The Syndicate

Gumshoe wrote:Is it bad etiquette to comment on a discussion not involving yourself here? If so, I may be in for a world of hurt trying to keep my head down and eyes forward.

I felt MP proposed a thought-provoking question as to whether or not it makes sense to assume other players could be using similar tactics to those that you use yourself. My stance was that it makes sense to think that way because, odds are, someone is doing something now that someone else has done in the past.

Also, to Golden's contribution, I didn't turn anything around on Cobalt. My first and second line had nothing to do with each other. The quotes read as followed:

Cobalt:
"Devin is suspicious because that's how I play as a baddie"
MP:
"So because you do it, others are also doing it?"
Gumshoe:
"I understand why Cobalt would feel suspicious of it because it's possible that they both have similar strategies as baddies."

And at the same time

Cobalt:
"I was super-civvie last time!"
MP:
"So we shouldn't suspect you because you figured out a lot last time?"
Gumshoe:
"Mafia know more than we do anyway." (this portion of my original post in question was meant as a joke if it wasn't clear)

Also, sorry if you feel like that's the only thing I've contributed to this point. I feel like I've been well balanced between goofing around to keep the game engaging and fun AND being insightful as to the topics of the game. That's a balance I had hoped to continue but maybe it wasn't so balanced to begin with if you feel the way you do.

it was more the timing and circumstances of your response to the post than your particular involvement in the discussion that got me worried. There were a lot of posts around that you could have responded to, why this one? My initial reaction was that you were defending Cobalt. Is there any truth do this? Do you have any past experience with them as a player?

Ain't nobody gonna fault nobody for their level of Day 0 participation. Especially you, who were one of the more active participants in the discussion. Keep doing your thang.

He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

Sure Cobalt. What do you make of the Epi/SVS/LC situation. Throw me in there for good measure if you like.

Sloonei wrote: Gumshoe's follow-up to that post is also a bit shady, in line with the other one. Backtracks on any possible stance, juet trying to figure things out.
I have an early suspect.

I fail to see what's suspicious about this conversation. MP asked if it's reasonable for Cobalt to suspect Devin under the conditions that Devin reminds Cobalt of himself as a baddie. My contribution to that was, yes, I think that is a reasonable reason for Cobalt to feel that way. MP then asked if I also suspect Devin. I did not suspect Devin. I don't know how Devin plays and I don't see anything in how Devin is playing that reminds me of past experiences. If it does for Cobalt, it makes sense that he'd suspect him. It, however, does not for me. I don't see a problem with this viewpoint.

To your reply:

No. I don't know anybody in this game. To my knowledge I've never played with any of them. In a sense, yes, I defended Cobalt's reasoning for suspecting Devin. Not because I agreed with the suspicion and not because I actively wanted to defend Cobalt but because - I'm nosy. :P MP asked a question, I had an opinion on said question, and so I decided to share my opinion. I expect to do this often. It's in my nature.

Okay. Thank you then. Same to you.

Cobalt wrote:He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

You've now offered a seeming defense of Gumshoe in return. Interesting.
I'm not so much interested in the specifics of the exchange, more so that it happened. Although, in that context, what Gumsho said was absolutely a defense of you.

Cobalt wrote:He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

Oh man, don't defend me defending you. You're going to get us both lynched.

Now if y'all will excuse me, I have irl interactions to have. I might be back in a few hours. I might not be back until tomorrow.

Gumshoe wrote:

Sloonei wrote: Gumshoe's follow-up to that post is also a bit shady, in line with the other one. Backtracks on any possible stance, juet trying to figure things out.
I have an early suspect.

I fail to see what's suspicious about this conversation. MP asked if it's reasonable for Cobalt to suspect Devin under the conditions that Devin reminds Cobalt of himself as a baddie. My contribution to that was, yes, I think that is a reasonable reason for Cobalt to feel that way. MP then asked if I also suspect Devin. I did not suspect Devin. I don't know how Devin plays and I don't see anything in how Devin is playing that reminds me of past experiences. If it does for Cobalt, it makes sense that he'd suspect him. It, however, does not for me. I don't see a problem with this viewpoint.

To your reply:

No. I don't know anybody in this game. To my knowledge I've never played with any of them. In a sense, yes, I defended Cobalt's reasoning for suspecting Devin. Not because I agreed with the suspicion and not because I actively wanted to defend Cobalt but because - I'm nosy. :P MP asked a question, I had an opinion on said question, and so I decided to share my opinion. I expect to do this often. It's in my nature.

Okay. Thank you then. Same to you.

I look forward to your responses and opinions in this game.

What do you think of me and my posts about you?

Overall, my read on Gumshoe has been that I lean civilian. And I agree he has been one of the higher contributors. I just found that one post inconsistent in its thought process (so thanks for providing an explanation, gumshoe. It makes sense to me. I agree with you on Cobalt's logic for finding someone bad - when new to a site, and with no knowledge of anyone's meta, it's probably actually one of the better reasons).

There has certainly been a lot of 'interesting' in this game. Also, I hope we get some clarification from Dom soon because I really want to talk about that PM.

FTR, one of Dom's rules on the first page is "do not copy and paste messages from the host" -- to me this indirectly implies that it is okay to talk about them in passing. However, still, it's usually looked down upon/seen as bad form/at least not common I think around these parts to discuss host PMs so it might be a good idea not to, although I of course realize I already participated in that exchange because I thought it was interesting (god I'm never going to be able to use that word without being self-conscious now )

@ Golden - Why are you inclined to lean civ on Gumshoe?

Sloonei wrote:@ Golden - Why are you inclined to lean civ on Gumshoe?

Vibe. It's hard to read someone I have no experience with, but his posts read genuine to me.

@nutella - I agree, I think the rule implies we can. I just like to be extra careful because I don't like getting punishment. But I really want to discuss them because I think we might be able to make more sense of them together than apart.

Golden wrote:Sure Cobalt. What do you make of the Epi/SVS/LC situation. Throw me in there for good measure if you like.

I find Epi civvy and LC scummy, SVS is still kind of a null read. I think he kinda just got caught in the middle.

You're a decent civ vibe for right now, subject to change.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

You've now offered a seeming defense of Gumshoe in return. Interesting.
I'm not so much interested in the specifics of the exchange, more so that it happened. Although, in that context, what Gumsho said was absolutely a defense of you.

I tend not to wallflower when I'm being spoken about and I address the situation directly if I'm involved in it.

Interesting.

COBALT: (Dramatic eye roll, exit DSL)

Cobalt wrote:

Golden wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

You've now offered a seeming defense of Gumshoe in return. Interesting.
I'm not so much interested in the specifics of the exchange, more so that it happened. Although, in that context, what Gumsho said was absolutely a defense of you.

I tend not to wallflower when I'm being spoken about and I address the situation directly if I'm involved in it.

Interesting.

COBALT: (Dramatic eye roll, exit DSL)

What do you, Cobalt, think of Gumshoe right now? Do you feel he was defending you, even if it wasn't a delberate defense? Why/why not?

I'm suspicious of Hedgeowl.

First post:

Hedgeowl wrote:Omg we started?!? Wut. Ok, I will be back tonight to jump in. 3 pages and its day 0! >.<

ture

Second post: Hedgeowl chooses to chime in on the discussion about voting new players out on Day 1. It's not really a post sharing any suspicions. She tacks on a sentence at the end about being wary of "bandwagon votes for seemingly no good reason". This sentence lacks any sort of context within the game or even the rest of Hedgie's post itself. She doesn't really elaborate on what she means by "seemingly" no good reason, so I won't try to draw too much from it, but in any case it's a weird sentiment to share before any votes have been cast at all in the game. Mainly I want to end this point by saying this whole post was a weird, specific, generic thing for Hedgeowl to want to chime in about. Nobody's going to go out there and make a post saying they support lynching newbies on Day 1 for no reason. That's basically the opposite of what Hedgeowl's post says. The opinion that Hedgeowl shares here isn't groundbreaking, so it seems like a weird thing for Hedgeowl to find noteworthy of discussing. And it's not discussing her thoughts on any of the players in the game.

Golden tried to question Hedgie about that last sentence, I think, by attaching it to some context of what's going on in the game. Hedge's reply (also her third post): Hedgeowl clarifies that her last post was ONLY talking about the general idea of newbies and not on any discussion surrounding actual players in this game. But when Golden mentions Epi, LC et al, she does give her opinion. She ends by saying that there wasn't much noteworthy in the 5 pages she read, and that it took her too long to read. And while I don't disagree with her that there's not much meat to the discussion yet, she chose to post some pretty shallow content herself.

Post the fourth: I'm sensing a pattern with Hedgeowl's contributions here. All mechanics and mafia meta talk, nothing about the game.

I would add to Turnip's post that in Hedgeowl's third post, she seems to state that MP's rainbow list is something worth taking note of, but all she goes on to say is that it made her laugh.

Yes, TH, that's exactly what I was trying to do. I felt like Hedgeowl's statement was definitely something that could be referred back to later to defend LC or SVS, and I didn't want to allow it to be used that way. I could definitely see a scenario where Hedgeowl is in a team with LC or SVS and was hoping to have some else run with her comment and imply that LC or SVS were being bandwagoned.

Also, her response question 'Did I say that?' - was a noteworthy response to me.

I feel like this has been a remarkably productive day 0/day 1. A lot of real stuff is happening here. I wonder if it's because MP wasn't around to clutter up the thread

I'm with Turnip Head on this one. I got so caught up focusing on the whole Epi - Lc - SVS talk I forgot about the posts Hedgeowl had made. They read really scummy to me too. A lot of mafia excuse speak. If Hedge is bad, it seems kind of sloppy of her....

At this point she's pinging me the most for a day 1 vote.

I am reading Gumshoe as civvie for now.

Golden wrote:Yes, TH, that's exactly what I was trying to do. I felt like Hedgeowl's statement was definitely something that could be referred back to later to defend LC or SVS, and I didn't want to allow it to be used that way. I could definitely see a scenario where Hedgeowl is in a team with LC or SVS and was hoping to have some else run with her comment and imply that LC or SVS were being bandwagoned.

It just seems so out of place in that post. And I see what you're saying, she could refer back to that remark to preemptively counter any bandwagons she doesn't like. It's like that sentence came from the future and landed in Hedgeowl's post.

I'm personally still inclined more towards seeing SVS as suspicious than Hedgeowl, but they'd be my numbers one and two right now.

I don't find anything suspicious about Gumshoe contributing to the discussion. I'm more pinged by those, like Sloonei, whose "initial reaction" was that Gum was defending Cobalt. I don't think it's likely that a baddie teammate would "jump to the rescue" so early, and for so little. He's trying to drum up a suspicion between Cobalt and Gumshoe that I don't buy. Is it that easy to catch baddies?

Epignosis wrote:Long Con is still my #1 suspect, however.

His manipulation is transparent to me.

Long Con wrote:I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

In case I haven't been clear, here is what I see is happening in this one line:

Long Con mischaracterizes and trivializes the exchange MP and I had Day 0. He quoted a bunch of posts from MP and me and called it a shoving match. He said he doesn't like the term "pissing match" (Glad he forewent "tug of war" ). Neither of those terms accurately describes what was going on there.

However, this serves the neater purpose of giving LC a place to vote if either an Epignosis or MP lynch gains momentum. He comments on it without saying anything meaningful about it (except for making it sound uglier than it is), which shows his audience that he is aware something is going on there, all the while leaving himself free to vote for either of us if the opportunity presents itself.

The "manipulation" you're seeing is only your own paranoia. I wasn't manipulating anything, I was just offering my point of view on the current goings-on.

I don't think "tug of war" is the metaphor I would use for the exchange between you and MP. I saw it more as you each confronting the other with questions that demanded answers, while the other deflects it away with a different question. It's pretty much up to any reader to decide if the "shoving match" metaphor is accurate, or way off. It describes how I read the exchange, so it's the metaphor I used.

I'm surprised by how defensive you got about it. In the last part of the quoted post, you have me voting for you and MP over this. I didn't comment on it to say it's suspicious, or even that it's unusual for the two of you. I said I don't know what to make of it, and you are reading a lot into that and feeling threatened by it. All it means is that you guys asked more questions than you gave answers, and that left some things hanging, cut off others before they could become discussions. Maybe I'll "know what to make of it" when there's more answers and opinions, and less stonewalling.

I voted Long Con the Baddie because it's the right thing to do.

Also, I won't be around much until Saturday.

I'll have to get into the game tomorrow evening, I'm falling asleep. More to reread in this Day 0 than any I can remember, though!

I did think it was strange when Hedgeowl was talking about bandwagon votes before voting even started. I thought it was a good sentiment for me personally to have out there, since Epig and Cobalt seem to wish for a bandwagon to happen on me, but it's an odd thing to say nonetheless.

S~V~S may be trying to pocket me with her defense of the word "interesting" and attack on Epig. My lynch would end up making her look better, and my survival with her in my "good books" would be advantageous as well.

If I were making a rainbow list at this point, I'd have Sloonei, Hedgeowl, S~V~S, and Epig as slight Mafia reads, and Golden and MP as slight Civ. I guess I don't need to invoke the rainbow to just say that. I want to read back over the Gumshoe stuff to see who else seemed to be trying to cast it in a worse light than I think it is, I don't think Sloonei was the only one, just the one that stuck out to me.

Linki: Thanks, MM, good to know I can always count on your support. If you did vote, could you let us know if votes are changeable in this game?

LC why do you suspect Epi and SVS?

Nevermind I see it. Do you think Epi is bad because he wants to start a bandwagon on you?

Epi for his defensive reaction to the "shoving match" comment. He's turned it into an excuse to suspect and vote for him, when it was just a comment on the situation. And he's accusing me of lying about saying things to gauge reactions, when the shoving comment wasn't even the first time I did it.

The S~V~S suspicion is based on her possible buddying behaviour to me. I have seen her do this kind of thing in the past, so it stands out to me. It also seems a bit like she was choosing that "issue" to comment and offer opinion about, because it's not a direct player opinion or accusation, but it does show up as contribution. Comments on issues rather than players are an easy way for a baddie to be involved without getting their hands dirty.

I have to admit I have no read in SVS at this point. I don't feel like I have enough information yet. Epi seems okay so far. Not sure about LC, he feels a bit squirrelly.

Long Con wrote:Comments on issues rather than players are an easy way for a baddie to be involved without getting their hands dirty.

I feel like this is so on point.

I find it interesting that Long Con has decided to name me as a suspect because of my Gumshoe posts. I'd like to hear more on that.

nutella wrote:FTR, one of Dom's rules on the first page is "do not copy and paste messages from the host" -- to me this indirectly implies that it is okay to talk about them in passing. However, still, it's usually looked down upon/seen as bad form/at least not common I think around these parts to discuss host PMs so it might be a good idea not to, although I of course realize I already participated in that exchange because I thought it was interesting (god I'm never going to be able to use that word without being self-conscious now )

This.

You may talk about your PMs. You may brainstorm ideas about what they might mean. You cannot share verbatim what they said. You cannot copy and paste them. You can, however, say something like this:

My PM said something about Mary Rodgers and Assassins. What do you guys make of that? Do you think Mary could be an Assassin?

Neither Mary nor Assassins are roles in this game, only examples.

In short, go ahead and talk about your PMs, but don't directly share WHAT you received.

Golden wrote:Are we allowed to speak of our PMs in the thread at all?

Yes.

Scotty wrote:Dom, wtf did I just receive. It looks like you had a stroke when writing that. I feel like I'm missing something here...

nijuukyugou wrote:

Golden wrote:Are we allowed to speak of our PMs in the thread at all?

Ah shit, probably should've waited for the answer to this. Sorry if I screwed up!

You didn't.

What role do we all think our positions in the poll played in the PMs we received?

Sloonei wrote:What role do we all think our positions in the poll played in the PMs we received?

I think the numbers might correspond to roles. Not necessarily in order (i.e. role 1 on the list might not be number 1 in the poll - they could have been randomized), but just because I think my PM was a role description based on its content. It was all jumbled up like others have said, but in the middle there were a few words that strung together to make an actual sentence. As I understand, I can't repeat that sentence. I will say that I think the description I got applied to a civ role, if that's what they actually are.

I don't get the Hedgeowl suspicion at all. She posted while catching up and gave her input on a couple main discussions. None of her posts look particularly bad to me, just kind of average minimal-but-sufficient participation. I guess I understood LC's point (though it was regarding SVS) about commenting on issues rather than players, but Hedgie gave her views on LC/Epi/SVS so that doesn't really apply. I don't know, she could be hiding behind that type of participation (I haven't played many games with her but isn't it kind of her norm?) but I just don't really see the reasons for suspecting her, they seem contrived.

I could see SVS as bad. I mean, SVS is always bad

Gumshoe wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote:MP's redonkulous rainbow list aside ( )

I feel like I've seen a couple of people making fun of his list and I don't really understand why. Keeping a list rating how suspicious you are of each person in addition to your notes seems like a good idea. Is it just because his is color-coded?

I can't speak for others, but for me personally, I feel like the last full game I played with multiple people using rainbow lists quickly led to a select few people dominating the conversation with information overloads. To the point where I often skimmed a lot of stuff because I simply didn't have the time to read everything.

That being said, it was a game I ended up subbing out of, so take that for what you will.

nutella wrote:I don't get the Hedgeowl suspicion at all. She posted while catching up and gave her input on a couple main discussions. None of her posts look particularly bad to me, just kind of average minimal-but-sufficient participation. I guess I understood LC's point (though it was regarding SVS) about commenting on issues rather than players, but Hedgie gave her views on LC/Epi/SVS so that doesn't really apply. I don't know, she could be hiding behind that type of participation (I haven't played many games with her but isn't it kind of her norm?) but I just don't really see the reasons for suspecting her, they seem contrived.

I could see SVS as bad. I mean, SVS is always bad

You've commented more frequently on issues than on players in this game. Do you have any opinions about players yet?

As a follow up to my last post, discussion of game mechanics and ideas can be just as important as discussion about players and neither one should be looked down upon. It's important to get a good balance of both, I think, especially in a game like this one. My above post directed at nutella is just me seizing an opportunity to generate Day 1 discussion.

...I just stated some.
For the most part though it is too early for me to form reads unless something crazy happens. As for LC and Epi, idk I think they're their usual zany selves, could be any alignment.

Bullzeye wrote:

Sloonei wrote:What role do we all think our positions in the poll played in the PMs we received?

I think the numbers might correspond to roles. Not necessarily in order (i.e. role 1 on the list might not be number 1 in the poll - they could have been randomized), but just because I think my PM was a role description based on its content. It was all jumbled up like others have said, but in the middle there were a few words that strung together to make an actual sentence. As I understand, I can't repeat that sentence. I will say that I think the description I got applied to a civ role, if that's what they actually are.

My thoughts exactly, pretty much. I was thinking there could be multiple roles mixed in to a single PM, or muliple PMs containing the entire description of a role when combined together, but I imagine it will be difficult/near impossible to test these theories.

nutella wrote:...I just stated some.
For the most part though it is too early for me to form reads unless something crazy happens. As for LC and Epi, idk I think they're their usual zany selves, could be any alignment.

Is there any more to your seeming suspicion against SVS, or is it just a hunch at this stage?

Sloonei wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Sloonei wrote:What role do we all think our positions in the poll played in the PMs we received?

I think the numbers might correspond to roles. Not necessarily in order (i.e. role 1 on the list might not be number 1 in the poll - they could have been randomized), but just because I think my PM was a role description based on its content. It was all jumbled up like others have said, but in the middle there were a few words that strung together to make an actual sentence. As I understand, I can't repeat that sentence. I will say that I think the description I got applied to a civ role, if that's what they actually are.

My thoughts exactly, pretty much. I was thinking there could be multiple roles mixed in to a single PM, or muliple PMs containing the entire description of a role when combined together, but I imagine it will be difficult/near impossible to test these theories.

Hmm, maybe... It does look like there's a lot more to my PM which is too jumbled to read. I'd assumed I was only able to understand half of one description, but I suppose it's equally possible that some of the rest actually refers to a different role entirely.

Guys I'm sorry to say that but I'm gonna ask to be replaced. Turns out playing two games at once is just a bad idea.

I do have time in real life for it, but I just can't focus on two games at once. I don't have the patience necessary, and I think this game is the one that's gonna suffer the most for it (the other game is smaller and has a bunch of people I'm used to play with, so I'm having an easier time focusing on it than this one).

So I'm gonna quit before my performance starts suffering too much. I'm sorry. I promise I'll still play more games at the syndicate in the future.

but... but, Dragon! :'(
just get lynched day 1 of your other game.

Bullzeye wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Sloonei wrote:What role do we all think our positions in the poll played in the PMs we received?

I think the numbers might correspond to roles. Not necessarily in order (i.e. role 1 on the list might not be number 1 in the poll - they could have been randomized), but just because I think my PM was a role description based on its content. It was all jumbled up like others have said, but in the middle there were a few words that strung together to make an actual sentence. As I understand, I can't repeat that sentence. I will say that I think the description I got applied to a civ role, if that's what they actually are.

My thoughts exactly, pretty much. I was thinking there could be multiple roles mixed in to a single PM, or muliple PMs containing the entire description of a role when combined together, but I imagine it will be difficult/near impossible to test these theories.

Hmm, maybe... It does look like there's a lot more to my PM which is too jumbled to read. I'd assumed I was only able to understand half of one description, but I suppose it's equally possible that some of the rest actually refers to a different role entirely.

I just looked back at mine and it seems more consistent, like it could just be a single role, than I'd initially thought. I could still see it being parts of multiple roles, but I think I'm leaning more towards it being a single role.

Dragon D. Luffy has been replaced by Cancucklehead. She cannot be lynched today.