The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:07 pm

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:06 pm Probably something like two of Epi/Michelle/Nutella/jay/LC

But, like, that’s not even narrow enough to call it a POE.

Well it looks like you know where to start your dig.

I don’t dig, I observe others doing the digging and tell them to use their backs not their legs

I just changed my mind about Michelle. She can be mafia.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:05 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:04 pm When I point out JJJ isn't reading, it's frustrated sarcasm. When S~V~S points it out as well... well, how much does it take for people to start suspecting the guy?

I explained to you what I said. If you don't think I am reading, then you're not reading. I don't know what to tell you.

Can't find the explanation, unless you count that longer post that I went through and proved empty. Was there a different one I missed?

Voted 'I don't care' in the poll because peanuts are gross either way.

[quote="Long Con" post_id=596182 time=1585689430 user_id=271]
"proved empty"



It's entirely possible I overlooked something or another. I have not read the entire thread. That is an unreasonable expectation for me given how long I have been in this game. I came in here and was in line to be mislynched. I had to both prevent that and also try my best to find a proper alternative in an extremely limited time frame, and I provided the best effort I could. Everything I talked about, I read carefully. If there were contextual details or some such lacking, that does not surprise me. I would need to be pointed to those things.

Empty sarcasm does not help me. It just pisses me off.

Nice

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:23 pmNice

How does that help your mood?

And my sarcasm was far from empty. You're still trying to play an angle here.

S~V~S wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:01 pm I know I am not orange

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:29 pm And my sarcasm was far from empty. You're still trying to play an angle here.

No, I am telling you that it pissed me off. You're not considering this from my perspective. Imagine, just for a moment, that I am genuine and have suspicion of you. I am confronted then by your snark, whatever may motivate it, and I am forced to try to interpret that snark -- not just on an emotional level, but specifically as it pertains to my accusations.

I don't feel like you're listening to me.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:28 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:23 pmNice

How does that help your mood?

Subjunctivated the fuck out of it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:34 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:29 pm And my sarcasm was far from empty. You're still trying to play an angle here.

No, I am telling you that it pissed me off. You're not considering this from my perspective. Imagine, just for a moment, that I am genuine and have suspicion of you. I am confronted then by your snark, whatever may motivate it, and I am forced to try to interpret that snark -- not just on an emotional level, but specifically as it pertains to my accusations.

I don't feel like you're listening to me.

Ok, I will listen. Lay it out for me, and we'll discuss whether you really believe what you're saying, or if you are pushing an angle.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:36 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:28 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:23 pmNice

How does that help your mood?

Subjunctivated the fuck out of it.

Some imperfect aspect of the present discussion is indicative of a tense mood.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:47 pm Ok, I will listen. Lay it out for me, and we'll discuss whether you really believe what you're saying, or if you are pushing an angle.

I'm not even clear on what you want me to lay out for you. I thought I just did.

I'll try anyway at least with respect to the perspective of "empty sarcasm".

Civilian JJJ finds Long Con suspicious. Civilian JJJ accuses Long Con of things. The majority of Long Con's responses to those accusations are sarcastic "yes, everything I have posted is bad" type comments. Those comments frustrate Civilian JJJ, because they don't address the accusations in a meaningful way; instead they ridicule them. Civilian JJJ just entered this game and is talking to a player that he suspects and suspects him. Civilian JJJ really wishes he could have a more productive discourse than that.

That's the kind of irritation that leads me to ask questions like "what am I supposed to do with this?"

You suggest there was some manner of depth to your sarcasm. I seriously don't know what that is, unless you're referring to your implications that it was a means of changing my mind and only that (instead of furthering your own suspicion of me or something else).

Keep in mind, LC, that you've told me I am just doing what Dyslexicon did. You literally suspected me before I was born. You complained that Dizzy did not have real reasons to suspect you. I don't think that's true, but even if I accept that premise -- I did have real reasons to suspect you. You refuted them and told me they sucked, which is an absolute fucking shocker. You don't suspect yourself. But they were reasons, and I meant them.

From my perspective, I am being shoehorned into a read that existed before I entered the game, and my own contributions are irrelevant to that read. I don't see much evidence that you explored my alignment at all when I came here.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:53 pmJJJ accuses Long Con of things.

You choose to focus on the sarcasm in order to avoid the accusation against you.

Your accusations:

- My "1:30 am and I'm a bit drunk" post didn't "do anything". Exact same post that Dizzy latched onto as some 'gotcha' moment.

- I don't suspect Michelle for Day 0 banter

- I discussed Dizzy's accusation on Michelle and realized the major flaw in the logic

- I'm sarcastic

I don't believe that you believe anything you're saying here. You saw the opportunity to lynch a Civilian by continuing your predecessor's dubious line of thinking.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pm You choose to focus on the sarcasm in order to avoid the accusation against you.

I chose it because I thought was the mostly likely thing you were asking me about. You didn't bloody say it, mate.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pmYour accusations:

- My "1:30 am and I'm a bit drunk" post didn't "do anything". Exact same post that Dizzy latched onto as some 'gotcha' moment.

I didn't like the post. I said I didn't like the post. I don't know why that's any more a "gotcha" thing than any other accusation about any other post.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pm- I don't suspect Michelle for Day 0 banter

Absolving her on the basis of Day 0 banter felt as frivolous to me as Day 0 banter itself -- TMI on Michelle.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pm- I discussed Dizzy's accusation on Michelle and realized the major flaw in the logic

This I don't get. You suggested I don't get it. Help me get it.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pm- I'm sarcastic

This is less an accusation and more a complaint. It does not help me to read you.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pmI don't believe that you believe anything you're saying here. You saw the opportunity to lynch a Civilian by continuing your predecessor's dubious line of thinking.

This is junk, dude. Nobody else had voted for you when I arrived. The only vote was Dizzy. There's no special "opportunity" there. There were at least three non-Dizzy wagons available that weren't you I could have chosen instead. When I reviewed the game, you're where I ended up. It helped knowing my predecessor had misgivings too considering Dizzy's ability as a civilian.

What makes your line of thinking less dubious than mine?

I am trying to hear you out.

You're not trying to hear me out. You're telling me what I meant. You're telling me what I did. You're telling me what I felt.

Anyone who reads this exchange and does not provide a take of some kind is failing the civilian faction.

I’ve read it. You’re both stubborn and somewhat pedantic at times and like to talk past each other. That says little to nothing about your alignments.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:27 pm Anyone who reads this exchange and does not provide a take of some kind is failing the civilian faction.

I'll be honest I'm not really following it. All I see is the little lines from Peanuts.

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:29 pm I’ve read it. You’re both stubborn and somewhat pedantic at times and like to talk past each other. That says little to nothing about your alignments.

Basically this. I think you're both talking past each other and it's no longer interesting to anyone else.

I feel like everyone should have a pretty developed POE pool right now. There are seven not-yous and two of them are no good. Even two solid civilian reads nets a workable reduction, and I think we can do better than that.

Let's go.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:37 pm I feel like everyone should have a pretty developed POE pool right now. There are seven not-yous and two of them are no good. Even two solid civilian reads nets a workable reduction, and I think we can do better than that.

Let's go.

SVS
Jay
MP
Michelle
LC
Epi
Nanook

My Night 0 peek is Epignosis.

Wait I'm not sure why I'm so confident about SVS though.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:40 pm My Night 0 peek is Epignosis.

What? This a claim?

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:41 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:40 pm My Night 0 peek is Epignosis.

What? This a claim?

It's a claim if I'm the cop.

If I'm understanding the matrix correctly Jay is lying.


Shit just got spicy.

Heist noobs

The only way for you to know he’s lying is if you’re the doc or the 2 shot doc, in neither case should you be revealing imo

And I’m not convinced that’s a real claim tbh

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:45 pm The only way for you to know he’s lying is if you’re the doc or the 2 shot doc, in neither case should you be revealing imo

Huh?

Ok I'm confused. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:46 pm And I’m not convinced that’s a real claim tbh

He could be fucking with us, yeah.

Picard facepalm

good lord

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:46 pm

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:45 pm The only way for you to know he’s lying is if you’re the doc or the 2 shot doc, in neither case should you be revealing imo

Huh?

Ok I'm confused. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

1-shot cop cannot exist with doctor or 2-shot doc. So for you to be town and know he’s lying, you’d have to be one of those two roles.

Which actually if it were a real claim is probably fine, 1 for 1 is fine at this point imo, but if it isn’t a real claim, which I don’t think it is, revealing is bad

Read the matrix in the spoiler in the OP, it’s not that complicated lol

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:48 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:46 pm

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:45 pm The only way for you to know he’s lying is if you’re the doc or the 2 shot doc, in neither case should you be revealing imo

Huh?

Ok I'm confused. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

1-shot cop cannot exist with doctor or 2-shot doc. So for you to be town and know he’s lying, you’d have to be one of those two roles.

Which actually if it were a real claim is probably fine, 1 for 1 is fine at this point imo, but if it isn’t a real claim, which I don’t think it is, revealing is bad

It says it can either be a row or a column

(For the récord matrix games are kind stupid imo, but here we are)

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:50 pm

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:48 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:46 pm

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:45 pm The only way for you to know he’s lying is if you’re the doc or the 2 shot doc, in neither case should you be revealing imo

Huh?

Ok I'm confused. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

1-shot cop cannot exist with doctor or 2-shot doc. So for you to be town and know he’s lying, you’d have to be one of those two roles.

Which actually if it were a real claim is probably fine, 1 for 1 is fine at this point imo, but if it isn’t a real claim, which I don’t think it is, revealing is bad

It says it can either be a row or a column

Yes. A row or a column. The 1-shot cop doesn’t exist in the same row or column as the doc or the 2-shot doc. Thus, if one is in the game the other one cannot be.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:24 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pm You choose to focus on the sarcasm in order to avoid the accusation against you.

I chose it because I thought was the mostly likely thing you were asking me about. You didn't bloody say it, mate.

Okay I guess.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pmYour accusations:

- My "1:30 am and I'm a bit drunk" post didn't "do anything". Exact same post that Dizzy latched onto as some 'gotcha' moment.

I didn't like the post. I said I didn't like the post. I don't know why that's any more a "gotcha" thing than any other accusation about any other post.

Dizzy quoted it and just said "-10". How is that not supposed to look "gotcha"?

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pm- I don't suspect Michelle for Day 0 banter

Absolving her on the basis of Day 0 banter felt as frivolous to me as Day 0 banter itself -- TMI on Michelle.

THANK YOU for this, it's nice when they fall into your lap like this. "Absolving Michelle", eh? For someone who reads everything, I would think "I'm not lynching her for day 1 banter", followed by "I was thinking of it from Epi teaming you and her due to the banter. What did you think was 'more'? " to S~V~S, when she responded, followed by nutella actually thinking I was "on the Michelle train", followed by "it's slightly scummy-looking when framed like that, but I'm not hopping on the train over it"... all that solid reading, and you try to throw "Absolving through TMI" in my face?

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm accusing you of.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pm- I discussed Dizzy's accusation on Michelle and realized the major flaw in the logic

This I don't get. You suggested I don't get it. Help me get it.

Ok. Dizzy's accusation was that Michelle said "you don't have any reason to think I'm scum", which is scummier looking than saying "I'm town". Sure. What Michelle actually said was "... looks like you want to shade me but you can't because you don't have any reason to scum read me." which is not the same thing at all. Michelle was discussing the reason why S~V~S' supposed shade looked so weak to her. She wasn't TELLING S~V~S that there's no reason to think she's scum, she was ANALYZING her view on S~V~S' perspective.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pm- I'm sarcastic

This is less an accusation and more a complaint. It does not help me to read you.

Fair.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:17 pmI don't believe that you believe anything you're saying here. You saw the opportunity to lynch a Civilian by continuing your predecessor's dubious line of thinking.

This is junk, dude. Nobody else had voted for you when I arrived. The only vote was Dizzy. There's no special "opportunity" there. There were at least three non-Dizzy wagons available that weren't you I could have chosen instead. When I reviewed the game, you're where I ended up. It helped knowing my predecessor had misgivings too considering Dizzy's ability as a civilian.

What makes your line of thinking less dubious than mine?

I'm town and you're not. That has to count for something.

Who's everyone else's Night 0 peek?

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:51 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:50 pm

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:48 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:46 pm

NANOOKTHEGREATANDFEARSOME wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:45 pm The only way for you to know he’s lying is if you’re the doc or the 2 shot doc, in neither case should you be revealing imo

Huh?

Ok I'm confused. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

1-shot cop cannot exist with doctor or 2-shot doc. So for you to be town and know he’s lying, you’d have to be one of those two roles.

Which actually if it were a real claim is probably fine, 1 for 1 is fine at this point imo, but if it isn’t a real claim, which I don’t think it is, revealing is bad

It says it can either be a row or a column

Yes. A row or a column. The 1-shot cop doesn’t exist in the same row or column as the doc or the 2-shot doc. Thus, if one is in the game the other one cannot be.

OH never mind I'm dumb.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:52 pm Who's everyone else's Night 0 peek?

Guess.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:52 pm Who's everyone else's Night 0 peek?

So it was a hypothetical after all I guess lol. Uh, probably Dizzy?

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:51 pm Dizzy quoted it and just said "-10". How is that not supposed to look "gotcha"?

I'm not Dyslexicon. I told you about my accusation. I cannot speak for another human being.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:51 pmTHANK YOU for this, it's nice when they fall into your lap like this. "Absolving Michelle", eh? For someone who reads everything, I would think "I'm not lynching her for day 1 banter", followed by "I was thinking of it from Epi teaming you and her due to the banter. What did you think was 'more'? " to S~V~S, when she responded, followed by nutella actually thinking I was "on the Michelle train", followed by "it's slightly scummy-looking when framed like that, but I'm not hopping on the train over it"... all that solid reading, and you try to throw "Absolving through TMI" in my face?

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm accusing you of.

My wording may have been confusing. I don't mean that you absolved her of guilt and named her innocent. I meant that you absolved her of that suspicion for what to me looked like no reason. And on that basis, there's room for TMI.

All that "fell in my lap" bravado is meaningless.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:51 pmOk. Dizzy's accusation was that Michelle said "you don't have any reason to think I'm scum", which is scummier looking than saying "I'm town". Sure. What Michelle actually said was "... looks like you want to shade me but you can't because you don't have any reason to scum read me." which is not the same thing at all. Michelle was discussing the reason why S~V~S' supposed shade looked so weak to her. She wasn't TELLING S~V~S that there's no reason to think she's scum, she was ANALYZING her view on S~V~S' perspective.

My point here was that I thought this distinction was clear in the first place, and I find it hard to believe that it inspired an epiphany.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:51 pmI'm town and you're not. That has to count for something.

If you are town, then you are doing us both a disservice by refusing to communicate with me in an open manner. Consider one obvious point: you just hosted me in a GOC in which I had the ability to freely hunt as a mafioso. Until all of my team was dead, I played that game at half-JJJ pace. A mafioso in this game cannot freely hunt. I am playing at full JJJ pace. I am nothing like I was in your game just last week, and it reflects the breath of fresh air that is a civilian role.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:53 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:52 pm Who's everyone else's Night 0 peek?

Guess.

If you're shitting on me again, that doesn't work. The peek is a civilian. Who's your civilian?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:59 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:53 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:52 pm Who's everyone else's Night 0 peek?

Guess.

If you're shitting on me again, that doesn't work. The peek is a civilian. Who's your civilian?

Literally not what I thought the question meant.

Clarity is your friend.

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:02 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:59 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:53 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:52 pm Who's everyone else's Night 0 peek?

Guess.

If you're shitting on me again, that doesn't work. The peek is a civilian. Who's your civilian?

Literally not what I thought the question meant.

Clarity is your friend.

If you're the cop, who was your Night 0 free peek on a civilian?