently you alone have the key to understand they were 'silly' (I'm not even sure Mac would call them silly - even in hindsight, I read them as a mix of genuine frustration and game strategy, nothing silly about either of those things).

Semantics again. Yawn. At least I've gotten some new information here in that you admit that you would have actually voted for Mac had he had not satisfied you with his answers. Wow. I don't even need to look up the initial old evidence now, you've essentially admitted here that you would advocate a Mac lynch entirely based on him being, yes, clearly, ridiculous.

Golden wrote:I don't understand what you mean by my suspicion being hypocritical, but I do know that when I'm bad and being called out on day one my best defence is a good offence. You've had one today, being so incredulous that I could even suspect you at all. Let alone how my suspicion is either 'fake' or 'misleading'. Perhaps instead of just throwing out accusations, you could back them up?

As if your accusations are backed up. I'm tired of going in circles with you. Like I said before, I'm not sure if you're a civvie who is suffering from some crippling tunnel vision, or if I hit the nail on the head when I suspected you of an easy mis(?)lynch and now you're going full throttle with your defense. It is funny that you made that comment; my best defense is a good offense as well, as I think I have demonstrated, and yet I'm still not voting for you because I'm not convinced enough that you are actually bad, and it's still early in the day. I try to actually justify my votes, see. It's kind of an important aspect of the game, not voting for the wrong person and whatnot. Think about that mindset, and then compare it to yours.

Golden wrote:If Zebra is civilian, I will be gobsmacked.

Are you sure you don't already know that I am?

linki - My response to that, Elo, is already in this post, so enjoy.

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

Then vote for me. I just told the truth. I don't remember anyone ever using a "policy" lynch. I still don't think following a "policy" lynch is a good idea. also, oh my goodness, BR used an emot. Would have been better if I hid behind a

Look how quickly sig jumped right in behind you.

Like I said, I don't think following a policy lynch is a good idea either. Your tone just stood out to me. What does the shrug mean BR? What does it mean?!

Honestly my tone is probably an issue because he was doing it here and that other game where I am co-hosting. I found it annoying and a terrible idea. My shrug meant nothing.

Black Rock wrote:Honestly my tone is probably an issue because he was doing it here and that other game where I am co-hosting. I found it annoying and a terrible idea. My shrug meant nothing.

Ftr, I believe this is sincere.

Matt F wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Honestly my tone is probably an issue because he was doing it here and that other game where I am co-hosting. I found it annoying and a terrible idea. My shrug meant nothing.

Ftr, I believe this is sincere.

Same here. My initial suspicion of BR has waned quite a bit.

zebra, you are the one getting tangled up in semantics.

I don't care if what you did was offensive or defensive. Ricochet kept trying to get all semantic over that in Talking Heads too, something you saw and I think you think it's a good way of wiggling your way into getting me tied into knots.

I don't care if you were opportunistic or not opportunistic or any of those things. This is all just words to me.

You lied about what I did, and when I called you out on it, you overreacted, and you continue to overreact at every turn. I'm not trying to dissect every sentence you make, but you are trying to dissect every sentence I make. Yet you say I'm counting punctuation etc.

At this point, I've given up on reading all your posts. The substance is irrelevant to me. The emotion and vibe is not. My gut says you are bad, you were snapped, and you are trying to post a lot of words to hide the fact. It's a tactic I use too. It's not one I'm buying.

Also, you are the one talking in circles. All I'm doing is repeating the same thing over and over again.

For everyone elses benefit.

When you ask someone to back something up, and their response is 'as if your accusations are backed up', instead of actually backing their accusations up, what does that tell you?

Zebra is just trying to get you to look the other way by using a lot of words, so you'll all say 'civ on civ'. It happens all the time. I use it when I'm bad and people say 'civ on civ'. People pull me into it when they are bad so that people will say 'civ on civ'.

I'll give you plenty of examples analagous to Zebra's behaviour in this game.

Epi in Keeler
Aces in Roger Rabbit
Long Con in Bullets over Broadway
Llama/Absalom in Biblical

People who use bullishness and words to make others say they are civ on civ. All example of cases where it was not.

Zebra is a good vote.