The Syndicate

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Epi, do you genuinely think the case I have against you makes me an idiot? Because I'm quite sure it's well reasoned and thought out and I'm sure most would agree. If this was a case on someone else would you still think it was a stupid case based on nothing?

Let me give you the cliffs again;

1. Abnormal interest in the existence of the role, especially in suggesting we should not focus on it
2. Had a huge running battle with a player deceased at the hands of the serial killer
3. Playing abnormal to your meta
4. Entertaining the idea that a case that has <1% likeliness of being true due to basic role mechanics is actually a possible case against a different SK candidate

So please, tell me how my case is bad? I accept you will say it's wrong whether or not it is, but how exactly is it bad? I don't think you can really find a better case against a rogue in a game this size.

I never called you an idiot. That's your gig.

I suppose sarcastically retorting to me suggesting you are the SK with "and this is coming from the person calling people idiots" is supposed to mean that you think I'm not one.

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Matt F wrote:To any Syndicateer who has hosted a Mafia game...

If you had a role like Sorsha's in the game, Sorsha picks two players to play her contest on Night 3, Sorsha dies on Day 4.

Would YOU as host allow Sorsha to pick a winner from the power she used Night 3?

I'm just curious to what the over all consensus is. If the majority says "NO", again, after today, I will stop voting for Mac for being the SK

Yes. It's not a new action. It is the continuation of an action already in motion.

The role, as written, is ambiguous in this regard. The possibility is thus not impossible.

The role is not ambiguous in its three-step phases.

The cut-off due to the player getting killed mid-phase makes it interpretable.

If you say the awarding is a "continuation of an action already in motion", you still have no player anymore to "continue" it with. Dead players should still not be allowed to influence the game any further.

Then we don't agree on that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:So JJJ, for you, where does Mac's content today weigh in, in comparison to what you discussed in this quote? Has it changed your opinion, and if so to what degree?

JJJ how was your Sweden trip, by the way?

I haven't reviewed his newest content in depth yet, but on the surface I really haven't been bothered. Mac is a very capable anti-town player (one of the best on RYM if you ask me), and he entered this stage of the game generally being trusted by most people. I think he is probably goofing around for the sake of reactions and entertaining himself, something that is not unbelievable in terms of meta. When time permits I'll check more closely into his recent play.

My immediate assumption is that he is being misread by people who either don't know how he acts or are off-put by his treatment of them specifically.

Sweden was super cool thanks! So many attractive women, I couldn't turn a corner without falling in love.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Diiny wrote:yeah, this isn't informed but I don't want to get penalised. Golden because he's obviously scum guys

Diiny, you're a demanding townie. You expect things out of people and try to get things from them when at first they don't supply them. This voting methodology is so... timid. Even if you hadn't managed to catch up with the entire game, you have had plenty of time as an active contributor to get some kind of feeling at least on Devin and Sorsha. You failed to place a relevant vote in a very important spot and that I really don't think town Diiny lets that happen.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

espers wrote:voting sorsha

don't like some of the later votes on the devin wagon and straw's sorsha case was pretty compelling /piggybacking

no slight against the ppl defending sorsha, but you were wrong about lc, why should we believe you now?

At least one of the people defending Sorsha was also anti-LC (hi), and I think it was probably more than just me. espers this post is pretty bad, what is the purpose of this vague attempt at casting doubt upon all of these people for something that isn't even accurate?

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have no interest in lynching Matt F. I am inclined to think he is incorrect about Mac, but I don't think he has malicious intent.

Same. Matt practically always comes out with the most ridiculous conspiracies and follows them until his dying breath, but it doesn't make him bad. If anything I think he does it more when he's a civ.

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Matt F wrote:To any Syndicateer who has hosted a Mafia game...

If you had a role like Sorsha's in the game, Sorsha picks two players to play her contest on Night 3, Sorsha dies on Day 4.

Would YOU as host allow Sorsha to pick a winner from the power she used Night 3?

I'm just curious to what the over all consensus is. If the majority says "NO", again, after today, I will stop voting for Mac for being the SK

Yes. It's not a new action. It is the continuation of an action already in motion.

The role, as written, is ambiguous in this regard. The possibility is thus not impossible.

The role is not ambiguous in its three-step phases.

The cut-off due to the player getting killed mid-phase makes it interpretable.

If you say the awarding is a "continuation of an action already in motion", you still have no player anymore to "continue" it with. Dead players should still not be allowed to influence the game any further.

Then we don't agree on that.

I guess so.

I'll try a different angle.

If the role would allow you to leave "instructions" on how that action should happen until completion, then yes, it could be a leeway for post-mortem effects.

But Sorsha had no way to leave instructions on who to win the challenge, because:

a) of the time-frame in which the role was meant to decide the winner (Night, which she never reached)
b) of the impossibility of deciding a winner before the actual contest happened/ended (ending which was technically at the end of the Day, when she also died, so see point a) )

So in this case, I'd still say no.

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Epi, do you genuinely think the case I have against you makes me an idiot? Because I'm quite sure it's well reasoned and thought out and I'm sure most would agree. If this was a case on someone else would you still think it was a stupid case based on nothing?

Let me give you the cliffs again;

1. Abnormal interest in the existence of the role, especially in suggesting we should not focus on it
2. Had a huge running battle with a player deceased at the hands of the serial killer
3. Playing abnormal to your meta
4. Entertaining the idea that a case that has <1% likeliness of being true due to basic role mechanics is actually a possible case against a different SK candidate

So please, tell me how my case is bad? I accept you will say it's wrong whether or not it is, but how exactly is it bad? I don't think you can really find a better case against a rogue in a game this size.

I never called you an idiot. That's your gig.

I suppose sarcastically retorting to me suggesting you are the SK with "and this is coming from the person calling people idiots" is supposed to mean that you think I'm not one.

No, I don't think you're an idiot. I think you are caught and overreacting.

Russtifinko wrote:Linki: Epi, are you saying you think a civvie BR would be able to piece together who a baddie LC's teammates were based on reading his posts and interacting with him irl?

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Epi, do you genuinely think the case I have against you makes me an idiot? Because I'm quite sure it's well reasoned and thought out and I'm sure most would agree. If this was a case on someone else would you still think it was a stupid case based on nothing?

Let me give you the cliffs again;

1. Abnormal interest in the existence of the role, especially in suggesting we should not focus on it
2. Had a huge running battle with a player deceased at the hands of the serial killer
3. Playing abnormal to your meta
4. Entertaining the idea that a case that has <1% likeliness of being true due to basic role mechanics is actually a possible case against a different SK candidate

So please, tell me how my case is bad? I accept you will say it's wrong whether or not it is, but how exactly is it bad? I don't think you can really find a better case against a rogue in a game this size.

I never called you an idiot. That's your gig.

I suppose sarcastically retorting to me suggesting you are the SK with "and this is coming from the person calling people idiots" is supposed to mean that you think I'm not one.

No, I don't think you're an idiot. I think you are caught and overreacting.

So you genuinely believe Matt's case and that I am the serial killer?

You genuinely believe that;

1. Sorsha selected to give jobs to MattF (who had been tunneling her all game) and myself on night 3.
2. That job was creating a meme in the thread on day 4.
3. That the meme I created was part of said job, not just me creating a lynch poster because lol.
4. That sorsha was able to select a winner after she was deceased via lynch on day 4, despite the role reading evidence to the contrary.

Epignosis, you come before you. I know you are smarter than to believe that. You are hanging yourself by selecting to lie about believing a ridiculous theory to protect yourself.

Epignosis wrote:I'll think about this.

Epignosis wrote:I gotta think about that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One observation FZ made that I think is of special interest was when she noted Epi was not being confrontational. He is known around here for really taking his suspects to task, sometimes to the point of absurdity, and that hasn't happened here. There's potential that his restrained approach has been motivated by his understanding that rattling cages would work directly against the SK win condition.

MovingPictures07 wrote:So I very much dislike influencing the game in any way whatsoever, but I feel as though I should clarify regarding 2 recent topics:

1) At some point, Floyd did ask me for advice regarding posting and I indeed advised him against spamming the thread. I don't recall using the number 4, but maybe there was a miscommunication somewhere or I'm having a brain lapse (completely possible). I'm personally not against multiple posts in a row if those posts are meaningful. Nonetheless, there will be no punishments doled out even for people spamming the thread with off-topic. I have no official position on this matter.

2) Regarding Russtifinko, I have been trying my best to warn folks via PM if they get close to the 72-hour mark, but only for first infractions. Thereafter, I have nonetheless on a few occasions tried reaching out to players (such as RDW) who have been absent for longer than that period.

Neither of these situations is dependent on either player's alignment, so I would advise against reading into them as such. I hate that I even have to weigh in here, but I feel as though I should.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One observation FZ made that I think is of special interest was when she noted Epi was not being confrontational. He is known around here for really taking his suspects to task, sometimes to the point of absurdity, and that hasn't happened here. There's potential that his restrained approach has been motivated by his understanding that rattling cages would work directly against the SK win condition.

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Epi, do you genuinely think the case I have against you makes me an idiot? Because I'm quite sure it's well reasoned and thought out and I'm sure most would agree. If this was a case on someone else would you still think it was a stupid case based on nothing?

Let me give you the cliffs again;

1. Abnormal interest in the existence of the role, especially in suggesting we should not focus on it
2. Had a huge running battle with a player deceased at the hands of the serial killer
3. Playing abnormal to your meta
4. Entertaining the idea that a case that has <1% likeliness of being true due to basic role mechanics is actually a possible case against a different SK candidate

So please, tell me how my case is bad? I accept you will say it's wrong whether or not it is, but how exactly is it bad? I don't think you can really find a better case against a rogue in a game this size.

I never called you an idiot. That's your gig.

I suppose sarcastically retorting to me suggesting you are the SK with "and this is coming from the person calling people idiots" is supposed to mean that you think I'm not one.

No, I don't think you're an idiot. I think you are caught and overreacting.

So you genuinely believe Matt's case and that I am the serial killer?

You genuinely believe that;

1. Sorsha selected to give jobs to MattF (who had been tunneling her all game) and myself on night 3.
2. That job was creating a meme in the thread on day 4.
3. That the meme I created was part of said job, not just me creating a lynch poster because lol.
4. That sorsha was able to select a winner after she was deceased via lynch on day 4, despite the role reading evidence to the contrary.

Epignosis, you come before you. I know you are smarter than to believe that. You are hanging yourself by selecting to lie about believing a ridiculous theory to protect yourself.

Here is what I said about Matt's idea:

Epignosis wrote:I'll think about this.

Epignosis wrote:I gotta think about that.

I haven't made up my mind.

I hang myself? Blaming the victim preemptively if you lynch me?

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Matt F wrote:To any Syndicateer who has hosted a Mafia game...

If you had a role like Sorsha's in the game, Sorsha picks two players to play her contest on Night 3, Sorsha dies on Day 4.

Would YOU as host allow Sorsha to pick a winner from the power she used Night 3?

I'm just curious to what the over all consensus is. If the majority says "NO", again, after today, I will stop voting for Mac for being the SK

Yes. It's not a new action. It is the continuation of an action already in motion.

The role, as written, is ambiguous in this regard. The possibility is thus not impossible.

The role is not ambiguous in its three-step phases.

The cut-off due to the player getting killed mid-phase makes it interpretable.

If you say the awarding is a "continuation of an action already in motion", you still have no player anymore to "continue" it with. Dead players should still not be allowed to influence the game any further.

Then we don't agree on that.

I guess so.

I'll try a different angle.

If the role would allow you to leave "instructions" on how that action should happen until completion, then yes, it could be a leeway for post-mortem effects.

But Sorsha had no way to leave instructions on who to win the challenge, because:

a) of the time-frame in which the role was meant to decide the winner (Night, which she never reached)
b) of the impossibility of deciding a winner before the actual contest happened/ended (ending which was technically at the end of the Day, when she also died, so see point a) )

So in this case, I'd still say no.

It doesn't say she has to be alive to make her decision. That's why the idea is still valid given the information we have.

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Matt F wrote:To any Syndicateer who has hosted a Mafia game...

If you had a role like Sorsha's in the game, Sorsha picks two players to play her contest on Night 3, Sorsha dies on Day 4.

Would YOU as host allow Sorsha to pick a winner from the power she used Night 3?

I'm just curious to what the over all consensus is. If the majority says "NO", again, after today, I will stop voting for Mac for being the SK

Yes. It's not a new action. It is the continuation of an action already in motion.

The role, as written, is ambiguous in this regard. The possibility is thus not impossible.

The role is not ambiguous in its three-step phases.

The cut-off due to the player getting killed mid-phase makes it interpretable.

If you say the awarding is a "continuation of an action already in motion", you still have no player anymore to "continue" it with. Dead players should still not be allowed to influence the game any further.

Then we don't agree on that.

I guess so.

I'll try a different angle.

If the role would allow you to leave "instructions" on how that action should happen until completion, then yes, it could be a leeway for post-mortem effects.

But Sorsha had no way to leave instructions on who to win the challenge, because:

a) of the time-frame in which the role was meant to decide the winner (Night, which she never reached)
b) of the impossibility of deciding a winner before the actual contest happened/ended (ending which was technically at the end of the Day, when she also died, so see point a) )

So in this case, I'd still say no.

It doesn't say she has to be alive to make her decision. That's why the idea is still valid given the information we have.

Give me a prior example of a role when such specification was needed.

Nah, that takes me back to "dead is dead". Dead can't decide for the living anymore, unless they could decide before dying.

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote: It doesn't say she has to be alive to make her decision. That's why the idea is still valid given the information we have.

Give me a prior example of a role when such specification was needed.

Nah, that takes me back to "dead is dead". Dead can't decide for the living anymore, unless they could decide before dying.

You did play Biblical, right?

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Night 1 - Death of the Firstborn: "If Moses chooses the Death of the Firstborn, Death gains permanent BTSC with the first dead person. This person is still dead, but can cast a vote. This person cannot cast a vote if Death dies." Metalmarsh (Samson), got the ability to vote and make it count. Also shared Death's win condition?

Correct.

MacDougall wrote:FYI, it appears that epi is somewhat upset at me for being rude. I apologise if anyone was offended. I was trying to make it obvious that it was all in good fun (hence the flowery prose and the post about Matt's dick ) but it may have been misconstrued. I'm not angry, upset or intending to offend and again apologies if I have.

I can assure you that "chaos posting" was a result of the fact that I was losing interest without having people engaging me thinking I was scum. It was boring me.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One observation FZ made that I think is of special interest was when she noted Epi was not being confrontational. He is known around here for really taking his suspects to task, sometimes to the point of absurdity, and that hasn't happened here. There's potential that his restrained approach has been motivated by his understanding that rattling cages would work directly against the SK win condition.

My restrained approach is owing to the fact that some of you don't sleep or go outside. I've been clear on that. With many of these pages blocked at work, I can't read in sips like I like to do when I have a minute here or there. Instead, I come home and have 7+ pages to read.

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:FYI, it appears that epi is somewhat upset at me for being rude. I apologise if anyone was offended. I was trying to make it obvious that it was all in good fun (hence the flowery prose and the post about Matt's dick ) but it may have been misconstrued. I'm not angry, upset or intending to offend and again apologies if I have.

I can assure you that "chaos posting" was a result of the fact that I was losing interest without having people engaging me thinking I was scum. It was boring me.

To be clear, I personally take no offense. I like the word "idiot." But there are others who don't take kindly to those kinds of attacks, and, as a moderator, I have to err on the conservative side. I hope that makes sense.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have just one point to make/question to raise regarding your responses, Epi.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One observation FZ made that I think is of special interest was when she noted Epi was not being confrontational. He is known around here for really taking his suspects to task, sometimes to the point of absurdity, and that hasn't happened here. There's potential that his restrained approach has been motivated by his understanding that rattling cages would work directly against the SK win condition.

My restrained approach is owing to the fact that some of you don't sleep or go outside. I've been clear on that. With many of these pages blocked at work, I can't read in sips like I like to do when I have a minute here or there. Instead, I come home and have 7+ pages to read.

I don't think this makes sense. When I suggest you've been "more restrained", I don't mean you've posted less. You're among the highest post counts in the thread. I think you've been present frequently and made your perspective known on most relevant discussions in the game. What I mean is that you've been gentler and cuddlier in your treatment of other players.

motel room wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

motel room wrote:

seaside wrote:What does everyone think of jjj, diiny and espers?

The order i would lynch them is espers > diiny > jjj. I'm reading jjj as jenuine atm.

Please expand.

The level that Diiny has slipped to, I feel like espers has been there all game. He's a total unknown quantity to me and that worries me so at the time I would have been cooler with an espers lynch than a Diiny lynch.

However, that non-vote Diiny put in at the end of the last Day that was so off-bandwagon that it was blinding probably puts him over espers atm if I were to rewrite that order.

And you're streets behind those two.

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Night 1 - Death of the Firstborn: "If Moses chooses the Death of the Firstborn, Death gains permanent BTSC with the first dead person. This person is still dead, but can cast a vote. This person cannot cast a vote if Death dies." Metalmarsh (Samson), got the ability to vote and make it count. Also shared Death's win condition?

Correct.

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Night 1 - Death of the Firstborn: "If Moses chooses the Death of the Firstborn, Death gains permanent BTSC with the first dead person. This person is still dead, but can cast a vote. This person cannot cast a vote if Death dies." Metalmarsh (Samson), got the ability to vote and make it count. Also shared Death's win condition?

Correct.

How is that in any way the same case? The BTSC gain was a "new action" and the cast vote continuation is an exception from the rule that dead players don't get to vote anymore. It doesn't prove any rule that it must be specified that dead players cannot vote anymore. That's just logical.

In fact, the example only that roles normally don't have to specify if the player needs to be alive for an action to be completed. It's just logical that, should the player die, the action won't be completed anymore. Any specification is an exception. Lack of any specification means no exceptions are made.

Epignosis wrote:
I'm up against people I don't know shit about dude. I don't agree that I've been gentler and cuddlier, though. I'd say observant.

Elohcin wrote:I did it! I caught up!

Epignosis wrote:
I'm up against people I don't know shit about dude. I don't agree that I've been gentler and cuddlier, though. I'd say observant.

This is what I see, an observant Epi. Not a bad or SK Epi.

All that said, I am voting Mac. His reaction to all this SK stuff reads to me like a child who got caught stealing candy from the pantry and he's blaming it on his brother.

Russtifinko wrote:I know, right?!?

(P.S. I've got a girlfriend, who's Swedish (than that?). So I might be biased.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:I know, right?!?

(P.S. I've got a girlfriend, who's Swedish (than that?). So I might be biased.

You're a lucky man.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Y'all should take a side in the Roxy/Black Rock/fingersplints combat. I find fingersplints the most suspicious, due in part but not entirely to the content from llama that preceded her.

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:FYI, it appears that epi is somewhat upset at me for being rude. I apologise if anyone was offended. I was trying to make it obvious that it was all in good fun (hence the flowery prose and the post about Matt's dick ) but it may have been misconstrued. I'm not angry, upset or intending to offend and again apologies if I have.

I can assure you that "chaos posting" was a result of the fact that I was losing interest without having people engaging me thinking I was scum. It was boring me.

To be clear, I personally take no offense. I like the word "idiot." But there are others who don't take kindly to those kinds of attacks, and, as a moderator, I have to err on the conservative side. I hope that makes sense.

No you don't . You may say as you please. You have a Mod On Duty, so you should feel free to play as you see fit without worrying about that. It is my job to deal with this, and I have been doing so

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:FYI, it appears that epi is somewhat upset at me for being rude. I apologise if anyone was offended. I was trying to make it obvious that it was all in good fun (hence the flowery prose and the post about Matt's dick ) but it may have been misconstrued. I'm not angry, upset or intending to offend and again apologies if I have.

I can assure you that "chaos posting" was a result of the fact that I was losing interest without having people engaging me thinking I was scum. It was boring me.

To be clear, I personally take no offense. I like the word "idiot." But there are others who don't take kindly to those kinds of attacks, and, as a moderator, I have to err on the conservative side. I hope that makes sense.

No you don't . You may say as you please. You have a Mod On Duty, so you should feel free to play as you see fit without worrying about that. It is my job to deal with this, and I have been doing so

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Y'all should take a side in the Roxy/Black Rock/fingersplints combat. I find fingersplints the most suspicious, due in part but not entirely to the content from llama that preceded her.

What is your opinion of Black Rock?

Matt F wrote:

Roxy wrote:Sorry thought I was in a mafia mood today but it turns out I amnot.

BR - what posts of mine specifically say I am a sk? I prob will not be posting much more this cycle.

MF - idgaf if I am foolish or people think I am tbh. I think you all of your cases are distracting from finding actual baddies. I even asked you to back up earlier and not lead lynches based on half built cases or loopy theories. But you won't so I won't change my vote.

So you're willing to lynch me for being a "poor" townie? I don't want to "twist your words", so I'm asking you.

Also, Roxy - Do you believe I am town or scum? I'd like this answered.

Btw, at least I am playing and am constantly in the mood to play the game that I signed up for.

Matt F wrote:MacD - I see you gave Elohcin a "I'm looking at YOU" smiley...please avert your eyes, there's nothing there.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Elohcin, is it primarily Mac's reaction that has pinged you, or do you also think there is merit to Matt F's theory?

Matt F wrote:Elohcin - Is there anyone in the thread that you'd like to hear funnies from?

Matt F wrote:Btw Roxy, if you'd like, I'll give you access to my facebook. Then you can see how on August 31st, my dad killed himself. Shortly thereafter, I was evicted. Three weeks ago, I had to give my effing cat of 12 years to the pound because I was not allowed to keep her at the place I am staying, and while I don't work 7 days a week, I do put in 40 hours so seriously

STFU about my life being "rosy"

Taking the rest of the day off. Lynch Mac. Peace