The Syndicate

Hey everyone. I don't like making apologetic posts much, but here's one bit of information and one bit of a heads-up. The first is that I'm not fully invested in the game yet, just yesterday when it started I had to take an exam, plus I'm feeling a bit down for personal reasons this time around, so I countered that yesterday with going to a movie, then watching at home Watchmen for three hours instead of tuning in here. Another remedy - and this is the heads up part - is that I'll be going hiking and camping with some friends this weekend (how very Marshy of me ), so I'll need to prepare for that as well, plus it'll probably cost me the voting on Day 2 (if I get to live this time until then ). Again, this is just to let you know, I'll do my best of course to contribute in the meantime, until I leave on Saturday.

Scotty, I am not a coaster and have never been one and that comment to G-Man was nothing but a joke (and an inside one too, given a reference from a past game that MP, the reference's creator in fact, was quick to acknowledge). The reason why I did actually zone out until right now can be read above in green.

I'd be able to offer links to each player's posts, but I see the Host has confirmed he will do so later. But if you need them sooner, just let me know.

I did some catch-up, but, as intense as it was, I'm not getting too much out of the D0 banter. Firstly, it strikes me as the first serious D0 one we've had since Death Note, with that D0 poll generating at least 10 pages or so of elephant talk. In that case, all the banter diffused once the majority decided to go for the regular, benign type of voting - which, in here, would translate to me that if the D1 ax won't fall on G-Man (although it currently seems like a possibility), Golden (which currently seems least likely to happen) or others involved, it will account for not much afterwards. Secondly, given the amount of fishing, rusing, jesting, banter and such, I either feel compelled to take it at face value or be slightly irritated by the "state something - launch debate/controversy over it - pull back by saying it was all a ruse or tongue-in cheek" dynamic. G-Man caught my eye with how, after almost an entire day of banter, policy talk and such, he himself seemed to finally acknowledge that his initial replies to Golden were also jest (second part of this post).

So what is it, in the end? Was it all a jest or are we trying to get something out of this eventually? There's no denying civs and mafia can both blend in on such banter occasions (thinking back to my Death Note, we had boo there, charming us with his analysis), but so far I'm not sure of any strong leads. I'm reading MP ok with his principles on the whole policy lynching thing and his inquiry of others. I'm reading Llama as doing regular Llama stuff on D0-D1, which is fishing and openly claiming a baddie read - except for maybe his Sloonei reasoning boiling down to "smileys and adverbs", because "it's reasonable guys", which is an eye-roller imo. For all the talk on "policy lynching" Golden based on his last baddie game: while I'm reading nothing suspicious in his posts so far, I can't help noticing how nobody's bringing Dharma up for the same "policy", considering how much he rekt the civs in Omerta.

So if it boils down to the originators of the whole banter, meaning Golden and G-Man, I think they both had a shaky start. Golden did basically start the whole thing, effectively signaling a meta from the sign-up phases that revenge lynching might be in store for him (including not just G-Man, but also MM and myself as players who might desire that ) and, after a few fluff and banter posts and being away whilst discussing was intensifying, he return to, in reply to MP's query, clear everyone except G-Man of possible charges and keep pressure on him. Others are finding this ok, since they themselves resonate with G-Man being suspicious, but idk, I'd keep this under scrutiny.

Then again, G-Man does indeed look worse in this equation, especially with how he decided at first to go ahead and call his "policy lynching" on Golden intentional and, as I've said, only after a full day to strongly claim it was just as jesting as everything else that's been said on the matter, by everyone else. Plus, in my catch up, other posts of his have also intrigued me, mostly notably this one, where he answers MP that he is not considering a policy lynch on Golden, yet Golden is his "contingency vote" if nothing else arises - which doesn't it sound a bit the same? To be fair, though, I'm reading his later explanations slightly better. There's also his answer to MM's question. If he accidentally claimed Watchmen, it's so interpretable, because the Watchmen go different ways and a lynch would probably have different repercussions for each one as well. Anyone has a take on this? I'm seeing only one instance of a "not posing a threat to civies", from the Watchmen that don't have secrets.

Oh christ I started this post an hour ago.

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm of 2 minds with the GMan stuff.

On the one hand, back in the day (when GMan was a regular) on LP/Piano, lie detector roles and statements became a thing and how people phrase statements and asking everyone to make "An LD Statement" became something of a controversy. In addition/as a result, in many games, "I am a civie" wasn't a detectable statement, so people would often not use it and got in the habit of not just saying that.

That being said, the way he phrased it doesn't sound like a way a civie would describe themselves, even with phrasing it differently. What he posted earlier sounds like something that is a baddie trying to describe themselves with a true statement on a technicality (like, if they don't have a power that can be used to harm a civie, they technically aren't a threat). And his explanation doesn't ring so true to me.

There are also roles with secrets, and we don't know how those statements might have an impact on an LD role. He could have been waiting for clarification on how a statement of "I am a civie" would show up. on G Man. Leaning towards a vote in that direction.

Do you think a scum player would voluntarily leave such an honest statement in the thread like that? It's incredibly easy for a baddie to simply say "I'm not bad", and I have a hars time believing that G-man's conscience would have gotten to him that much, if that is what you are saying in part.

Do you have your eye on anyone other than G-man?

I think a baddie would possibly do that, yes. When there is a lie detector, baddies do all sorts of things in posts in order to try to avoid outright lying while making themselves seem like they're claiming to be civ. I've seen it happen before, especially when they've been called out for phrasing things oddly.

What doesn't make sense is that saying "I am civ" might be seen as role claiming. That just doesn't make sense to me.

I agree with lorab.

If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with lorab.

What parts do you agree with and why? Does this mean you are suspicious of G-man? Who else do you suspect?

Scotty wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Scotty wrote:Hey MP! I see you're one of those wordy, verbose types always with a smile on your face. You remind me of that big-eyed, bushy-tailed front desk attendant at the gym today. She was positively beaming when I walked in, so I asked her if she was recently hired, and she said she was the manager of that location and had been working there for 2 years. Goes to show that if you love your job, then you'll be just fine. Also that I apparently am blind if I missed her over the past year. But I digress.

It sounds like you love your job here. And I think that's pretty cool for the community. It's always cool to have a light in a dark, pixelated wasteland. (Note: This doesn't excuse you from suspicion, mind you. I have none at the moment..but down the line, don't think you can just bat your eyelashes and expect to let your voting patterns go unnoticed)

Seems we share the sentiment of eyeing no-shows in Day 1. I also want to clarify that I feel the day 1 vote is a crapshoot, but only in the sense that we don't know anything. You guys know how other regulars usually play, but I don't have that luxury, so, for instance, when MetalMarsh is incredibly vague and unhelpful in the first few days, and I get suspicious of that, someone informs me that "that's how he usually plays," and I've got conflicting feelings in that a) it is hearsay and b) what am I supposed to do with that information in regards to my reads?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I'm voting for the Comedian’s gun.
I also think I will be voting MM day one. He always seems like he is bad. lol

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Thats was a joke.

That was a terrible joke. No offense.
I'm looking forward to what you have to offer in Day 1, Bass.

This post seems off to me and its not because you didn't like my joke. Almost this whole post is you trying to get on MP's good side. I have seen mafia do this in the past early in games. They suck up to a vocal player who they think comes across civvie.

I don't see this as sucking up at all. You'll notice that I have this weird tendency to apply gameplay and reads to my real life in the forms of short stories sometimes. Partly because I'm neurotic, partly because I'm eccentric, and partly because I'm neurotic.

My poking you was because of how I saw you play in the last game, and I want to see you explain more behind your votes/statements before I start accusing you and making the same mistake I made last time. Just generally talking more will do.
It was just that you had 3 posts at the time, and you chose to use MM as a piñata, so it piqued my curiosity.

Now that I've responded, are you currently suspecting anyone?

I guess sucking up might not be the best term but it seems like you were buddying up to him. I have done it and others have too when they are mafia so its something I look for now. I will be keeping a eye on you for that reason.
I also don't like how G-man pharsed his "I'm not bad" statement and will also bbe considering voting for him.

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with lorab.

What parts do you agree with and why? Does this mean you are suspicious of G-man? Who else do you suspect?

I agree that he seemed to be trying to get around the LD with the way he worded it.
I think he has played enough to know that a lot of games people just come out say "I'm civ" and it's not consider info dumping or role claiming. I think there are two watchmen who we know can turn on the civves or need a civvie dead to win if I'm reading the roles right.

Sloonei wrote:If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

"Does not pose a threat to the civies" does seem like the sort of thing a baddie would say, yes. Especially if they don't have a power that doesn't have a direct, negative impact on others.

And, at this point, no one else is standing out to me. I'm often a 1 suspect at a time kind of gal. Also, day 1, so not much to go on.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:So did anyone get anything from the day zero poll?

I did not.

thellama73 wrote:and I feel bad about:
Sloonei

What makes you feel bad about sloonei?

Sloonei wrote:

thellamae73 wrote:My read on Sloonei honestly has to do with the use of smilies and adverbs. I know it seems silly, but there is some truth to it, particularly the smiley part, and the fact that he was self-conscious about it makes it worse.

We have not played together before, but you have hosted both of the Syndicate games I have played prior to this one. How much attention did you pay to those games? Are you familiar at all with my playstyle, or in this case, my writing style? What do you know about me as a player?
Also, what is the rationale behind this adverb/smiley theory?

I know enough. The rationale is primarily observation based, but it also makes sense in that baddies have to walk a line, and it's easier to equivocate with emoticons and adverbs. Where a civvie might say "You are bad! I'm sure of it!" a baddie might say "You are bad, in my opinion." The softener gives them more cover if things don't go their way.

Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with lorab.

What parts do you agree with and why? Does this mean you are suspicious of G-man? Who else do you suspect?

I agree that he seemed to be trying to get around the LD with the way he worded it.
I think he has played enough to know that a lot of games people just come out say "I'm civ" and it's not consider info dumping or role claiming. I think there are two watchmen who we know can turn on the civves or need a civvie dead to win if I'm reading the roles right.

If anything, I feel like G-man's phrasing was an attempt to attract the lie detector (and this was my initial thought when I saw the post in question). I don't see how drawing obvious attention to oneself with a curiously-worded statement can be seen as dodging a potential lie detector. Does his phrasing, if we're gonna take it as honest, strike you as being one of ~2 nefarious Watchmen?
Also, who else are you looking at besides G-man?

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellamae73 wrote:My read on Sloonei honestly has to do with the use of smilies and adverbs. I know it seems silly, but there is some truth to it, particularly the smiley part, and the fact that he was self-conscious about it makes it worse.

We have not played together before, but you have hosted both of the Syndicate games I have played prior to this one. How much attention did you pay to those games? Are you familiar at all with my playstyle, or in this case, my writing style? What do you know about me as a player?
Also, what is the rationale behind this adverb/smiley theory?

I know enough. The rationale is primarily observation based, but it also makes sense in that baddies have to walk a line, and it's easier to equivocate with emoticons and adverbs. Where a civvie might say "You are bad! I'm sure of it!" a baddie might say "You are bad, in my opinion." The softener gives them more cover if things don't go their way.

Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Okay, but if you look at the context of my adverbified post and my smilies, does it seem like I am walking a line of being cautious? A lot of the content in question is unrelated to this game.
Also, what is "enough"? Could you describe your assessment of my playstyle?

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also, Llama, can you elaborate on Russ? I have him as a null read.

This post:

Russtifinko wrote:Sooooo the game started, and I worked all day.....

You guys do realize you averaged over a post per minute between 9:30am and 10am, right? And I haven't read the last 3 pages yet, but it's gotta be close to that for most of the evening.

MP has already demanded no less than 7 answers to questions from EVERY SINGLE PLAYER....and that was 3 pages ago.

Sheesh.


I'd have not voted Rorschach's journal. If he's all he made out to be, he'd write a shorthand or code known only to him in case it fell into the wrong hands.

Also, I have a policy of supporting policy lynches. Let it be known that I will bandwagon onto all policy lynches forthwith, henceforth.

Welcome new players! And new players who used to be old players before I was around. And regular players.

Baddies who haven't said anything yet don't need to read the thread closely. They are thereofre less likely to be frustrated by a lot of posts. Also, just tone. He sounds like a less scemey, more carefree Russ.

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

"Does not pose a threat to the civies" does seem like the sort of thing a baddie would say, yes. Especially if they don't have a power that doesn't have a direct, negative impact on others.

And, at this point, no one else is standing out to me. I'm often a 1 suspect at a time kind of gal. Also, day 1, so not much to go on.

Does this mean your mind and vote are set on G-man today?

Sloonei wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellamae73 wrote:My read on Sloonei honestly has to do with the use of smilies and adverbs. I know it seems silly, but there is some truth to it, particularly the smiley part, and the fact that he was self-conscious about it makes it worse.

We have not played together before, but you have hosted both of the Syndicate games I have played prior to this one. How much attention did you pay to those games? Are you familiar at all with my playstyle, or in this case, my writing style? What do you know about me as a player?
Also, what is the rationale behind this adverb/smiley theory?

I know enough. The rationale is primarily observation based, but it also makes sense in that baddies have to walk a line, and it's easier to equivocate with emoticons and adverbs. Where a civvie might say "You are bad! I'm sure of it!" a baddie might say "You are bad, in my opinion." The softener gives them more cover if things don't go their way.

Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Okay, but if you look at the context of my adverbified post and my smilies, does it seem like I am walking a line of being cautious? A lot of the content in question is unrelated to this game.
Also, what is "enough"? Could you describe your assessment of my playstyle?

It's not a conscious thing, just a tell of a guilty conscience. I think you realized you were using too many smilies, which is why you pointed it out in a joking fashion.

I don't want to describe my assessment of your play style, so I won't. :P

Well one isn't after a civ unleess someone dies so he could be that on and the other doesn't go after anyone till are a watchmen or civ is lynched. So he could be.
I'm also looking at scotty for a small ping I had when he made a post about MP. It seemed like he was trying to buddy up with him.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also, Llama, can you elaborate on Russ? I have him as a null read.

This post:

Russtifinko wrote:Sooooo the game started, and I worked all day.....

You guys do realize you averaged over a post per minute between 9:30am and 10am, right? And I haven't read the last 3 pages yet, but it's gotta be close to that for most of the evening.

MP has already demanded no less than 7 answers to questions from EVERY SINGLE PLAYER....and that was 3 pages ago.

Sheesh.


I'd have not voted Rorschach's journal. If he's all he made out to be, he'd write a shorthand or code known only to him in case it fell into the wrong hands.

Also, I have a policy of supporting policy lynches. Let it be known that I will bandwagon onto all policy lynches forthwith, henceforth.

Welcome new players! And new players who used to be old players before I was around. And regular players.

Baddies who haven't said anything yet don't need to read the thread closely. They are thereofre less likely to be frustrated by a lot of posts. Also, just tone. He sounds like a less scemey, more carefree Russ.

I can just as easily red that post by Russ as a player saying "Hey guys look at me, I've read the thread and am hip to what's going on. Don't accuse me of lurking because I'm not lurking." If anything, this post makes me mildly suspicious of Russ.

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

"Does not pose a threat to the civies" does seem like the sort of thing a baddie would say, yes. Especially if they don't have a power that doesn't have a direct, negative impact on others.

And, at this point, no one else is standing out to me. I'm often a 1 suspect at a time kind of gal. Also, day 1, so not much to go on.

Does this mean your mind and vote are set on G-man today?

I wouldn't say set, but if nothing else comes up and he doesn't say something to convince me, that is likely where I will vote, yes.

Also, as to another post you made (that I forgot to quote), if he was trying to attract the lie detector, then why do so with what is potentially an undetectable statement (a threat to civs can be a matter of opinion as to what that means)...unless you were trying to make sure that a teammate wasn't LD-ed?

ping on ninja's long post...

Her finding llama's adverb idea 'interesting' and suggesting she might be willing to vote sloonei, that whole latter part of her post felt quite bandwaggony to me and not quite sincere.

nijuukyugou wrote:I've always found the concept of using too many adverbs as a sign of baddiness intriguing. Smileys I understand. I like llama's line of thinking, especially for a Day 1 vote. While Days 1 are some people's favorite hunting days, I hate them with a passion, so sometimes you gotta go with whatever you can without a vote record - silence/hiding, evasiveness, or someone profusely and excessively using adverbs and smileys to a great extent I crack myself up

This. This is what pinged me.

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellamae73 wrote:My read on Sloonei honestly has to do with the use of smilies and adverbs. I know it seems silly, but there is some truth to it, particularly the smiley part, and the fact that he was self-conscious about it makes it worse.

We have not played together before, but you have hosted both of the Syndicate games I have played prior to this one. How much attention did you pay to those games? Are you familiar at all with my playstyle, or in this case, my writing style? What do you know about me as a player?
Also, what is the rationale behind this adverb/smiley theory?

I know enough. The rationale is primarily observation based, but it also makes sense in that baddies have to walk a line, and it's easier to equivocate with emoticons and adverbs. Where a civvie might say "You are bad! I'm sure of it!" a baddie might say "You are bad, in my opinion." The softener gives them more cover if things don't go their way.

Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Okay, but if you look at the context of my adverbified post and my smilies, does it seem like I am walking a line of being cautious? A lot of the content in question is unrelated to this game.
Also, what is "enough"? Could you describe your assessment of my playstyle?

It's not a conscious thing, just a tell of a guilty conscience. I think you realized you were using too many smilies, which is why you pointed it out in a joking fashion.

I don't want to describe my assessment of your play style, so I won't. :P

I was conscious of the smilies because I used the same one in two consecutive posts. I would never consider a person's use of emojis as it relates to their alignment, because I would never consider such a thing to be an indicator of alignment. I use adverbs because I use adverbs. Sometimes they're a natural part of a sentence.
No offense, but this is one of the silliest cases I've ever had to respond to. But it's Day 1, and I do not object to it. How do you feel about my other posts, and particularly these replies to your case?

Golden wrote:ping on ninja's long post...

Her finding llama's adverb idea 'interesting' and suggesting she might be willing to vote sloonei, that whole latter part of her post felt quite bandwaggony to me and not quite sincere.

I shared this sentiment when I first read her post, but wanted to take a step back because I feel like i'm still using tunnel vision on her after BoB. But yes, this is a point I really want to see addressed.

thellama73 wrote:Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Yeah, sorry, was posting as catching up. I see you had already let it be known by that point

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

"Does not pose a threat to the civies" does seem like the sort of thing a baddie would say, yes. Especially if they don't have a power that doesn't have a direct, negative impact on others.

And, at this point, no one else is standing out to me. I'm often a 1 suspect at a time kind of gal. Also, day 1, so not much to go on.

Does this mean your mind and vote are set on G-man today?

I wouldn't say set, but if nothing else comes up and he doesn't say something to convince me, that is likely where I will vote, yes.

Also, as to another post you made (that I forgot to quote), if he was trying to attract the lie detector, then why do so with what is potentially an undetectable statement (a threat to civs can be a matter of opinion as to what that means)...unless you were trying to make sure that a teammate wasn't LD-ed?

At this point we are getting into hypothetics and semantics with regards to the lie detector, and I do not feel that's a totally productive or worthwhile area of discussion right now. However, I would interpret "not a threat to civvies" to mean "not working against the town's interests." But i'm not epi and his is the only judgment that matters here.
Your assertion that he's potentially trying to protect a teammate from being lie detected is a bold one. What makes you think that?

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:So did anyone get anything from the day zero poll?

I did not.

Me neither.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:So did anyone get anything from the day zero poll?

I did not.

Me neither.

Same here

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Yeah, sorry, was posting as catching up. I see you had already let it be known by that point

What do you think of the adverb/smiley line of reasoning, both generally and as it pertains to me this game? What is your read on me right now?

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Yeah, sorry, was posting as catching up. I see you had already let it be known by that point

What do you think of the adverb/smiley line of reasoning, both generally and as it pertains to me this game? What is your read on me right now?

Why do you care what people think about you right now? You asked Llama this same question.

I'm feeling better about G-Man. Not 100% better, but a fair bit better.

I sort of understood the suspicion around his curiously worded statement, until we started getting into the lie detector stuff. Then I remembered how, back in the STV days, (ah, the STV mafia days) wording statements in that kind of way was completely normal. I had actually completely forgotten how we used to draft everything in such a way that the lie detector might be able to check us out, and because they couldn't check statements like 'i am civilian', you did used to say stuff like 'i am not a threat to the civilians'.

G-Man has been on break since STV days until very recently, so when I thought that through I realised that it would be pretty logical some of his phrasing would show vestiges of the way we used to do things on STV.

Sloonei wrote: I don't want to describe my assessment of your play style, so I won't. :P

I was conscious of the smilies because I used the same one in two consecutive posts. I would never consider a person's use of emojis as it relates to their alignment, because I would never consider such a thing to be an indicator of alignment. I use adverbs because I use adverbs. Sometimes they're a natural part of a sentence.
No offense, but this is one of the silliest cases I've ever had to respond to. But it's Day 1, and I do not object to it. How do you feel about my other posts, and particularly these replies to your case?[/quote]

I will never take any offense at someone trying to convince me my case against them is stupid.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Yeah, sorry, was posting as catching up. I see you had already let it be known by that point

What do you think of the adverb/smiley line of reasoning, both generally and as it pertains to me this game? What is your read on me right now?

Why do you care what people think about you right now? You asked Llama this same question.

Because I am a player in the game and I'd like to know what people think about every player in the game. I'm particularly interested in myself because I know my alignment and am a huge narcissist. I'll ask anyone to share their read of me if they acknowledge my existence.
What do you think of me, Bass?

I don't know what it is but you seem kinda off this game.

@llama, what do you think of everything in my post history that is not an adverb or a smiley face?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't know what it is but you seem kinda off this game.

Me? I encourage you to please try to figure out what it is.

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Yeah, sorry, was posting as catching up. I see you had already let it be known by that point

What do you think of the adverb/smiley line of reasoning, both generally and as it pertains to me this game? What is your read on me right now?

I do not think the adverb/smiley line of reasoning holds any merit as it pertains to you this game.

I don't think the concept has no merit whatsoever, but context and motivation are the most important factors. What is the function of the adverbs? How emotive are the adverbs? Etc...

For example, I found MP using them in Roger Rabbit in what was an effort to sway attention off his own teammate and on to a civilian. I called him out for his use of that kind of language, but I was also able to pin his motivations for the post on him. If I can't see the baddie motivation behind using a whole lot of adverbs, I can't find it suspicious.

I think the biggest strike against the idea is that I've read back enough of my own posts when I'm civilian and they are frequently full of adverbs. Same goes for smilies. And that is because even as a civilian I do try to deliberately set a particular tone (one that won't piss people off).

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't know what it is but you seem kinda off this game.

Me? I encourage you to please try to figure out what it is.

Give me a day or two and I'm suree I will. Its not a bad thing you just seem different this game.

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't know what it is but you seem kinda off this game.

Me? I encourage you to please try to figure out what it is.

What is your gun to the head read on me?

I think this is my first game with a lie detector role, let alone being familiar with player habits all the way back to previous mafia communities, so I'm inclined to give a pass, if others will vouch for the use of such wording - although now that Golden has done so, I think LoRab did just the opposite (and Bass also thinks the same), so it's not quite settled. Also, the "claiming civ is roleclaiming, so I feared not to break the rules" defense is still kind of clunky.

The wording made me think more of an actual alignment claim slip. I've asked before, what do others think about it?

Yeah. Bass wasn't around back then, but I'm pretty sure LoRab was, and the entire exchange has given me a bit of a ping on lorab too.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't know what it is but you seem kinda off this game.

Me? I encourage you to please try to figure out what it is.

What is your gun to the head read on me?

Town. I like that you are asking me this question. It's bold and suggests you're being aggressive. Your posts feel more like BoB Bass than Economics Bass so far, and I hope you can continue to build on this.
I did feel like this post was a bit odd, though, since you've played with me a fee times now, and I tought you'd know that asking everyone a million questions was my bag, so you asking why I'm asking questions seemed a bit insincere.

Ricochet wrote:The wording made me think more of an actual alignment claim slip. I've asked before, what do others think about it?

I think that if it was an intended alignment claim, it wasn't a slip.

Golden wrote:Yeah. Bass wasn't around back then, but I'm pretty sure LoRab was, and the entire exchange has given me a bit of a ping on lorab too.

Not nearly so big as my ping on ninja though.

If I was voting right now, ninja would likely be my vote.

Golden wrote:Yeah. Bass wasn't around back then, but I'm pretty sure LoRab was, and the entire exchange has given me a bit of a ping on lorab too.

I wasn't around back then but I have played in games on this site that have a LD in then.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Epi do you consider saying " I'm a civ" to be role claiming or info dumping?

No.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Epi do you consider saying " I'm a civ" to be role claiming or info dumping?

No.

I need to pull myself away from this thread for an hour or so. I don't want my entire pre-work day to be consumed by mafia. I'll be back later, and in the meantime I hope everyone continues to ask and answer a thousand questions. I like the amount of content that's been generated in here today and hope to have at least a decent vote before I leave. Keep talkin'.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:The wording made me think more of an actual alignment claim slip. I've asked before, what do others think about it?

I think that if it was an intended alignment claim, it wasn't a slip.

I'll quote myself to explain better what I meant (hopefully)

If he accidentally claimed Watchmen, it's so interpretable, because the Watchmen go different ways and a lynch would probably have different repercussions for each one as well. Anyone has a take on this?

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't know what it is but you seem kinda off this game.

Me? I encourage you to please try to figure out what it is.

What is your gun to the head read on me?

Town. I like that you are asking me this question. It's bold and suggests you're being aggressive. Your posts feel more like BoB Bass than Economics Bass so far, and I hope you can continue to build on this.
I did feel like this post was a bit odd, though, since you've played with me a fee times now, and I tought you'd know that asking everyone a million questions was my bag, so you asking why I'm asking questions seemed a bit insincere.

I agree that asking questions is meta for you but you only asked Golden and Llama what they thought about you. I thought it was strange that you only asked those two people.