The Syndicate

Diiny wrote: Floyd, say something game relevant please

Diiny wrote:If a tree wins a poll in the forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it get lynched?

a2thezebra wrote:Diiny, that is not what I am telling you. I told you I am gauging reads with my actions; I did not tell you that I would be basing my conclusions off of any conversation. I'm curious; are you genuinely confused as to what I'm doing which is only a single instance of the foundation for my entire play style, or are you having me spell it out so explicitly so it will be less effective and the baddies I'm trying to discover will no longer have their guards down? Help me out.

a2thezebra wrote:Well I'm positive this is one of the paradigms featuring a vanilla civilian in it.

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Diiny, that is not what I am telling you. I told you I am gauging reads with my actions; I did not tell you that I would be basing my conclusions off of any conversation. I'm curious; are you genuinely confused as to what I'm doing which is only a single instance of the foundation for my entire play style, or are you having me spell it out so explicitly so it will be less effective and the baddies I'm trying to discover will no longer have their guards down? Help me out.

Feels to me like you're playing off what you posted about paradigms as some way of catching scum out and gauging reactions when it's just a milquetoast, objective statement of game fact that's barely relevant. I appreciate what it is you're telling me you're doing but I don't believe your post about paradigms is a good example of it.

What you did do very well, though, is get the thread going like you said you wanted to. Nice juicy day 1

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Diiny wrote: Floyd, say something game relevant please

Because this is surely game relevant.

Diiny wrote:If a tree wins a poll in the forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it get lynched?

Dinny

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Diiny, that is not what I am telling you. I told you I am gauging reads with my actions; I did not tell you that I would be basing my conclusions off of any conversation. I'm curious; are you genuinely confused as to what I'm doing which is only a single instance of the foundation for my entire play style, or are you having me spell it out so explicitly so it will be less effective and the baddies I'm trying to discover will no longer have their guards down? Help me out.

Feels to me like you're playing off what you posted about paradigms as some way of catching scum out and gauging reactions when it's just a milquetoast, objective statement of game fact that's barely relevant. I appreciate what it is you're telling me you're doing but I don't believe your post about paradigms is a good example of it.

What you did do very well, though, is get the thread going like you said you wanted to. Nice juicy day 1

That is the beginning and end of what I am doing. I'm not sure what my first post even has to do with it, that was just banter.

DrWilgy wrote:Peek on Diiny was red. EZ$$

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Diiny, that is not what I am telling you. I told you I am gauging reads with my actions; I did not tell you that I would be basing my conclusions off of any conversation. I'm curious; are you genuinely confused as to what I'm doing which is only a single instance of the foundation for my entire play style, or are you having me spell it out so explicitly so it will be less effective and the baddies I'm trying to discover will no longer have their guards down? Help me out.

Feels to me like you're playing off what you posted about paradigms as some way of catching scum out and gauging reactions when it's just a milquetoast, objective statement of game fact that's barely relevant. I appreciate what it is you're telling me you're doing but I don't believe your post about paradigms is a good example of it.

What you did do very well, though, is get the thread going like you said you wanted to. Nice juicy day 1

That is the beginning and end of what I am doing. I'm not sure what my first post even has to do with it, that was just banter.

I meant the paradigm post we've been talking about, the one about #4. Not your first post.

Diiny wrote:It's your 4th post, isn't it?

a2thezebra wrote:I'm sorry, were we talking about a specific post this whole time? I didn't get that.

DrWilgy wrote:Na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na WILGY!!!! (is most definitely a doctor) and we should kill the confirmed scum.

Diiny wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na WILGY!!!! (is most definitely a doctor) and we should kill the confirmed scum.

Your confirmed scum is not scum, but I'm going to wait and see how you play this.

a2thezebra wrote:How is me gauging reactions not applied generally, but instead applied to a single post...where clearly I have gauged some interesting reactions? In other words, you're misrepresenting the issue and even if you weren't, you would still be mistaken.

Diiny wrote:Join the fun.

Epignosis wrote:I'm voting Floyd. He said he wouldn't be playing Mafia for a while- yet here he is.

Diiny wrote:Talk to me about day one vanilla civ role claims. My question is: why bother?

Floyd's undermining your efforts as we speak

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:attempting to start conversation about currently barely-relevant game mechanics on day 1 seems like the opposite of a meaty day 1 to me and has a record of being pretty scummy behaviour.

but yeah, it could.

Who said I was attempting to start conversation at all, let alone about something as silly as that? I'm starting the action itself (indirectly of course, but you better believe I will take full credit), and given that I have triggered the first mention of "scummy behaviour" in the game, it seems to have worked.

Diiny wrote:

Enrique wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:I gotta ask, MM, what inspired you to base this around trees?

Yeah, of all the off topic stuff this one pinged me the most. I don't know why. It might be because this is already seriously reminding me of floyd's previous game where he was scum combined with that being his only game. Might be because it's an interaction with someone who isn't playing; it's more timid.

Floyd, say something game relevant please

Enrique wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:I gotta ask, MM, what inspired you to base this around trees?

a2thezebra wrote:For the record, I am not remotely pinged by Floyd's post.

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:attempting to start conversation about currently barely-relevant game mechanics on day 1 seems like the opposite of a meaty day 1 to me and has a record of being pretty scummy behaviour.

but yeah, it could.

Who said I was attempting to start conversation at all, let alone about something as silly as that? I'm starting the action itself (indirectly of course, but you better believe I will take full credit), and given that I have triggered the first mention of "scummy behaviour" in the game, it seems to have worked.

I'm glad you agree it's silly and glad to know you weren't trying to get the thread talking about it. Why'd you post that, then?

To gauge reactions, and not just from you. I think baddies are most vulnerable at the start of the game, so I'd like to raise the chances of catching them in the awkward stage before they've adjusted to the temperature.

It's like they're slowly dipping their feet into a cold pool and my job is to run up from behind and shove them in.

And how does what you posted about the setup raise the temperature for baddies?

It creates more opportunities for them to accidentally reveal opportunistic/staged/disingenuous behavior. Case in point, why are you so interested?

You're telling me you posted that to get a conversation going to catch scum off guard, but a few posts ago agreed with me that starting such a conversation would be silly. What's going on?

I'm interested because of your responses to my prods. I'm trying to find out whether you're doing some prodding of your own as a townie or making yourself look good as scum. Help me out.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hello. I'm foolishly on the Internet at 3:30 a.m. on a work night. My alarm is going off in two hours, so I'm not sticking around.

This is me advocating an active Day 1 and all that stuff rah rah rah *shakes pom poms*

DrWilgy wrote:Peek on Diiny was red. EZ$$

TheFloyd73 wrote:I gotta ask, MM, what inspired you to base this around trees?

a2thezebra wrote:After seeing DrWilgy in TH, Pet Sounds, and the ongoing Star Wars as well as this game, I've concluded that DrWilgy's play style is to never have the same play style twice. I wish I had the audacity to attempt such a meta as that.

a2thezebra wrote:After seeing DrWilgy in TH, Pet Sounds, and the ongoing Star Wars as well as this game, I've concluded that DrWilgy's play style is to never have the same play style twice. I wish I had the audacity to attempt such a meta as that.

MacDougall wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:After seeing DrWilgy in TH, Pet Sounds, and the ongoing Star Wars as well as this game, I've concluded that DrWilgy's play style is to never have the same play style twice. I wish I had the audacity to attempt such a meta as that.

Wilgy is actually a puppet account person that quite a few different people use.

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:How is me gauging reactions not applied generally, but instead applied to a single post...where clearly I have gauged some interesting reactions? In other words, you're misrepresenting the issue and even if you weren't, you would still be mistaken.

Because I explicitly brought up that specific post in particular during the discussion. That's what I was concerned with. Me prodding you on it leading me to an answer I didn't feel made sense given the contents and nature of the post. THAT post. Specifically. You can't gauge reactions to your fourth posts because it doesn't demand them nor does it provoke them. As I've said. I really don't think I'm misrepresenting anything here, but you may be misunderstanding me.

You haven't gauged anything particularly interesting but that doesn't mean you haven't turned up the heat.

Diiny wrote:If I was trying to make him look bad I'm perfectly capable of actually sounding like I've made up my mind. If you feel like it's weak, Mac, it's because I'm not actively trying to make him look bad. I don't know why you've assumed I have.

I'm really enjoying your allegations of 'double crossing' (?) zeb and making her look bad that don't actually deal with what I said, keep 'em coming. I'm apparently collecting day 1 votes anway

Enrique wrote:wilgy what

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:How is me gauging reactions not applied generally, but instead applied to a single post...where clearly I have gauged some interesting reactions? In other words, you're misrepresenting the issue and even if you weren't, you would still be mistaken.

Because I explicitly brought up that specific post in particular during the discussion. That's what I was concerned with. Me prodding you on it leading me to an answer I didn't feel made sense given the contents and nature of the post. THAT post. Specifically. You can't gauge reactions to your fourth posts because it doesn't demand them nor does it provoke them. As I've said. I really don't think I'm misrepresenting anything here, but you may be misunderstanding me.

You haven't gauged anything particularly interesting but that doesn't mean you haven't turned up the heat.

My answer wasn't regarding that post, and I even made clear with my initial response that gauging response is what I do generally, therefore shifting the back-and-forth away from that one example. You may have been talking about it initially but as the person who posted it, I am well aware that it was one piece of a larger puzzle. I tried to inform you of this but I didn't make it clear enough. Maybe. And I'm surprised that you still don't see how blatantly wrong you are regarding the reactions. Your own reactions, the very posts that you are making here, prove that it did in fact provoke reactions. Demand, probably not, but I'm not a demanding player. You may disagree that your very own reactions here are worth analyzing but to me that only makes your intent even more questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I haven't gauged anything interesting...to me (in a game like this) that's exactly what turning up the heat is.

DrWilgy wrote:

Enrique wrote:wilgy what

What do you mean what?

a2thezebra wrote:

Diiny wrote:If I was trying to make him look bad I'm perfectly capable of actually sounding like I've made up my mind. If you feel like it's weak, Mac, it's because I'm not actively trying to make him look bad. I don't know why you've assumed I have.

I'm really enjoying your allegations of 'double crossing' (?) zeb and making her look bad that don't actually deal with what I said, keep 'em coming. I'm apparently collecting day 1 votes anway

First of all, if I'm scum (and yes, I know we may play differently) and I'm trying to make someone look bad, the last thing I'm going to do is give off the impression that I've made up my mind. I try to throw shade and point everyone else in a civilian victim's direction while trying to make it as forgettable as possible that I was the one who pointed. Second, and more importantly, you seem nervous.

DrWilgy wrote:C'mon people it's not hard. Little button next to Diinys name click that, then hit submit.

DrWilgy wrote:Also, for those of you who think I wouldn't use my check on Diiny vs someone else, Diiny killed me in TH. That was my reason for the check.

Ok Diiny. Since you can't get the fact that I checked you, what do you think of MP's plan?

Enrique wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:C'mon people it's not hard. Little button next to Diinys name click that, then hit submit.

I have a real hard time believing the cop would start with a "red" ID.