The Syndicate

a2thezebra wrote:I've suspected you for the case because there is no case. When I'm mason with someone and someone suspects them in an opportunistic way I pounce. Because I know they're civ, and so the odds that the case against them is baddie-motivated (which is already likely by how disingenuous the case seems) increases. That's how I got Diiny in the recent RYM game. And I know I'm civ. So when I see some nonsense like what you claim to be a case, yeah, I'm going to call it out. Call it a NO U all you want, call it OMGUS even. I do not care. I went in-depth with why I think you're acting the way you are and I considered (and even still am considering) the other possible interpretations as to why you would behave like this as a civilian, even though you haven't shown me the same courtesy. So move along and bring me down then. Show me your worst.

Ricochet wrote:Three of Golden's recent posts are validating or clarifying MacDougall's thoughts. I mean, what in the name of God.

a2thezebra wrote:It's an act and everyone knows it's an act. Cut the bull.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Three of Golden's recent posts are validating or clarifying MacDougall's thoughts. I mean, what in the name of God.

If I think you are misrepresenting someone, anyone, I am going to give my own interpretation of that. I did the same with LoRabs thoughts. I am not sure if this is a habit of yours, but you have been reaching for interpretations of peoples posts and then treating your own interpretations as gospel, and I am going to point out where your interpretations seem to me disingenuous.

As far as I've seen, you still haven't answered to me why you felt Mac's behaviour around the LoRab stuff made him look less green to you. Some of those posts I'm quoting are me pointing out that the interpretation you had of Mac's posts was not a reasonable one.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

You are free to speculate whatever you like, especially given the closed setup, but based on two previous years of Championship Games over here, not to mention my role which I'm aware of (oh, and Golden's)*, I feel inclined to say this Championship game is no different from the previous two in mashing up multiple roles from games played here throughout the year. Not sure what you mean by your second sentence.

Also, your first sentence is factually not true, but if you don't remember, I suppose that's what it is.

* in fact, shouldn't you also have a basic idea of this setup I'm talking about (role mashup), based on the role you received, whatever it is? Or are you implying your role is that of a cupcake?

I know what game my role is from, but I didn't go back to check to see if it was one of the players in this game, or if it was from the winning team. At any rate, the theory has now been shown to be false (which is why I asked the question--one cannot extrapolate much from a sample of one), so it's on to new speculatoin.

What's wrong with the theory that roles are imported from different previous games, regardless of being roles with which players won or not said previous games?

LoRab wrote: As I said in my first post in htis game, it's entirely possible that I played a previous champions game and don't remember. I don't remember a lot of games that I played. And most the ones I do remember all sort of blend together at this point. Which one did I play in?

I forgot.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:This is an interesting an insightful view of the game. I am learning about other people's behavior in general. I genuinely have no idea what Ricochet or Zebra are talking about because I haven't read more than 20% of their discussion. This must be how others often feel when faced with megaposters like 2015 JJJ without the energy/time to read/review everything being said.

Hey Ricothezebra, if you folks could summarize your Night 0 beefs for people who haven't read everything with as much brevity as you can manage, that'd be helpful. I don't mean to criticize y'all, I have obviously been in your shoes too and encourage you to continue eating each other for lunch.

It'd just be a nice way to make the conversation between you more relevant to others who are probably going to completely gloss over all of it otherwise. Maybe even label it something like SUMMARY OF BEEFS.

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

You are free to speculate whatever you like, especially given the closed setup, but based on two previous years of Championship Games over here, not to mention my role which I'm aware of (oh, and Golden's)*, I feel inclined to say this Championship game is no different from the previous two in mashing up multiple roles from games played here throughout the year. Not sure what you mean by your second sentence.

Also, your first sentence is factually not true, but if you don't remember, I suppose that's what it is.

* in fact, shouldn't you also have a basic idea of this setup I'm talking about (role mashup), based on the role you received, whatever it is? Or are you implying your role is that of a cupcake?

I know what game my role is from, but I didn't go back to check to see if it was one of the players in this game, or if it was from the winning team. At any rate, the theory has now been shown to be false (which is why I asked the question--one cannot extrapolate much from a sample of one), so it's on to new speculatoin.

What's wrong with the theory that roles are imported from different previous games, regardless of being roles with which players won or not said previous games?

LoRab wrote: As I said in my first post in htis game, it's entirely possible that I played a previous champions game and don't remember. I don't remember a lot of games that I played. And most the ones I do remember all sort of blend together at this point. Which one did I play in?

I forgot.

I looked. It was the game last year--I had all of 3 posts, one woot game post and 2 I forgot I was playing posts. So, uh, don't think I was all that invested in the game, much less remember what the set up was.

And there's nothing wrong with what you say above. My speculation had been, more specifically (as Golden correctly understood) that the list of roles in this game came from the list of roles that the players had in the games they won. That aspect has been shown to be not the case. but, yeah, the roles do, I agree, come from other games--it's just a matter of figuring out which roles are there or not. Mainly because I like figuring things out.

Ricochet wrote:I will, if you call it.

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:It's an act and everyone knows it's an act. Cut the bull.

I've heard worse dismissals from baddies.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Three of Golden's recent posts are validating or clarifying MacDougall's thoughts. I mean, what in the name of God.

If I think you are misrepresenting someone, anyone, I am going to give my own interpretation of that. I did the same with LoRabs thoughts. I am not sure if this is a habit of yours, but you have been reaching for interpretations of peoples posts and then treating your own interpretations as gospel, and I am going to point out where your interpretations seem to me disingenuous.

As far as I've seen, you still haven't answered to me why you felt Mac's behaviour around the LoRab stuff made him look less green to you. Some of those posts I'm quoting are me pointing out that the interpretation you had of Mac's posts was not a reasonable one.

Where have you referenced me in the three posts you made in reply to MacDougall. Totally confused by what you're saying here.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I will, if you call it.

No comprendo. If I call it what?

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:It's an act and everyone knows it's an act. Cut the bull.

I've heard worse dismissals from baddies.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Three of Golden's recent posts are validating or clarifying MacDougall's thoughts. I mean, what in the name of God.

If I think you are misrepresenting someone, anyone, I am going to give my own interpretation of that. I did the same with LoRabs thoughts. I am not sure if this is a habit of yours, but you have been reaching for interpretations of peoples posts and then treating your own interpretations as gospel, and I am going to point out where your interpretations seem to me disingenuous.

As far as I've seen, you still haven't answered to me why you felt Mac's behaviour around the LoRab stuff made him look less green to you. Some of those posts I'm quoting are me pointing out that the interpretation you had of Mac's posts was not a reasonable one.

Where have you referenced me in the three posts you made in reply to MacDougall. Totally confused by what you're saying here.

I am validating/clarifying thoughts of MacDougall that appear to either be lost on you or that you seem to be deliberately avoiding, something I feel like you know only to well. Your 'confusion' does nothing to make me feel better.

How about, instead of being totally confused, you actually just answer the questions asked of you? WHY DOES MACS BEHAVIOUR AROUND THE LORAB STUFF MAKE HIM LOOK LESS GREEN TO YOU????

This is now the third time I've asked you this. The last two times, you've decided to respond to.... wait for it.... semantic points instead of the question I actually asked.

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I will, if you call it.

No comprendo. If I call it what?

I will or I won't rehash my case.

If you don't, I won't do it anyway, so...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:This is an interesting an insightful view of the game. I am learning about other people's behavior in general. I genuinely have no idea what Ricochet or Zebra are talking about because I haven't read more than 20% of their discussion. This must be how others often feel when faced with megaposters like 2015 JJJ without the energy/time to read/review everything being said.

Hey Ricothezebra, if you folks could summarize your Night 0 beefs for people who haven't read everything with as much brevity as you can manage, that'd be helpful. I don't mean to criticize y'all, I have obviously been in your shoes too and encourage you to continue eating each other for lunch.

It'd just be a nice way to make the conversation between you more relevant to others who are probably going to completely gloss over all of it otherwise. Maybe even label it something like SUMMARY OF BEEFS.

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Zebra and b24 have posted for the first time within 30 minutes of each other. Confirmed baddies biding their time.

You're trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard to put in """""""effort""""""" so early in the game. In Day 0 / Night 0 / Day 1 there's a difference between trying to get things going to gauge reactions and simply trying to look as ridiculously town as possible.

What does that have to do with you being caught on making a later appearence alongside your other inactive teamie?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

You're not putting any effort, by comparison, and I remember you having put more effort in early THM stages.

It has nothing to do with it and I didn't imply that it did. You indirectly addressed me so I responded with my thoughts on you. I can't defend against what you're accusing me of because it's too absurd to defend against and you know it is.

In contrast to this, I actually accused you of something you can defend against, yet you chose to deflect. How hypocritical. You could give a solid reason for why you're acting the way you are, which would be nice especially considering that I'm far from the first person to bring up that you are in fact acting strange. Instead, you choose to accuse me of not putting in effort myself...on Night fucking 0. I did not imply that your behavior is alignment-indicative because I like to save my conclusions for when I'm given enough meat to form a conclusion, unlike the play style that you've demonstrated so far. And I've got some meat here. In a single post you pretend that my response was a deflective defense when it's not, while at the same time using deflection as your own defense because you don't have a reasonable answer as to what I accused of...because I hit the nail on the head. If your suggestion of me being on a team with bcorn because of THAT reason was a false suspicion that you used to gauge reactions, then you wouldn't have misrepresented my response to such an absurd degree, and if you believed in the value of your own scum-hunting efforts then you would've properly defended yourself to my actual suspicion of you. You're not interested in scum-hunting and you're not interested in gauging reactions, you're interested in throwing shade on whoever you think you can while trying to flaunt charts and lists to gain gullible townie points.

This is a cheap act you're trying to sell, bordering on WIFOM.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I will, if you call it.

No comprendo. If I call it what?

I will or I won't rehash my case.

If you don't, I won't do it anyway, so...

...I call that you will.

a2thezebra wrote:Four posts, I should've said.

Ricochet wrote:Are you not familiar with how to call a coin toss or what?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Apparrently

Spoiler: show

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Oh, and you said I put more effort in the early stages of THM? Let's take a look at my posts in Day 0 of THM. After all, it's only Night 0 here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 3&sr=posts

SO MUCH EFFORT WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WHERE DID I GO WRONG

I don't know, I'm seeing more solid activity in there, as it is.

You questioned JJJ's low-activity claim.
You provided input on how the poll votes should develop.
You criticised a player for breaking a tie.
You lobbied yet again for players to vote a certain way.
You did rebuttal rounds with the abovementioned player whose low-activity claim you questioned.
You further oversaw how the poll options would be handled or turn out.

By contrast, here:

you posted the obligatory opening word
you buddied me (trying to buddy a top civ, ey? classic baddie movie)
you wailed about the quantity of N0 talk so far and your only dilemma was what the fuss about the options leading in the poll so far is

Oh, and you overreacted at me catching you.

a2thezebra wrote:I remember you taking my pre-Day 1 ISO's of this thread and that thread and comparing them while twisting each point to a satirical extreme, but I don't remember the part where you caught me.

a2thezebra wrote:I love how me outright saying that I'm buddying someone as a joke because I voted where they said would be a good place to vote is legitimate buddying.

Ricochet wrote:Switching my vote to Watari, so it can go ahead in the polls to my benefit.

Although I wouldn't mind all of you voting Duncan, that would benefit me as well.

a2thezebra wrote:*buddies Ricochet*

sig wrote:I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!

a2thezebra wrote:linki - Haha, I didn't even bother to check that. All I knew was that even if it were true, it's not alignment-indicative regardless.

thellama73 wrote:Wow, okay, there is a lot of noise to cut through in this thread. Weirdly, I don't have bad feeling about Ricochet this game, although I do enjoy the back and forth between him and Zebra (who is a girl).

The person I a starting to have bad feelings about is MacDougall. He started off basically accusing a bunch of people of being bad, including Ricochet, in a jokey fashion, which felt like a distractionary tactic, and then he allowed his jokey attack on Rico to morph into a real one, joining Zebra (who is a girl). It feels like opportunism to try to eliminate a dangerous rival early, and I'm not reading his attacks as wholly sincere.

But then again, it's not even day one yet, so all this could change.

sig wrote:I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!

So I read the back and forth between Ricohet, Mac, and Zebra and honestly most of it went in one ear and out the other. I think Llama raises an interesting point about Mac, Zebra seems to be acting like Zebra. Rico seems to be posting a good amount of stuff.

What does everyone think of JJJ? He posted those voice messages, but after I raised my concern of them I don't recall anymore of his posts.

MacDougall wrote:Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

Mac has a role from the TH game, or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P

thellama73 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Zebra (who is a girl)

Zebra (who is a girl)

I think that you think that I take myself more seriously than I actually do. Yes, I identify as a girl, no, I'm not going to antagonize anyone that doesn't agree.[/quote
I'll be the judge of that.

Well I mean she hasn't threatened to sue you, or accuse you of using improper pronouns, or kidnap you, lock you in a hole, keep you there for about 3 to 5 days, hang you from her second story house when she tells you that she is taking you upstairs to get a shower, and then after hanging you skin you to make a man suit for her to wear. (I in no way mean to be offensive so I hope nobody takes it that way, I truly doubt Zebra is a Serial Killer, BUT if she is I just want you to know Zebra I wouldn't make a very good victim at all and I'd never turn you in to the police when Llama's skinned body turns up in a river with a cocoon shoved up his throat )

So I'd say she was okay.

a2thezebra wrote:???

Draconus wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:???

The yellow portion of DH's former post is what I was referring to.
It was a meaningless joke.

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Wow, okay, there is a lot of noise to cut through in this thread. Weirdly, I don't have bad feeling about Ricochet this game, although I do enjoy the back and forth between him and Zebra (who is a girl).

The person I a starting to have bad feelings about is MacDougall. He started off basically accusing a bunch of people of being bad, including Ricochet, in a jokey fashion, which felt like a distractionary tactic, and then he allowed his jokey attack on Rico to morph into a real one, joining Zebra (who is a girl). It feels like opportunism to try to eliminate a dangerous rival early, and I'm not reading his attacks as wholly sincere.

But then again, it's not even day one yet, so all this could change.

Still catching up and this post jumped out at me

1. aGREENed, lots of crap to trudge through for what is essentially a waiting period.

2. Orange you certain this is what you meant? Sounds like you got those two players confused.

3. YELLOW? Anyone home? This is exactly what Rico has been doing. Seriously, take Mac's name out and put Rico's in and tell me that doesn't fit.



3.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Draconus wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:???

The yellow portion of DH's former post is what I was referring to.
It was a meaningless joke.

Rico's jokey attacks on everyone morphed into whatever the fuck I just spent an hour reading.

Draconus wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:???

The yellow portion of DH's former post is what I was referring to.
It was a meaningless joke.

Draconus wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Draconus wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:???

The yellow portion of DH's former post is what I was referring to.
It was a meaningless joke.

Rico's jokey attacks on everyone morphed into whatever the fuck I just spent an hour reading.

I was joking. I knew what you meant

a2thezebra wrote:

Draconus wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:???

The yellow portion of DH's former post is what I was referring to.
It was a meaningless joke.

Rico's jokey attack on Rico? I don't get it.

linki - truuu

linki 2 - Beware the shrug

linki 3 - Stop posting argh

linki 4 - Stahp