The Syndicate

a2thezebra wrote:You've essentially admitted here that you would advocate a Mac lynch entirely based on him being, yes, clearly, ridiculous.

a2thezebra wrote:Are you sure you don't already know that I am?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Zebra, are you a member of mafia?

MacDougall wrote:Golden v Zebra looks like civ v civ to me. The aggression each of them is reacting with and the lengthy diatribes don't look day 1 scum to me. Day 1 scum would be more likely to softly dismiss cases in hopes of not making a scene. This is anxious cix behavior on both parts. I would humbly request you both take time ignoring each other's presence for at least 12 hours just to let the info settle in your minds and put that enthusiasm to use elsewhere in the game. Pretty please.

Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Zebra, are you a member of mafia?

MacDougall wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.

Ping

MacDougall wrote:Golden v Zebra looks like civ v civ to me. The aggression each of them is reacting with and the lengthy diatribes don't look day 1 scum to me. Day 1 scum would be more likely to softly dismiss cases in hopes of not making a scene. This is anxious cix behavior on both parts. I would humbly request you both take time ignoring each other's presence for at least 12 hours just to let the info settle in your minds and put that enthusiasm to use elsewhere in the game. Pretty please.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.

Ping

That's interesting. Expand?

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.

Ping

That's interesting. Expand?

Golden wrote:When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.

Ping

That's interesting. Expand?

Fluff posts talking about how you have nothing to go by on day 1 is a scumtell.

Adding that you then actually have a little ping on two players is worse. A little ping on day 1 should be enough to encourage a townie to look deeper. Here it appears to be an attempt to feign town play.

Mild ping.

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.

This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.

Sorsha wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'm not feeling overly pinged by anyone here. Mac a little bit and sig a little bit.

Ping

That's interesting. Expand?

Valid

Fluff posts talking about how you have nothing to go by on day 1 is a scumtell.

Adding that you then actually have a little ping on two players is worse. A little ping on day 1 should be enough to encourage a townie to look deeper. Here it appears to be an attempt to feign town play.

Mild ping.

I will look deeper when I have time to. I'm at work now so I'm just pointing out what I see as I go. I can't make big posts on my phone very easy... Not that it would be a big post anyway, since it's just a small ping but thumb typing sucks for more than a few lines.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.

This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.

I'm very ok with how good-looking that statement is. I know you won't be convincing anyone who knows me well. My meta is what it is.

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.

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.

Elohcin wrote:

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

Golden wrote: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.

MacDougall wrote:Golden v Zebra looks like civ v civ to me. The aggression each of them is reacting with and the lengthy diatribes don't look day 1 scum to me. Day 1 scum would be more likely to softly dismiss cases in hopes of not making a scene. This is anxious cix behavior on both parts. I would humbly request you both take time ignoring each other's presence for at least 12 hours just to let the info settle in your minds and put that enthusiasm to use elsewhere in the game. Pretty please.

FZ. wrote:I'm getting tired of the Golden/zebra fight. I'm pretty sure I'm looking at a civ Golden, but I don't agree with him. I'm also a lot more inclined to call zebra a civ than a baddie.


I want to discuss Eloh. What do people think of her bandwagon on the "overreaction" of zebra?
I think my vote might go there, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

FZ. wrote:I just ask that you take a step back and look at this from the outside. Not sure you can really do it, but can you not see what others are saying as well?

Golden wrote:

FZ. wrote:I just ask that you take a step back and look at this from the outside. Not sure you can really do it, but can you not see what others are saying as well?

It's day one. Of course I can see what others are saying.

But choosing between:

A lot of people who have done nothing of anything much
One person who has lied/deliberately misrepresented and then overreacted

For me it's an easy choice. I've found many baddies in behaviour just like zebra's, and I've seen some civs, but this behaviour is well over-represented by baddies, I think. Baddies don't like to be caught on day one, and they overreact for being called out on day one all the time. I've given a number of examples.

I think people, generally, have an absolutely massive blind spot when it comes to mafia, and that is that they always think vocal arguments are civ vs civ. People are naturally inclined to see two people going hard at it as civ vs civ. It's such a normal perception that it is so easy to manipulate as a baddie if you are a vocal person. I've done it, I know how easy it is. Zebra's play style is not very dissimilar to mine, and I don't think his loudness, wordiness and (defensive/aggressive/offensive) approach speak to his alignment, whereas others get a gut feel of civ from it. You shouldn't. Even if zebra is actually civ in this game, that gut feel you get from two people going passionately at it being civ on civ... don't trust it.

I think people should look beyond zebra's wordiness and passion, and look at the substance of what he said in the post that pinged me and his overreaction. Those two posts tell you everything you need to know. Beyond that, all the posts between me and zebra are irrelevant. That's what I think has betrayed his alignment.

FZ, I'll ask you a couple of questions. Do you think Mac's posts about tunneling FZ were 'obviously joking'? Would your natural instinct be to suspect someone for questioning Mac? Why do you strongly disagree with the notion that overreaction on day one is a baddie tell? I'd say in my experience day one overreactions are baddies about 70-75% of the time. Well over-represented. Not always. But very frequently. Frequently enough that it is worth lynching the offender.

For what its worth, if zebra was lynched and was bad, I'd be pretty confident you are civ. I know what it's like to be caught in the cycle of defending a baddie, I often get lynched for it even though it doesn't really make sense for a teammate to do it so hard. But if zebra IS bad, I bet you at least one of the people who have said its civ on civ are his teammate. Just one who said it offhand, though, and otherwise left the conversation mostly alone. I'd have to look back to see who fits the bill.

And it might not surprise anyone that I don't find eloh suspicious for bandwagoning... but, then, if zebra is bad then why would she be! If Zebra is not bad, my opinion on Eloh might change.

@FZ - regarding Aces in Roger Rabbit. I picked some little holes in him. He overreacted wildly. Others came in and claimed it was civ vs civ. Ultimately, I was well outnumbered on the vote because most people did not agree with my suspicion. But I had an ability which allowed me to get Aces lynched regardless, and he flipped bad.

Other examples... LC I didn't call out as bad on day one in BoB, but others did, and he did react heavily. When I called him out on day 3, he thoroughly exploded. Many people said it was civ on civ. They were wrong. LC was bad.

Epi in Keeler, I called out on day one. That was slightly different, he did not overreact, but he did paint certain behaviours on someone that I did not think represented the truth of the thread. Epi was bad.

I have forgotten by last example now, but anyway all four were examples of baddies exhibiting the same types of behaviour early that zebra is here.

~~~~~~~~~

Very longwinded, but I'll just repeat that if people don't lynch zebra today, then I'll back off. I'm pushing it for today, because I think the evidence is clearly there, but after that I won't push it any more. That's not to say zebra gets a pass for anything he/she might do in the future, but I'll let go this day one aspect of the suspicion.

Oh, OK. That explains the confusion. So ignore the mistakes in the current post, and I'll refer to you as female from now on

a2thezebra wrote:I'm a she. I am trans and recently came out to the web.

MacDougall wrote:Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Do you maintain that stance now?

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.

FZ. wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Do you maintain that stance now?

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.

Are you genuinely changing your mind, or are you doing it because he said there has to be a baddie in those claiming this is a civ on civ, but it probably isn't me?

FZ. wrote:You know what? I think the four of us should shut up now, and let some other people speak their mind and lead things. I hate that everyone comes late and just drops a vote.

I'm out

MacDougall wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I'm a she. I am trans and recently came out to the web.

Apologies will refer to you via correct pronoun now on.

MacDougall wrote:

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.