The Syndicate

Bullzeye wrote:If it makes you feel any better Matt, when I first replaced in and read through everything I was quite surprised anyone wanted to lynch you because you looked your typical zany civ self to me. I'd have said as much if I were here.

MacDougall wrote:Lol that's almost unfair that you know that haha.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Who's around for a bit to talk about people? I really want to get discussion around players other than Mac and Golden, because that'd be nice.

Glorfindel wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:You have votes from Dom (5), Roxy (7), Glorfindel (13), Dragon D. Luffy (14), nijuukyugou (15), Golden (18), Sorsha (22) as of right now.

Of those only 2 have actually read the thread. There has been little to no activity from Dom (5), Roxy (7), Glorfindel (13), nijuukyugou (15), or Sorsha (22).

So that brings me to my next point. Elo said yesterday she believed most mafiosos were among lurkers.

I'm sorry but an assertion like this is borderline absurd. I've yet to play in a Mafia game yet where this happened. This is without much doubt one of the lamest attempts at diverting attention to somewhat hapless new players I've seen. Sure, we're a little disoriented playing with people and rules with which we are largely unfamiliar and it's easy to make us look guilty. I'd be really surprised if any of the experienced non-Mafia players here would take any of this seriously and further, it REALLY does little for the credibility of the person making such assertions.

Glorfindel wrote: I suspect my friend that we may be well on the road to common ground here. I do appreciate your point about inactive players 'lurking' but from my experience, if inactive newbie players are drawn Mafia (I thought someone said in the sign-up thread that doesn't usually happen here ) they end up slipping up themselves sooner or later. What I think should be a higher priority is:

a) those experienced players that suddenly drop off the radar (unfortunately, I've no experience from playing with all but one of you so in so far as this category is concerned, I've got nothin') and

b) those players that post a lot about their suspicions and make extensive commentary about players. I personally see that as subtle manipulation of the vote and an experienced player in that position represents to me, a clear and present danger.

Glorfindel wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Not a good result. RIP Bass.

I've skimmed quickly. Don't have time for a detailed catchup this morning.

For now, I have the following thoughts:

1) Glorfindel, you're suspicious based on tone as well as the lack of thoughts you espew. Also, your Day 2 vote stinks

You call that a thought? A comedy routine more likely. Just how pray tell is my tone suspicious? And MY Day 2 vote stinks? At least I made one which is more than I can say for a lot of players this game and yet you target me? Again? My vote wasn't on one of our power roles nor was it on what is looking to me like an increasingly Town-looking Enrique... I expect we'll find out soon enough then. You don't know that Russtifinko isn't non-Town (whatever they're called) so for you to criticise my vote just makes you look like you're grasping at straws and pretty transparently at that...

Spacedaisy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Lol that's almost unfair that you know that haha.

Exactly why I shared it. It would be unfair for me to know it when no one else in the game does.

I'm going to be frank here and some of you may not like or agree with me, but here goes. In games here the people who usually die either by mafia NK or get lynched are not low posters, they are usually the high posters. I say this as someone who tends to be a medium to low poster myself. This martyr attitude from low posters because you get called out needs to stop. High posters spend all day defending the crap they say, you ask them to explain themselves.theyare only asking the same of you. You don't have to post 400+ post, but don't think that because you are a low poster you should not have to use your few posts you make to occasionally defend yourself or make a case, because that is the way the game is played and everyone has to do it. I have yet to see a game where people actually got lynched solely upon their lack of posts. We all have different amounts of time to invest in a game, and I admit to skimming the stuff between Mac and golden because it was way too much and coupled with the fact I don't know how it started it reads as two people tunneling each other. Do what you have to, contribute the way you can, but stop making this a high poster vs low poster issue when it isn't. Low posters get called out frequently in games, but they rarely get lynched over just the fact they are low posters.

P.S. I'm taking my husband to the store, he needs a breather from the intensity anyway and we need groceries.

Oh also, Dom, I'm glad someone enjoyed my AD reference, lol.

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Who's around for a bit to talk about people? I really want to get discussion around players other than Mac and Golden, because that'd be nice.

I'm here. What do you wish to talk about? Would an updated reads list be warranted since the last time you made one?

Roxy wrote:Matt Bad

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Who's around for a bit to talk about people? I really want to get discussion around players other than Mac and Golden, because that'd be nice.

I'm here. What do you wish to talk about? Would an updated reads list be warranted since the last time you made one?

Well, with regards to Daisy's P.S., I guess she can visibly see that I'm upset and we're going to the store now rather than later... so I'm leaving for a bit now, but I'll be pretty soon and will be around for an hour or so afterward.

Updated reads list is absolutely warranted, and I still have lots of analytical work I want to do... we'll see how much I can get to it.

DFaraday, I just wanted to say that your recent posts have been excellent, it's so awesome to get to see your thought process and your conclusions. Keep it up. I'll see if I have anything to respond to when I return.

Bullzeye wrote:

Matt wrote:Golden - I'm not going to presume to know what Crumb's secret is, but I also won't simply dismiss an idea either.

It says Crumb has to amuse his master, Jabba. Jabba was Bcornett. Bcornett was amused by you, apparently twice.

That isn't "daft", it's logical IMO.

Oh, and in the time it took you to tell us about singing christmas carols, you could've responded to Mac whatever Zebra asked you to respond to.

Derp. Back to rereading.

Does nobody else think it's completely ridiculous that someone's role would have to perform a completely subjective act in order to gain benefit, with the sole judge of their success being someone who has btsc with them and not only knows what they have to do but likely shares the benefit? I think the whole idea is dumb tbh. Still catching up.

MovingPictures07 wrote:No one is telling anyone else how to play the game. No one is saying that you have to contribute 400 posts to be civilian. Who the hell is saying that?

DFaraday wrote:Daisy, I get lynched in the majority of games I play for being blendy, so it's not as if non-outspoken players get a free ride.

As for Dom, I'll need to go over his posts later, but his play this game kind of feels like his play in Gentleman's Guide, where he was bad.

EBWOP: Thanks MP.

Matt wrote:Right now I'm really not liking Golden and Mac being swell with each other suddenly. I get people can change their minds, but I dunno, convenient?

a2thezebra wrote:I think the frustration coming from the lower posters is coming from the idea that their very play styles are being attacked. That just isn't the case. There was a period fairly recently actually where I only made a couple posts in the span of a good 48 hours or so. A few people called me out for it not because I simply wasn't posting, but because it was inconsistent with the standard that people are used to from me. I don't speak for everyone who's getting on the lower posters' case, but for me at least I never go after a lower poster simply for lack of content and nothing more. Even in the case of Bubbles, by far the most minimal poster who has been in this game from the start, my scum read of her is not because she has few posts. I have honestly been pinged from the few posts she does have. And even if someone is to be interpreted as going after a lower poster simply for not posting more, that doesn't mean that they are telling them how they should play the game.

If I or anyone else tells, yes, tells another player to do this or that we are not demanding they play the game any certain way, (if everyone played Mafia like I do then I would never play Mafia...my main reason for playing this game is because I'm interested in the different ways people approach the game) this aggressive play style is only used to gauge reactions and try to determine whether the responses to these types of posts are coming from a town/scum/whatever perspective. That. Is. It. Nothing more. It's ironic that the more aggressive players such as myself are being told that we are telling people to play the game differently when that is essentially what they are doing to us by making us feel guilty for the way we play the game. Mini-rant over, I apologize. I think it's important that I say this here because I think that the game won't progress in any way shape or form if this kind of miscommunication keeps dragging down everyone's willpower. If you feel like another player is insulting you or attacking you personally take it to the mods, administrators, anything. It should not drag down the game.

With much love to you all, I shall now resume my mafia persona. If you feel attacked by it, please refer to the statement in my signature.

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:No one is telling anyone else how to play the game. No one is saying that you have to contribute 400 posts to be civilian. Who the hell is saying that?

MP, Mac has been saying that about me. It's the brunt of our entire thing. He basically thinks I'm bad because I don't want to keep posting all the time, at least that is where his initial gut read is coming from.

In fact, I think there has been a gradual attitude towards this for ages, and I think you would be most unwise to ignore or criticise the truth in it. I would find it very uncomfortable to be a low poster in this game.

Matt wrote:Hmmm

I know MP would rather us go to Mods and all, but I'm not upset, I just want to make a point re: Roxy

I've been belittled, ridiculed, called irrational, insane, had a policy lynch called upon me, and much more that I'm sure I can't remember at the time, since I came back about two months ago...

I love this effin' site. BRING IT ON BITCHES!!!



Back to reading. I have about 50 minutes and 3 pages to go.

Right now I'm really not liking Golden and Mac being swell with each other suddenly. I get people can change their minds, but I dunno, convenient?

I think I may vote for Golden but I still have a few pages.

Golden wrote:

Matt wrote:Right now I'm really not liking Golden and Mac being swell with each other suddenly. I get people can change their minds, but I dunno, convenient?

I'm not swell with Mac. I still think a 1 v 1 is a good idea. But hey, MP is denouncing the whole 14 pages thing... that I told Mac I didn't want to do in the first place.

If you don't like the 14 pages between Mac and I, people should have done what I asked in the first place.

You can't denounce the 14 pages on one hand, and denounce the 1 v 1 on the other.

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:No one is telling anyone else how to play the game. No one is saying that you have to contribute 400 posts to be civilian. Who the hell is saying that?

MP, Mac has been saying that about me. It's the brunt of our entire thing. He basically thinks I'm bad because I don't want to keep posting all the time, at least that is where his initial gut read is coming from.

In fact, I think there has been a gradual attitude towards this for ages, and I think you would be most unwise to ignore or criticise the truth in it. I would find it very uncomfortable to be a low poster in this game.

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

Matt wrote:Right now I'm really not liking Golden and Mac being swell with each other suddenly. I get people can change their minds, but I dunno, convenient?

I'm not swell with Mac. I still think a 1 v 1 is a good idea. But hey, MP is denouncing the whole 14 pages thing... that I told Mac I didn't want to do in the first place.

If you don't like the 14 pages between Mac and I, people should have done what I asked in the first place.

You can't denounce the 14 pages on one hand, and denounce the 1 v 1 on the other.

I don't think a 1 v 1 benefits anybody but the baddies, regardless of who the two people are. It's the best way to get away with a noncommital vote that you can in no way be held accountable for since, hey we agreed to do a 1 v 1 remember? So I think you can denounce both. I do. The 14 pages made it super hard to catch up and I don't think anything of value was gained. As a matter of fact I think it was a detriment to everyone, good or bad. I also think 1 v 1 is a poor choice. If you've already forgotten why, start reading this post again. I haven't decided what I think of Mac, but I definitely don't think you're bad at this stage, Golden, and will not be voting for you.

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

Matt wrote:Right now I'm really not liking Golden and Mac being swell with each other suddenly. I get people can change their minds, but I dunno, convenient?

I'm not swell with Mac. I still think a 1 v 1 is a good idea. But hey, MP is denouncing the whole 14 pages thing... that I told Mac I didn't want to do in the first place.

If you don't like the 14 pages between Mac and I, people should have done what I asked in the first place.

You can't denounce the 14 pages on one hand, and denounce the 1 v 1 on the other.

I don't think a 1 v 1 benefits anybody but the baddies, regardless of who the two people are. It's the best way to get away with a noncommital vote that you can in no way be held accountable for since, hey we agreed to do a 1 v 1 remember? So I think you can denounce both. I do. The 14 pages made it super hard to catch up and I don't think anything of value was gained. As a matter of fact I think it was a detriment to everyone, good or bad. I also think 1 v 1 is a poor choice. If you've already forgotten why, start reading this post again. I haven't decided what I think of Mac, but I definitely don't think you're bad at this stage, Golden, and will not be voting for you.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

Matt wrote:Right now I'm really not liking Golden and Mac being swell with each other suddenly. I get people can change their minds, but I dunno, convenient?

I'm not swell with Mac. I still think a 1 v 1 is a good idea. But hey, MP is denouncing the whole 14 pages thing... that I told Mac I didn't want to do in the first place.

If you don't like the 14 pages between Mac and I, people should have done what I asked in the first place.

You can't denounce the 14 pages on one hand, and denounce the 1 v 1 on the other.

I don't think a 1 v 1 benefits anybody but the baddies, regardless of who the two people are. It's the best way to get away with a noncommital vote that you can in no way be held accountable for since, hey we agreed to do a 1 v 1 remember? So I think you can denounce both. I do. The 14 pages made it super hard to catch up and I don't think anything of value was gained. As a matter of fact I think it was a detriment to everyone, good or bad. I also think 1 v 1 is a poor choice. If you've already forgotten why, start reading this post again. I haven't decided what I think of Mac, but I definitely don't think you're bad at this stage, Golden, and will not be voting for you.

I agree completely, Bullz.

Who are you considering for your vote?

Golden wrote:I told him nothing would change if he backed off. I still think Mac is bad.

I don't think people really understand this, because they still have trouble spotting my baddie game. the reason I really don't trust Mac is, he is playing my baddie game. MP said something like he couldn't possibly see Mac as bad because he is sprouting genuine all over the place.

Yeah, thats what my baddie game looks like, and its going to be what Mac's does too. But I know trying to convince everyone else of it is going to be like rolling a boulder uphill.

That's why I'm ok being lynched today.

@MP - Well - dare I say it - and you know I love you too, you are my best friend here - but if you refuse to do 1 v 1, then do 1 v 0 and vote me out. I don't want another 14 page fiasco tomorrow, and I don't think anyone else does either.

linki again - you should reach that conclusion. It's the truth. I spent so much of the early part of the fight trtying to ignore Mac and ask other people to iso us both and see Mac's attitude towards me, and what its been all game. No-one has bothered. You are all just gut reading us. Gut reading me, and gut reading Mac... we'll fool your guts, guys. That's the reason I've been the one begging everyone to read the isos.

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

Matt wrote:Right now I'm really not liking Golden and Mac being swell with each other suddenly. I get people can change their minds, but I dunno, convenient?

I'm not swell with Mac. I still think a 1 v 1 is a good idea. But hey, MP is denouncing the whole 14 pages thing... that I told Mac I didn't want to do in the first place.

If you don't like the 14 pages between Mac and I, people should have done what I asked in the first place.

You can't denounce the 14 pages on one hand, and denounce the 1 v 1 on the other.

I don't think a 1 v 1 benefits anybody but the baddies, regardless of who the two people are. It's the best way to get away with a noncommital vote that you can in no way be held accountable for since, hey we agreed to do a 1 v 1 remember? So I think you can denounce both. I do. The 14 pages made it super hard to catch up and I don't think anything of value was gained. As a matter of fact I think it was a detriment to everyone, good or bad. I also think 1 v 1 is a poor choice. If you've already forgotten why, start reading this post again. I haven't decided what I think of Mac, but I definitely don't think you're bad at this stage, Golden, and will not be voting for you.

I agree completely, Bullz.

Who are you considering for your vote?

Basically anyone at this stage. There are a handful of people I think are civ, and then everyone else is neutral-bad. I suspected Elo at one point, and Roxy seemed suspicious to me for a bit but now I'm not sure about her. I could be talked into a Mac vote, his posts are sometimes reminding me of his general attitude in TH. I need to reconsider a lot of things but the Doctor Who season finale starts in 5 minutes so I won't be doing that for a little while.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, DF, what reminds you of Gentlemen's Guide, re: Dom, specifically?

Golden wrote:I told him nothing would change if he backed off. I still think Mac is bad.

I don't think people really understand this, because they still have trouble spotting my baddie game. the reason I really don't trust Mac is, he is playing my baddie game. But what about his baddie game? When people play my baddie game, I tend to town read them, and I'm often right. MP said something like he couldn't possibly see Mac as bad because he is sprouting genuine all over the place. So is Mac's town game supposed to be disingenuous? Otherwise by this logic you will scum read him for being honest every single game.

Yeah, thats what my baddie game looks like, and its going to be what Mac's does too. How do you get from before the second comma to after the second comma in this sentence? Tunneling. But I know trying to convince everyone else of it is going to be like rolling a boulder uphill.

That's why I'm ok being lynched today. Why does it have to be either you're lynched or he is? MOST people in the game don't support your 1v1. I've already mentioned that even if we lynch you and flip town, that wouldn't make Mac bad by any stretch of the imagination, especially now since he's backed off and more-or-less admitted that he has been tunneling you. When I first mentioned that point you responded by saying that that's why you made the legacy post. Great, but that still doesn't make Mac bad. At the end of the day you don't know, and could therefore be wrong. And you're less likely to convince people when your arguments are coming off as more biased-based than based in objective reasoning.

@MP - Well - dare I say it - and you know I love you too, you are my best friend here - but if you refuse to do 1 v 1, then do 1 v 0 and vote me out. I don't want another 14 page fiasco tomorrow, and I don't think anyone else does either. Why is there not a choice? Why, if you live, must another 14-page fiasco happen? What is compelling you to go back-and-forth with Mac over and over again about semantics and other easily misinterpreted points? I had a feeling this would happen way back with your first conflict with him, and when I expressed it you both went after me for basically being a prophet that most of the content between you two will be ignored by pretty much everyone else for containing so little unbiased logic?

linki again - you should reach that conclusion. It's the truth. I spent so much of the early part of the fight trtying to ignore Mac and ask other people to iso us both and see Mac's attitude towards me, and what its been all game. No-one has bothered. You are all just gut reading us. Gut reading me, and gut reading Mac... we'll fool your guts, guys. That's the reason I've been the one begging everyone to read the isos.

DFaraday wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, DF, what reminds you of Gentlemen's Guide, re: Dom, specifically?

His posts this game have tended to be vague and noncommittal. I haven't gone back to check, but I also can't remember Dom really suspecting anyone beyond throwing an eye their way.

Matt wrote:Alright, all caught up from last night. Still have to catch up from pages 35 to about 60, but that'll have to hold.

What do people make of Roxy saying "vote for me, you'll catch a baddie" ? Is that bad Roxy getting mad and quitting, or is that good Roxy getting mad and trying to screw over town? I don't see good Roxy doing that sooooo

What do people make of Mac listing himself as Mafia in his G2H reads? Lol

I have about 30 min before I place my vote.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'd vote for Roxy at this stage, frankly, but I'd like to ISO her, Dom, and others before I commit... we'll see how far I get. GTH I agree with Matt that I don't think a civilian Roxy would say "you'll catch a baddie", but I really don't know; she could just be a civilian saying that because she's so beyond wanting out of the game.

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:@zebra - if you were a prophet, then you'd be on board with the 1 v 1.

lol - zebra, it's not that.

It's that I know the right thing to do is to lynch Roxy. You can't risk that kind of thing ending in modkill.

But... I really also know that 1 v 1 is a great idea, despite you and others not believing or understanding it.

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote: One straight answer, please.

This is how I always feel when I talk to Matt.