The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:@Sloonei re: SVS the thing is, I've seen her shrug off some suspicion of her like that in just about every game I've played with her recently. So far I think she would have said the things she's said regardless of her role or alignment. I don't think it points to her being bad but I can understand where your suspicion comes from because she hasn't addressed concerns that you have.

Golden wrote:@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Long Con, you say this is a shoving match or pissing contest. Can you elaborate? Why do you characterize my posts, which were trying to garner discussion, as both a shoving match and "good to see"? I'm not sure how to reconcile those two separate thoughts.

I was commenting on two different sets of posts, though one leads in to the other. You were firing questions at everyone who was in the thread at the time to get them talking, to get some discussion going. That is what I liked, that's what was "good to see". Soon enough, your questions turned to Epi, and instead of answering, he questioned back at you, and you basically did the same back at him.

No sir. My third post (my first serious post) was a question directed at MP. That was Monday, 2:33pm EST.

MP had seven posts before this, none of which addressed me at all. In fact, he only addressed Devin, not "everyone who was in the thread at the time."

Epi shot first.

Should I attribute this to carelessness or mendacity on your part?

Golden wrote:I still intend to vote SVS. It feels like she has avoided responding to some things posted at her.

There is the possibility she is genuinely overwhelmed - and if so I'm sorry - but I would be foolish to allow SVS to turn me away from a vote for her on an emotional basis. And I know she is sly enough to intentionally do that.

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

timmer wrote:

Cobalt wrote:What would I have to explain to you guys in order to appear less suspicious? While I mentioned what I mentioned to see who would react to it, I didn't want my playstyle this game to have the adverse effect of looking scummy, which apparently it has a bit.

In fact, I'll put it more bluntly. You voted Long Con for apparently jokey reasons. Then you started referring to him as scummy, to bolster your vote on him. You've said about three times in different posts that you are going to get around to fully explaining your views on Long Con. BUT YOU NEVER HAVE. instead, though, you've made a handful of big posts mostly discussing MP and Devin.

So i see a problem, there. Please discuss why you keep saying you will explain your thinking on Long Con but never do.

Cobalt wrote:

Cobalt wrote:Long Con, I'm coming for your weave this game.

Long Con wrote:My... my weave?

Some fake concerned/scared shit that he's pulling here. I found it uppity/overconfident instead of a joking tone.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

Nah.

I don't buy that you were doing that.

I don't buy that he was doing that either, as I already said in a previous post. He was basically saying "I talked shit and called it a shoving match to see what you would say about it", but who lays bait that specific for just one player during day 0 of the game? My post in which I talked about my previous games was a general post to see who would really point it out or come for me with it, because I wanted to see who would pick up on it or call me out on it, if anyone, to get a feel for the field a little bit.

Long Con wrote:I don't find anything suspicious about Gumshoe contributing to the discussion. I'm more pinged by those, like Sloonei, whose "initial reaction" was that Gum was defending Cobalt. I don't think it's likely that a baddie teammate would "jump to the rescue" so early, and for so little. He's trying to drum up a suspicion between Cobalt and Gumshoe that I don't buy. Is it that easy to catch baddies?

He picked a person that I would be pinged by for trying to drum up suspicion on me this early, like Sloonei, and the tries to make me look better? Or does that make me look worse? What angle is he playing here?

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Long Con is still my #1 suspect, however.

His manipulation is transparent to me.

Long Con wrote:I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

In case I haven't been clear, here is what I see is happening in this one line:

Long Con mischaracterizes and trivializes the exchange MP and I had Day 0. He quoted a bunch of posts from MP and me and called it a shoving match. He said he doesn't like the term "pissing match" (Glad he forewent "tug of war" ). Neither of those terms accurately describes what was going on there.

However, this serves the neater purpose of giving LC a place to vote if either an Epignosis or MP lynch gains momentum. He comments on it without saying anything meaningful about it (except for making it sound uglier than it is), which shows his audience that he is aware something is going on there, all the while leaving himself free to vote for either of us if the opportunity presents itself.

The "manipulation" you're seeing is only your own paranoia. I wasn't manipulating anything, I was just offering my point of view on the current goings-on.

I don't think "tug of war" is the metaphor I would use for the exchange between you and MP. I saw it more as you each confronting the other with questions that demanded answers, while the other deflects it away with a different question. It's pretty much up to any reader to decide if the "shoving match" metaphor is accurate, or way off. It describes how I read the exchange, so it's the metaphor I used.

I'm surprised by how defensive you got about it. In the last part of the quoted post, you have me voting for you and MP over this. I didn't comment on it to say it's suspicious, or even that it's unusual for the two of you. I said I don't know what to make of it, and you are reading a lot into that and feeling threatened by it. All it means is that you guys asked more questions than you gave answers, and that left some things hanging, cut off others before they could become discussions. Maybe I'll "know what to make of it" when there's more answers and opinions, and less stonewalling.

He totally goes OMGUS on Epi here and says that he's paranoid when really Epi makes a great point about how he can now commit to a MP or Epi train later on when or if the opportunity presents itself, which I also got a vibe like that from his shoving match post. Why point it out if you don't have something to think about it? (I think someone already said something to the effect of that question. Why not wait until you DO have something to think about it before posting about it? Unless you would use it to pass yourself off later?)

Long Con wrote:Epi for his defensive reaction to the "shoving match" comment. He's turned it into an excuse to suspect and vote for him, when it was just a comment on the situation. And he's accusing me of lying about saying things to gauge reactions, when the shoving comment wasn't even the first time I did it.

The S~V~S suspicion is based on her possible buddying behaviour to me. I have seen her do this kind of thing in the past, so it stands out to me. It also seems a bit like she was choosing that "issue" to comment and offer opinion about, because it's not a direct player opinion or accusation, but it does show up as contribution. Comments on issues rather than players are an easy way for a baddie to be involved without getting their hands dirty.

If LC flips bad, I'm inclined to think S~V~S a little bit clearer. She's the other person people have expressed scum leans on, so why throw shade on one of the only other talked about scum reads in the game? As far as I know, some people are willing to lynch Long Con and some people are willing to lynch SVS. Seems like a convenient opportunity to make her look bad if people would be persuaded to vote for her.

So in conclusion, I think a lot of what Long Con says is scummy. Just on gut I got a bad vibe from him, and me saying that I was coming for his weave early in the game was a joke that turned into reality when I found he looked worse with every post he made. Yes, I still want to lynch him as some form of salty revenge for the last game when he successfully fooled me as scum, but much of my vote lies with the above-outlined analysis.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:What would I have to explain to you guys in order to appear less suspicious? While I mentioned what I mentioned to see who would react to it, I didn't want my playstyle this game to have the adverse effect of looking scummy, which apparently it has a bit.

what are your thoughts on the individual players who are currently suspicious of you?

timmer wrote:Apparently I am blind? How did I miss that? I read all of your posts from top to bottom. That's messed. I'll have to rethink my vote a bit, but it will have to wait until coffee break...

timmer wrote:@Tiny Bubbles, when you said you agreed with my gut on Cobalt, had you read his posts and come to the same conclusions as me? Or had you just assumed I was right about what I said and went with it?

@Cobalt, yes, I absolutely missed it. I'm not really sure how, but calling you out for it makes no sense when it's obvious now that you laid out your thoughts.

Sloonei wrote:Let's all pretend none of Cobalt, SVS, or Long Con are available to be lynched today. Who do we all vote for then?

Sloonei wrote:Let's all pretend none of Cobalt, SVS, or Long Con are available to be lynched today. Who do we all vote for then?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also Canuck you no showed the latter half or so of llamas keeler game so he instructed that I dock your score... The only reason it is so low atm is because there have hardly been any games since we started enacting the p score so your score will increase to 66 after this game automatically and will continue to go up

Sorry I didn't PM you about it directly but we are experimenting with it and haven't really had to change anyone's scores yet

I will make sure people are formally alerted in the future

Awwwwwww shiiiiiiiit. Yep. I totally bailed on that game...... can't remember what happened.
And I ain't mad, bro. Just surprised to see myself a poor, lone 50%er drowning in a sea of perfect p-scores. I shall endeavor to restore my honor and reputation and never besmirch myself with such vileness ever again.

timmer wrote:@Tiny Bubbles, when you said you agreed with my gut on Cobalt, had you read his posts and come to the same conclusions as me? Or had you just assumed I was right about what I said and went with it?

Canucklehead wrote:I'm voting for Golden because he's being too hedgey for comfort. Civ Golden is a hurricane of self-assurance. This Golden is making sure he has lots of padding of previously expressed misgivings in case any of the bandwagons he joins snuff a civ

Canucklehead wrote:Civ Golden is a hurricane of self-assurance.

Cobalt wrote: Sloonei - I still wonder why you focused so hard on the interaction between myself and Gumshoe. I still wonder why you haven't committed to a vote, is it to see if my bandwagon takes off before getting on it? You look moderately iffy to me because you won't commit.

Sloonei wrote:Townies moving forward should try to make sure everyone is examined equally.

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

Cobalt wrote:Due to all that has been said about SVS, I am on board with an SVS lynch if that's the way it goes today. Keeping my vote on Long Con for now until a few more are willing to commit to a vote elsewhere.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:I still intend to vote SVS. It feels like she has avoided responding to some things posted at her.

There is the possibility she is genuinely overwhelmed - and if so I'm sorry - but I would be foolish to allow SVS to turn me away from a vote for her on an emotional basis. And I know she is sly enough to intentionally do that.

This

100 percent this

I can see why others are voting cobalt though

Oh and thanks cobalt for addressing all of my questions

To answer yours yes I already hav committed to a moderate level mafia read for SVS and she has not alleviated any of my concerns even though she clearly has been here it's very evasive of her

And as I have stated I will continue to commit particularly after we have one cycles worth of threD info and voting records

I'm not sure why you think I've been particulArly not committing

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

If you are still here, tell me what your concerns are in a way I can answer in a few minutes, lol.

I think I am over reading into things, tbh. I think i need a break. I talked to the host, who often sees things as I do, and he thinks I am reading aggression where there is none. So I have to go with that assessment, I trust him totes.

S~V~S wrote:....AND I was avoiding the thread since I did not want to have a meltdown, tbh. I could feel it coming on. But I decided it would be abysmally unfair to ruin Doms lovely role without even a fight. So I am rapidly getting over myself, and trying to make a come back

I say what i think always when a civ, I don't care how it makes me look.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

If you are still here, tell me what your concerns are in a way I can answer in a few minutes, lol.

I think I am over reading into things, tbh. I think i need a break. I talked to the host, who often sees things as I do, and he thinks I am reading aggression where there is none. So I have to go with that assessment, I trust him totes.

Can I suggest - because it's easier for me than breaking it down - that you in topic me and go to the post where I respond to some of your points in pink. Especially the first pink comment I make, because my biggest suspicion of you comes down to what was behind your search on the word 'interesting'. But really, the things I feel are outstanding about you that I don't feel comfortable about are probably all in that single post.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:....AND I was avoiding the thread since I did not want to have a meltdown, tbh. I could feel it coming on. But I decided it would be abysmally unfair to ruin Doms lovely role without even a fight. So I am rapidly getting over myself, and trying to make a come back

I say what i think always when a civ, I don't care how it makes me look.

You always say what you think when you are civilian, but you avoided the thread because you didn't want to have a meltdown on Day 1?

I think you're Mafia, and you're caught.

S~V~S wrote:No, I am not. I freaked out on you over a silly day one standard Epi ploy. It was poorly done of me, and I was going to lose it. So I left.

What did I do that you think I was "caught"?

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:....AND I was avoiding the thread since I did not want to have a meltdown, tbh. I could feel it coming on. But I decided it would be abysmally unfair to ruin Doms lovely role without even a fight. So I am rapidly getting over myself, and trying to make a come back

I say what i think always when a civ, I don't care how it makes me look.

You always say what you think when you are civilian, but you avoided the thread because you didn't want to have a meltdown on Day 1?

I think you're Mafia, and you're caught.

You haven't noticed that I have been avoiding mod discussions too, until they are over, basically? especially when they are adversarial? I have been avoiding YOU, I am ashamed to admit. But it's true.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

If you are still here, tell me what your concerns are in a way I can answer in a few minutes, lol.

I think I am over reading into things, tbh. I think i need a break. I talked to the host, who often sees things as I do, and he thinks I am reading aggression where there is none. So I have to go with that assessment, I trust him totes.

Can I suggest - because it's easier for me than breaking it down - that you in topic me and go to the post where I respond to some of your points in pink. Especially the first pink comment I make, because my biggest suspicion of you comes down to what was behind your search on the word 'interesting'. But really, the things I feel are outstanding about you that I don't feel comfortable about are probably all in that single post.

The only thing I can find in pink is your gender list. I am in the light scheme, maybe that has some bearing? Some colors are hard to see in that scheme, but I have problems with the dark on my phone. I will try again.