The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:My overall position on Ricochet hasn't changed.

Do you still feel he's given nothing to the game beyond his Mac beefs?

Nothing of substance, no.

So you thought nothing of his big post in which he assessed multiple players for their Day 1s relative to Scotty?

I didn't either. It was a whole bunch of words that when I read them played carnival music in my head.

Tell me why they are gold?

Ricochet wrote:>actually get to work
>not enough, needs more cowbell

Oh how surprising, coming from the hounders who must desperately want to see me gone.

I do admit I like a game with less Rico than the average and I don't have the liberty of just 86ing you this time.

That being said you lool bad anyway so feels good.

a2thezebra wrote:A whole lot of nothing is still nothing. His assessments of both myself and Elohcin were hella weak.

I'm just making sure you even know the post exists.

I disagree, naturally. I think it looks like prototypical Ricochet. Whatever, we've debated it enough.

You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.

If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:A whole lot of nothing is still nothing. His assessments of both myself and Elohcin were hella weak.

I'm just making sure you even know the post exists.

I disagree, naturally. I think it looks like prototypical Ricochet. Whatever, we've debated it enough.

A different spell but still a wand wave. We are to have taken some insight from it but unsure whether you even have. What did he say that was anything more than a prolonges fart noise?

MacDougall wrote:Tell me why they are gold?

I don't necessarily think they are gold.

The importance of that post to me is that it flies in the face of the argument Zebra and you have presented against Ricochet. You've both written this narrative that he's done jack shit all game other than whine about MacDougall, and it's patently false. If you think the actual content of his post is lacking then fine, talk about that.

That's not what has happened.

Your positions were waffly and you articulated them nervously. That's not asking for cowbell, Rico.

Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.

If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.

This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.

How to get Jimmy cred by Supertown Jimmy

3 tsps salt
1 self serving policy lynch request
1 self fulfilling prophecy scum read
500 words of lorem ipsum text

Take 3 tsps salt and simmer until it becomes a self serving policy lynch request.

Pour into dish and place in freezer for 25 hours until it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy scum read.

Garnish with 500 words of lorem ipsum text.

Serve sarcastically with low effort, snide remarks.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Tell me why they are gold?

I don't necessarily think they are gold.

The importance of that post to me is that it flies in the face of the argument Zebra and you have presented against Ricochet. You've both written this narrative that he's done jack shit all game other than whine about MacDougall, and it's patently false. If you think the actual content of his post is lacking then fine, talk about that.

That's not what has happened.

But if we think the actual content of his posts that you claim to be good are lacking, then how do we know which posts you think we should talk about? We're not catering to anyone, we just see lack of substance with the main element sticking out being the Mac beef, so that has gotten and continues to get the most focus. If you don't like people talking about it then you should be blaming Rico for starting it, not us and others for calling it out.

linki - Pretty much.

I'm frankly tired of all this confirmation bias. It has gotten very silly. I don't agree about Ricochet, and I think both of you have built cases that are crappy. The end. I'm done talking about this with both of you, the thread is already over-saturated with it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm frankly tired of all this confirmation bias. It has gotten very silly. I don't agree about Ricochet, and I think both of you have built cases that are crappy. The end. I'm done talking about this with both of you, the thread is already over-saturated with it.

Jimmy your scum is showing.

You're the one who has been consistently exhibiting confirmation bias. I can't seem to think of a scenario where you would suspect Rico given what you have already not only ignored but actually given him town credit for.

Confirmation bias would be parlaying a self serving policy lynch request into a real scum read. But you WOULD let that go. Since you have doubled down on defending a scum buddy trying to score wifom points.

I call upon the great and powerful motel room to pass judgement upon us all.

Also Glorfindel is bad.

If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.

linki - Why is Glorfindel already bad? I haven't read a substantial on-topic post from him yet.

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.

If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.

This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.

What isn't, as far as you're concerned.

"Articulated nervously"? Wow. That's near poetic.

a2thezebra wrote:If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.

linki - Why is Glorfindel already bad? I haven't read a substantial on-topic post from him yet.

Meta reasons.

Scum Glorfindel struggles to contribute. His thought processes are usually astute as a civ. He is exhibiting tendencies I recall from Star Wars and looks very unlike the force of nature I had to kill in Romance.

a2thezebra wrote:If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.

I don't give a shit. If he gets lynched I hope you're right and I'm wrong. It's happened before. I've done what I always do: make a read and then play to that read. Whatever happens from there is whatever happens from there.

I'm torn on Glorfindel. I don't quite understand the comparison he drew regarding MacDougall, but I also don't know that it looks manipulative. Forced maybe, given his time constraints and bigger concerns. He's my biggest waffle right now.

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.

If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.

This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.

What isn't, as far as you're concerned.

"Articulated nervously"? Wow. That's near poetic.

As far as I'm concerned what isn't a damning post are the types of posts I'm generally seeing from all of my town reads and most of my neutral reads.

There's a slight disconnect between those types of posts and yours, and it's neither stylistic nor personal.

I'm not bad, so Jay had nothing to worry about rightfully defending me. Of course, he'd know I'm not, in that case...

I find it ironic to be blamed for toDay's fuckery when I said I'll move on and then about seven more pages of two hounders throwing poo and drumming on the subject were written.

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.

If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.

This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.

What isn't, as far as you're concerned.

"Articulated nervously"? Wow. That's near poetic.

As far as I'm concerned what isn't a damning post are the types of posts I'm generally seeing from all of my town reads and most of my neutral reads.

There's a slight disconnect between those types of posts and yours, and it's neither stylistic nor personal.

Yep it's called bias.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, do you have any suspects at the moment apart from INH?

None strong enough to talk about. Pings here and there. But most folks are reading neutral or civ to me.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote: Railroading the entire in thread content of the game to push a selfish agenda that was never going to work is just cockery. It is not even remotely similar. He can appeal to the thread to remove me just in case I am bad and he is good... but that is pants on head moronic.

It's not like you've never done it.

MacDougall wrote: Ricochet annoyed me for trying to policy lynch me day 1. I ain't about that life. That it started to bleed into day 2 started to . My first post reflected that.

So, it's ok when you do it to other people but not when it's done to you? Because, I seem to remember:

MacDougall wrote:It is my modus operandi as a mafia player on this website to tunnel MattF in every game until one of us are dead. You are officially forewarned of my intention in every game we both play in.

I don't actually think you're bad. But please stop acting as if policy lynching is so horrible, when it is something you yourself have done. And don't claim that it's so ridiculous when, again, you've done it.

DrWilgy wrote:So... Lorab is bad. Shall we do something about this?

No, I'm not. Care to try to make a case? Because you're wrong.

Ricochet wrote:Tru. I did some and will try some more later this evening. If nothing notable related to the victims, I'll focus on the other wagon or on requests, such as LoRab.

Please do focus on me.

linkitis: EBWOP is Edit By Way of Post. What does being 30 have to do with anything?

Bout time someone played that cars. No I haven't. I joked about it. And also my reason for it even though I never really did was logical and served the town. Rico's served himself exclusively.

The 30 thing was a joke about how old people don't get things you know. Self deprecation. Much like that meds joke you also didn't get in the last game. Starting to think you and me are a different species tbh.

MacDougall wrote:Also it is fairly irrational to suggest that I am wrong for being annoyed by behaviour I myself have exhibited. That is a very common thing. I hate it when people do annoying things that I do.

Pretty sure you more than joked about it, and that it because a whole thing in that game. And I really don't see how there is a difference between you in that game and Rico in this game, with that particular behavior. If you're going to dish it out, you need to learn to take it.

As for the 30, I actually forgot that 30 year olds think that 30 is old, lol. And I don't remember the joke in the last game that I allegedly didn't get--TBQMFH, it's more likely I got it and didn't think it was funny.

MacDougall wrote:I am going to call for a policy lynch of Lorab in every game from now on because she doesn't get my jokes.

Go for it. I mean, you suspect me every game already, so same dif.

MacDougall wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.

linki - Why is Glorfindel already bad? I haven't read a substantial on-topic post from him yet.

Meta reasons.

Scum Glorfindel struggles to contribute. His thought processes are usually astute as a civ. He is exhibiting tendencies I recall from Star Wars and looks very unlike the force of nature I had to kill in Romance.

I see. Normally I would agree but I think his lack of contribution in this case is more likely due to his current personal dilemmas.

linki - You, I, and everyone else reading these posts knows that it isn't bias. Why even pretend otherwise?

Bye now. Try not to make 10 pages of Rico this Rico that by the time I reappear.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.

I don't give a shit. If he gets lynched I hope you're right and I'm wrong. It's happened before.

You being wrong? It's happened before? And I used to think I was arrogant...

linki - Why not Rico? What's there to worry about if you're civ?

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, do you have any suspects at the moment apart from INH?

None strong enough to talk about. Pings here and there. But most folks are reading neutral or civ to me.

Would you care to at least name the weaker ones, even if they're strictly vibe-based?

a2thezebra wrote:You being wrong? It's happened before? And I used to think I was arrogant...

Yes, granting that I am not infallible is the surest signal that I am arrogant.

Ricochet wrote:Bye now. Try not to make 10 pages of Rico this Rico that by the time I reappear.

Ironic that you are now so selfless and humble when you wanted the whole thread to lynch me before I posted because I killed you in one game. Come on man... you love the attention.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:You being wrong? It's happened before? And I used to think I was arrogant...

Yes, granting that I am not infallible is the surest signal that I am arrogant.

It is arrogant, because it's not up to you to grant your own infallibility. It goes without saying that we're all infallible, so yes, someone feeling the need to say it is going to come off as hilariously arrogant.

a2thezebra wrote:It is arrogant, because it's not up to you to grant your own infallibility. It goes without saying that we're all infallible, so yes, someone feeling the need to say it is going to come off as hilariously arrogant.

Sure, whatever. Let me know when that becomes relevant to this game.

Jimmy... just own it. Look at my sig.

Especially to say that you being wrong has happened before as if it's a once-in-a-blue-moon event. If you don't see how that's arrogant then you're just being disingenuous again.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:It is arrogant, because it's not up to you to grant your own infallibility. It goes without saying that we're all infallible, so yes, someone feeling the need to say it is going to come off as hilariously arrogant.

Sure, whatever. Let me know when that becomes relevant to this game.

It's relevant to this game because you buying into your own hype is hurting your ability to read players objectively. There's no other explanation for how stubbornly contrarian you are with your Rico read unless you're his teammate.

Jimmy ma boi ya letting Rico geddaway wit moida

MacDougall wrote:Jimmy... just own it. Look at my sig.

It gets very old very fast being perceived as this hyper arrogant dick when I frankly don't deserve that. I play Mafia with a great deal of effort, and I try to play with confidence, and I have this reputation that other people have assigned to me. I never claimed to be good at this game. I never claimed to be some kind of awesome analyst. I never claimed to have the best reads. All I do is try as hard as I can to help my team win. Your sig was literally a typo -- a funny one, but still a typo. I have played a bunch of terrible Mafia games. I have made a bunch of terrible reads. I shouldn't have to go on this rant to assure people that I am not in love with myself.

a2thezebra wrote:Especially to say that you being wrong has happened before as if it's a once-in-a-blue-moon event. If you don't see how that's arrogant then you're just being disingenuous again.

I didn't say it was once-in-a-blue-moon. That's YOUR interpretation. YOU made it that. I'm wrong quite frequently. No shit.

I'm stepping away from this. Getting mad.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Jimmy... just own it. Look at my sig.

It gets very old very fast being perceived as this hyper arrogant dick when I frankly don't deserve that. I play Mafia with a great deal of effort, and I try to play with confidence, and I have this reputation that other people have assigned to me. I never claimed to be good at this game. I never claimed to be some kind of awesome analyst. I never claimed to have the best reads. All I do is try as hard as I can to help my team win. Your sig was literally a typo -- a funny one, but still a typo. I have played a bunch of terrible Mafia games. I have made a bunch of terrible reads. I shouldn't have to go on this rant to assure people that I am not in love with myself.

I know man. I am just making funnies. I mean you owned it yourself not 45 minutes ago when you slipped into supertown Jimmy roleplay. So I figured you just were chill widdit.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm stepping away from this. Getting mad.

Hey man. I was mad before too and you just played the game properly with me until I chilled out so thanks for that.

Look mate, I've been arrogant since my first mafia game. I didn't care that I had no experience then and I don't now. There's nothing wrong with it.

I think it is fair to say that we are both extremely arrogant tbh.

If you don't want to be perceived as arrogant, don't say stuff like this:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm telling you I think the case is so bad that I actually don't understand why it exists.

For example of an arrogant-free ISO, take a look at any of your earlier games on RYM. That is if they weren't nuked by sharifi.

You used to be a beacon of politeness and patience JJJ, and then I imagine you got sick of it since everyone else wasn't keeping up their end of the bargain so you turned to the dark side and began to lean on the other extreme. You're in good company, but you have to be able to take it if you're going to dish it.

Goldberg tho

a2thezebra wrote:

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, do you have any suspects at the moment apart from INH?

None strong enough to talk about. Pings here and there. But most folks are reading neutral or civ to me.

Would you care to at least name the weaker ones, even if they're strictly vibe-based?

I have a weak ping from Dom for accusing MP of buttering up (I think Sloonei mentioned this before...someone did...I noticed it, as wel) because of his place on a rainbow list. It struck me as paranoid, and I think Dom's game is more paranoid as baddie than it is as civ.

Elo isn't sitting right. I don't have any good reason for this one, really just gut and tone.

Those are the 2 that keep popping up. There are also a bunch of players that I don't know well enough to know how to read their posts, so there are a lot of question marks on my imaginary spreadsheet.

LoRab wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, do you have any suspects at the moment apart from INH?

None strong enough to talk about. Pings here and there. But most folks are reading neutral or civ to me.

Would you care to at least name the weaker ones, even if they're strictly vibe-based?

I have a weak ping from Dom for accusing MP of buttering up (I think Sloonei mentioned this before...someone did...I noticed it, as wel) because of his place on a rainbow list. It struck me as paranoid, and I think Dom's game is more paranoid as baddie than it is as civ.

Elo isn't sitting right. I don't have any good reason for this one, really just gut and tone.

Those are the 2 that keep popping up. There are also a bunch of players that I don't know well enough to know how to read their posts, so there are a lot of question marks on my imaginary spreadsheet.

Thank you, this is helpful.

If you're going to talk about me at least have me involved in it. Or you can also look at the reply I made earlier to wilgy (I think, either him or sloonei) about that exact post that you guys quoted. I won't stand for being downplayed for trying my best to contribute. (Or at least that's how I'm precieving it)

Glorfindel - has taken my side on the valiant noble quest to take down MacMad, but let's review his actual reasons:

-- "happy to throw a vote Mac's way - for the Shu tribe!" >>> jokey / basically his own brand of policy, revenge lynch
-- lynching him would mathematically fall into a 21% chance of success >>> I'd say this POV is as irksome as anyone, in any game, bringing up stats to describe any kind of impulse to hunt or not for baddies D1
-- had nothing concrete on others >> surely it was too early, though, to leave it at that and voting Mac for meta wasn't exactly "concrete" either
-- finds the odds increased by reading some good, but not Mac; invokes once more the "fool me once" perspective >>> rather faulty for 1) not specifying which players he found good (see below) and 2) deflecting a bit Jay's original question, whether he finds Mac suspicious at all or not
-- comes back with an answer on which players he reads good (Jay and myself) >>> uhm ok

Well I'm not the one to talk about latching on to a Mac vote for Day 1, heh, but his reasons are not quite as principled as I regard my own to have been. He insisted on the idea only when inquired (JJJ), but the whole "bitten once, never game" argumentation is not serious in any way. I'd give a minus for the stats POV and never return to a search for "something concrete" to suspect other players for - although this could well be related to how much time he had to be around. His townleans are a bit, ech, easy, handy: me being the player he voted alongside and Jay being the player he had to conversate with and answer questions to.

Now, as for Mac's meta theory, about Glorfindel being conditioned to struggle if an agent of corruption: for one, I'm the kind of person to believe that anyone can build up a persona of deception or try to put on a good show if rolling mafia and that that wouldn't Glorfindel, despite his "wouldn't hurt a fly" / "why can't we be friends" traits. Would I put him on the radar right now, for the relative thinness in his stances and reads? Sure. Is it telling that he is not yet exhibiting "force of nature" like hunt mode? I'd call it premature. Would I say I find him angsty or such in what he provided or providing more? No, some of his other posts, while of the fluff kind, strike as normal, amiable.