The Syndicate

speedchuck wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.

Personally, I think Llama looks scummier than you. He was the first to put a second vote on someone for a silly reason. I can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third silly vote on someone. That is why I voted for him, not you. But I have seen very bold baddies do very bold things to fall back on the wifom.

Are you a bold baddie?

Do you honestly think Sorsha is bad? If not do you plan to move your vote?

Am I a bold baddie? I could give you my metaread here, but it'd sound bad coming from me.

I suspect Sorsha more than Llama, and thus am unable to move my vote ATM.

Hm.

Vote Dfaraday

speedchuck wrote:

Quin wrote:hey what's up

Eyy!

Bunch of random wagons. Recommending Dfaraday.

And now you voted for Dom? What happened to your Day 1 vote and recommending others vote for DF? Now that he was up for a possible lynch you suddenly throw your vote on Dom?

Are we looking at a Dom/DF/speedchuck baddie team here?

Oh lord I need to just give up today, clearly I'm about ten steps behind. speedchuck ended up voting notsawyer...

still don't understand why not DF?

Spacedaisy wrote: Are we looking at a Dom/DF/speedchuck baddie team here?

I'd believe that tbh. I've got the shiny foil hat to show for it.

(We need a tinfoil smiley lol)

Day 2 has ended.

Notsawyer has been lynched. He was:
It is now night 2. You have 24 hours to send in any PMs.

Spacedaisy wrote:Oh lord I need to just give up today, clearly I'm about ten steps behind. speedchuck ended up voting notsawyer...

still don't understand why not DF?

Honestly, I hardly remember yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I was only trying to save llama d1.

Not that I have great reasons for my vote today.

nutella wrote:

Dom wrote:For a linguist, nutella didn't choose her words carefully

First of all, I don't know what you mean by this or why you think this. Second of all, if you think this, do you think that means I'm bad? Or do you think I would be more careful about words if I was bad?

Did you not major in linguistics?
So why is your language so vague?

RIP Trev. How anyone thought you were bad is beyond me.


Dom I don't even want to dignify that with a response. Rude tbh. Having studied linguistics does not automatically mean I should write perfectly. Sometimes I use vague or hedgey words, that's just how I am. Sorry for not living up to your expectations. But you still didn't even point out what specific vague language use you were referring to. I really don't think I've been very vague at all this game compared to some other games I've played. Show me specifically what bothered you. Also, you didn't even acknowledge the point of what I said about that not making me bad.

nutella wrote:RIP Trev. How anyone thought you were bad is beyond me.


Dom I don't even want to dignify that with a response. Rude tbh. Having studied linguistics does not automatically mean I should write perfectly. Sometimes I use vague or hedgey words, that's just how I am. Sorry for not living up to your expectations. But you still didn't even point out what specific vague language use you were referring to. I really don't think I've been very vague at all this game compared to some other games I've played. Show me specifically what bothered you. Also, you didn't even acknowledge the point of what I said about that not making me bad.

I studied linguistics.

I have never written, "Rude tbh."

Until now.

I feel soiled.

Epignosis wrote:I feel soiled.

There's pills for that.

What kind of linguistics did you study that didn't teach you not to be a dirty prescriptivist?

nutella wrote:As I said earlier, he's usually a much lower poster, though I suppose he does occasionally get invested in discussion (I don't specifically remember any alignment-based meta differences tbh). Something about his engagement in this feels insincere and/or overblown.

Rob outlined this nicely, but what are you talking about here? You know words are important. "Something about" tells me nothing. It tells DFaraday nothing. There's so much room for manipulation and skewing of your intent.

nutella wrote:Hm, I wonder if Juliet is a regular civ this game or not. In season 3 she pretty much started out as one of the bad guys and then defected to the losties. My instinct is to trust Epi and assume Juliet is a civ role, since it would be a weird/less "safe" role to set up as a fake claim.

And you don't actually make any sense of a stance here. You say Rob could be bad. Or good. Whatever.

GMan described this as "two way". I describe it as leaving your options open for when you have to make a stance that's expedient for your agenda.

nutella wrote:What kind of linguistics did you study that didn't teach you not to be a dirty prescriptivist?

Just because people talk like Boomhauer doesn't mean they are right to talk like that when others need to understand them.

Get out, dirty descriptivist.

Dom wrote:

nutella wrote:As I said earlier, he's usually a much lower poster, though I suppose he does occasionally get invested in discussion (I don't specifically remember any alignment-based meta differences tbh). Something about his engagement in this feels insincere and/or overblown.

Rob outlined this nicely, but what are you talking about here? You know words are important. "Something about" tells me nothing. It tells DFaraday nothing. There's so much room for manipulation and skewing of your intent.

nutella wrote:Hm, I wonder if Juliet is a regular civ this game or not. In season 3 she pretty much started out as one of the bad guys and then defected to the losties. My instinct is to trust Epi and assume Juliet is a civ role, since it would be a weird/less "safe" role to set up as a fake claim.

And you don't actually make any sense of a stance here. You say Rob could be bad. Or good. Whatever.

GMan described this as "two way". I describe it as leaving your options open for when you have to make a stance that's expedient for your agenda.

I believe I was clear enough in my response to G-Man. I don't want to have to repeat myself. Read my response to him. I don't deny that I consider both options, because that's just how I post in mafia (often working out a thought process while writing and concurrently forming/constantly adapting my opinions), but I also clearly said that I decided to trust that Epi was more likely civ.

As for the DF thing, I don't really know what more you want there. I have described multiple times now why I've found him suspicious. Technically I guess you could take out the "something about" and leave the sentence as "his engagement in this..." and it wouldn't really change my meaning, but that's just how I talk. Sorry you don't like it.

linki @ Epi: I will not tolerate prescriptivism in any form. It is racist and classist and disrespectful of linguistic diversity. If you don't understand someone, ask for clarification and I'm sure you will find some mutual ground for effective communication. Otherwise just let people speak how they speak. Don't be such a goddamn jerk.

nutella wrote:
linki @ Epi: I will not tolerate prescriptivism in any form. It is racist and classist and disrespectful of linguistic diversity. If you don't understand someone, ask for clarification and I'm sure you will find some mutual ground for effective communication. Otherwise just let people speak how they speak. Don't be such a goddamn jerk.

The mere fact that you use English is racist.

Epignosis wrote:

nutella wrote:
linki @ Epi: I will not tolerate prescriptivism in any form. It is racist and classist and disrespectful of linguistic diversity. If you don't understand someone, ask for clarification and I'm sure you will find some mutual ground for effective communication. Otherwise just let people speak how they speak. Don't be such a goddamn jerk.

The mere fact that you use English is racist.

Really. Learn Swahili or something. Be broad!

Descriptivists always lose their arguments when they need lawyers.

Epignosis wrote:Descriptivists always lose their arguments when they need lawyers.

I find this statement absurdly funny. I'm probably the only one.

Since its genuine belt off topic... I must be descriptivist in my day job, so I make o apologies for turning that requirement off when I'm not being paid for it.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Descriptivists always lose their arguments when they need lawyers.

I find this statement absurdly funny. I'm probably the only one.

Since its genuine belt off topic... I must be descriptivist in my day job, so I make o apologies for turning that requirement off when I'm not being paid for it.

I'm actually not a prescriptivist. I'm not a descriptivist either. My senior paper was on how both ideas are flawed. I called it "The Boomhauer Principle."

G-Man wrote:Forgive me for veering off on a tangent, but is this prescriptivist vs. descriptivist concept akin to an article I read recently that asserts that grammar is racist?

Probably, yes. The general idea is that there is no right or wrong way to use language as long as it seems natural to the speaker and is effective communication in its context (there's a lot of deeper clarification to into regarding what linguists consider "grammar" in that languages have structural "rules" that speakers just don't break even in informal speech because it just wouldn't make sense), and insisting on "correct" grammar can devalue dialects such as African American vernacular, Southern English, and countless others, which are all valid and effective ways that people can and do successfully communicate despite not necessarily being "properly educated" in grammar. So that's why prescriptivism is associated with racial and socioeconomic elitism, and often does negatively affect opportunities such as employment for people with non-standard linguistic backgrounds.

linki: I'd be interested in that paper if you still have it or if not the general idea of it. We should probably move this discussion elsewhere though

nutella wrote:

G-Man wrote:Forgive me for veering off on a tangent, but is this prescriptivist vs. descriptivist concept akin to an article I read recently that asserts that grammar is racist?

Probably, yes. The general idea is that there is no right or wrong way to use language as long as it seems natural to the speaker and is effective communication in its context (there's a lot of deeper clarification to into regarding what linguists consider "grammar" in that languages have structural "rules" that speakers just don't break even in informal speech because it just wouldn't make sense), and insisting on "correct" grammar can devalue dialects such as African American vernacular, Southern English, and countless others, which are all valid and effective ways that people can and do successfully communicate despite not necessarily being "properly educated" in grammar. So that's why prescriptivism is associated with racial and socioeconomic elitism, and often does negatively affect opportunities such as employment for people with non-standard linguistic backgrounds.

linki: I'd be interested in that paper if you still have it or if not the general idea of it. We should probably move this discussion elsewhere though

I've kept every paper I ever wrote. I hope I still have it.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I feel soiled.

There's pills for that.

And adult diapers.

Foolish and sloppy, that article was, but I can understand how putting grammar on a pedestal can lead to it being abused and weaponized against people for stupid reasons. Grammar is not racist in and of itself. It is necessary for communication among like peoples. I agree that the issue of proper grammar is a grey area. I am fond of my grammar though.

Grammar is like guns. Grammar doesn't oppress people. People oppress people. I may be interested in oppressing you Day 3 but I'll see what comes out of some ISO's.

Spacedaisy wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I feel soiled.

There's pills for that.

And adult diapers.

For sure:

Spacedaisy wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I feel soiled.

There's pills for that.

And adult diapers.

I'd rather just go buy some new underwear.

nutella wrote:I agree that it's just a tool, but it's one that's deeply ingrained in societal institutions and many people are raised to accept it as divinely, indisputably "correct" rather than a tool to use and adapt to different contexts. It would take a lot of work to undo the widespread biases that prescriptive attitudes toward grammar perpetuate, but it's spreading this kind of work that much of the field of sociolinguistics seeks to accomplish.

When you call proper grammar "racist," however, I take issue.

Quin wrote:I'm racist.

nutella wrote:Don't even try to tell me whether that should have been a "which" or a "that", lol. That's one of the few little quibbles I never quite figured out. Another being "toward" versus "towards." Is there a difference? Who the hell knows?

toward is one word while towards is two.

Like Sawyer, I took one linguistics class in college and it was more than 8 years ago. So

Re open ended terminology, I do what Nutella is suspected for ALL THE TIME. Open ended terminology is not necessarily baddie. Especially early in game. "He did x, y, and z, which is not a good look for him, BUT I can never read him and he also did a,b, and c, so not sure".

Not being iron clad sure of something doesn't make you bad.

Just like being defensive apparently doesn't make you bad. Sorry Sawyer.

Thanks for no Tie Pool of Death. Lulz for GMan who isn't on the poll and doesn't seem to be eligible for the Tie Pool, maybe not for the rest of us.

Feeling good about some of my ISO reads. Stopping for a bit of tea before carrying on.

Epignosis wrote:

nutella wrote:I agree that it's just a tool, but it's one that's deeply ingrained in societal institutions and many people are raised to accept it as divinely, indisputably "correct" rather than a tool to use and adapt to different contexts. It would take a lot of work to undo the widespread biases that prescriptive attitudes toward grammar perpetuate, but it's spreading this kind of work that much of the field of sociolinguistics seeks to accomplish.

When you call proper grammar "racist," however, I take issue.

I think it's more about the attitudes like, "People don't know how to speak anymore" or "People who don't use 'proper' grammar are beneath me" that are racist and classist.

Spacedaisy wrote:

speedchuck wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.

Personally, I think Llama looks scummier than you. He was the first to put a second vote on someone for a silly reason. I can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third silly vote on someone. That is why I voted for him, not you. But I have seen very bold baddies do very bold things to fall back on the wifom.

Are you a bold baddie?

Do you honestly think Sorsha is bad? If not do you plan to move your vote?

Am I a bold baddie? I could give you my metaread here, but it'd sound bad coming from me.

I suspect Sorsha more than Llama, and thus am unable to move my vote ATM.

Hm.

Vote Dfaraday

speedchuck wrote:

Quin wrote:hey what's up

Eyy!

Bunch of random wagons. Recommending Dfaraday.

And now you voted for Dom? What happened to your Day 1 vote and recommending others vote for DF? Now that he was up for a possible lynch you suddenly throw your vote on Dom?

Are we looking at a Dom/DF/speedchuck baddie team here?

Why would I vote for a teammate Day 1, then leave my vote on him to the point where he is tied for the lead at EoD?

That thought was kind of irrelevant when I realized that speedchuck did not leave his vote on Dom, he ended up voting for notsawyer.

And I have clearly been in my own tinfoil land.

I do not believe nutella is bad. In fact I very much feel like nutella is good. I could absolutely be wrong, but it's the one read I have that I feel mostly confident in.

I just reread the second half of the game. My own posts stick out pretty badly, as I made them without reading the game. I had no clue what was going on.

I'm still behind, but less so. I'm gonna dredge up the equivalent of a D1 rainbow, and you fellows can quiz me so that I can make an impact on this thread. Good? Great.

Speedchuck
G-Man

nutella
Quin

Spacedaisy
Dom
DFaraday

Epignosis
S~V~S
Sorsha

I don't feel confident enough to add colors to this. 99% of this is gut. First lynch provided no info. The second hardly did. Ugh.

Oh, a posted question I never saw:

Dom wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Eh. Voting Dom.

Who's on your team with you?

You, I hope.

Quin
0
No votesSpacedaisy
0
No votesDom
0
No votesS~V~S
0
No votesDFaraday
1
nutella (7) 7%Epignosis
0
No votesnutella
4
Epignosis (10), G-Man (11), Dom (12), notsawyer540 (13) 29%Sorsha
0
No votesSpeedchuck
0
No votesnotsawyer540
5
Quin (4), DFaraday (5), speedchuck (8), S~V~S (9), Spacedaisy (14) 36%golden (nons etc)
4
juliets (1), Golden (2), Marmot (3), JaggedJimmyJay (6)

Night 2 has ended.

Quin has been killed. He was:
It is now day 3. You have 48 hours to find the killers.

There goes my eye candy. Sorry to see you go Quin.

Spacedaisy wrote:There goes my eye candy. Sorry to see you go Quin.

It's okay.

From ages long ago, I summon TECHNICOLORS!

DAY 1
1. SPEEDCHUCK (DFaraday)
2. THELLAMA73 (S~V~S)
3. THELLAMA73 (Sorsha)
4. THELLAMA73 (nutella)
5. SPEEDCHUCK (Quin)<---CIVVIE, NK'd Night 2
6. THELLAMA73 (Spacedaisy)
7. DFARADAY (speedchuck)
8. SPEEDCHUCK (Epignosis)
9. DFARADAY (insertnamehere)<---INDY, NK'd Night 1
10. SPEEDCHUCK (thellama73)<---CIVVIE, lynched Day 1
11. DFARADAY (G-Man)<---CIVVIE, NK'd Night 4

No Vote:
Dom
notsawyer540<---CIVVIE, Lynched Day 2

----------------------------------------------

2. THELLAMA73 (S~V~S)
3. THELLAMA73 (Sorsha)
4. THELLAMA73 (nutella)
6. THELLAMA73 (Spacedaisy)

1. SPEEDCHUCK (DFaraday)
5. SPEEDCHUCK (Quin)<---CIVVIE, NK'd Night 2
8. SPEEDCHUCK (Epignosis)
10. SPEEDCHUCK (thellama73)<---CIVVIE, lynched Day 1

7. DFARADAY (speedchuck)
9. DFARADAY (insertnamehere)<---INDY, NK'd Night 1
11. DFARADAY (G-Man)<---CIVVIE, NK'd Night 4

No Vote:
Dom
notsawyer540<---CIVVIE, Lynched Day 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAY 2
1. NOTSAWYER540 (Quin)<---CIVVIE, NK'd Night 2
2. NOTSAWYER540 (DFaraday)
3. DFARADAY (nutella)
4. NOTSAWYER540 (speedchuck)
5. NOTSAWYER540 (S~V~S)
6. NUTELLA (Epignosis)
7. NUTELLA (G-Man)<---CIVVIE, NK'd Night 4
8. NUTELLA (Dom)
9. NUTELLA (notsawyer540)<---CIVVIE, Lynched Day 2
10. NOTSAWYER540 (Spacedaisy)

NO VOTE:
Sorsha

----------------------------------------------

1. NOTSAWYER540 (Quin)<---CIVVIE, NK'd Night 2
2. NOTSAWYER540 (DFaraday)
4. NOTSAWYER540 (speedchuck)
5. NOTSAWYER540 (S~V~S)
10. NOTSAWYER540 (Spacedaisy)

6. NUTELLA (Epignosis)
7. NUTELLA (G-Man)<---CIVVIE, NK'd Night 4
8. NUTELLA (Dom)
9. NUTELLA (notsawyer540)<---CIVVIE, Lynched Day 2

3. DFARADAY (nutella)

NO VOTE:
Sorsha

Feeling pretty confident that there is a baddie in the Llama voters. So ladies, talk me out of voting for you, starting... now!

I just realized llama and I were the first two to get lynched. Totally has something to do with our performance in Red v. Blue.