The Syndicate

RadicalFuzz wrote:Zebra I disagree. Intentionally twisting words to gauge reactions isn't necessarily an anti-Town strategy. It stirs up trouble, sure, but most players would have different reactions to being misinterpreted based on various variables, including allegiance.

It's more commonly anti-town, though, right? Especially if it goes on for long enough without explanation?

Golden wrote:Hey, JJ, soon you will be ready to embrace survival win cons join the dark side!

What's this supposed to mean?

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:Hey, JJ, soon you will be ready to embrace survival win cons join the dark side!

What's this supposed to mean?

That JJ currently doesn't like survival win cons, but might come to in the future.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:Hey, JJ, soon you will be ready to embrace survival win cons join the dark side!

What's this supposed to mean?

That JJ currently doesn't like survival win cons, but might come to in the future.

Oh yeah, they're the worst. You have to beg the mafia or SK, one night before a lylo phase, not to kill you off.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I wonder what the current post count leader will think if I refer to that person solely as "the current post count leader" (or adapt for different ranks in post count as applicable).

Are you referring to Epi's 'Media' theory?

Although does anyone know if a similar role existed in any game in 2015?

I would point out that rico wanted to know why I didn't refer to him by name specifically in some of those posts.

But, at this point, if he is any role like that his mention count is already through the roof.

Are you serious?

Well, I mean, that isn't what you wanted to know per se, but it could have led to me mentioning you more. It would have been an effective prod.

But no, I don't think you are a role from 2013.

I just want to know where JJ's head was at.

Your interaction with Rico here has given me furrowed brow and a mild headache. I don't get what you're saying?

Did you look up the role of Media that Epi pointed out?

Yes I did. I am also familiar with American Gods so I pretty well knew straight away just saying. I just don't know what you're getting at saying that Rico asked you why you weren't referring to him by name. I missed that. You say that it isn't what you mentioned per se, then what is it? You're going to have clarify your point.

MacDougall wrote:Okay tell me now, is snipping posts bad etiquette or not.

I snip posts all the time, to quote only the specific part of the post I'm referencing. It's completely open for others if they thing such snipping is in some way manipulative, and generally speaking the player you snip will call you out on it if there is any argument that this is the case.

I think readability > no snipping.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I wonder what the current post count leader will think if I refer to that person solely as "the current post count leader" (or adapt for different ranks in post count as applicable).

Are you referring to Epi's 'Media' theory?

Although does anyone know if a similar role existed in any game in 2015?

I would point out that rico wanted to know why I didn't refer to him by name specifically in some of those posts.

But, at this point, if he is any role like that his mention count is already through the roof.

Are you serious?

Well, I mean, that isn't what you wanted to know per se, but it could have led to me mentioning you more. It would have been an effective prod.

But no, I don't think you are a role from 2013.

I just want to know where JJ's head was at.

How is me complaining about you saying quotes directed at Mac having to do something with me in any way the same thing as me complaining you don't bring me up by name?!!!

What you said was 'I didn't reference you in those posts'... is referencing you different to bringing you up by name?

MacDougall wrote:Yes I did. I am also familiar with American Gods so I pretty well knew straight away just saying. I just don't know what you're getting at saying that Rico asked you why you weren't referring to him by name. I missed that. You say that it isn't what you mentioned per se, then what is it? You're going to have clarify your point.

He objected to me making, apparently, three different posts where I clarified your posts. I said the point was to draw attention to the fact that Rico's interpretations of them weren't reasonable. He wondered how I could do that without specifically referencing him in those posts.

I could see that as being a prod for me to explain the posts by way of a fuller rationale that mentioned his name several times.

Having spent 2 days pensively mulling over the merits of each choice, rationally & calmly, in an environment of solemnity and silence, the Group Of Champions had come to a decision.

"But what about Ezekiel?" Golden asked, and Elohcin, Dom and Dr Wilgy nodded in agreement. They stood in a little cluster with a few other Ezekiel followers.

A smaller, but equally vocal group, declared Finn McMissile to be their choice. "nubs " said Tranq when he saw that Finn was not going to be the winner.

Duncan Idaho & Xander Crews got a few stragglers. Xander had gotten more votes, actually, than the number of Xtacles he had ever found

Watari, they declared, was the winner. From DharmaHelper to sig and Sorsha, and all the way to Spacedaisy, they had all thought it most likely that Watari had made the final cut.

Sadly they were wrong, and no roles were revealed. It's too bad Watari did not make the final cut; he was a pretty awesome guy.



Nub Champions

It is now Day One~! You have 48 hours to choose one of your number to lynch!

Fast shooter, there, Goldey.

Are votes changeable?

Poll not meaningless. At least this is confirmed should there be any more. Given Epi voted Ezekiel, I'd put my money on that being the correct answer of that particular set.

Voted Rico.

Yes, votes are changeable. I doubt mine will change, though.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Yes I did. I am also familiar with American Gods so I pretty well knew straight away just saying. I just don't know what you're getting at saying that Rico asked you why you weren't referring to him by name. I missed that. You say that it isn't what you mentioned per se, then what is it? You're going to have clarify your point.

He objected to me making, apparently, three different posts where I clarified your posts. I said the point was to draw attention to the fact that Rico's interpretations of them weren't reasonable. He wondered how I could do that without specifically referencing him in those posts.

I could see that as being a prod for me to explain the posts by way of a fuller rationale that mentioned his name several times.

I see. Thank you for explaining.

Cool.

Cool cool cool.

Lol@Rico self voting.

Night 0 - waah so many pages

Day 1 - nobody is posting

Golden wrote:Poll not meaningless. At least this is confirmed should there be any more. Given Epi voted Ezekiel, I'd put my money on that being the correct answer of that particular set.

Voted Rico.

Yes, votes are changeable. I doubt mine will change, though.

Ohh, can't anybody see
We've got a war to fight
From this moment
How can it feel, this wrong

I'm with Ricochet this silence is deafening.

Good thinking there, Jay.

Llama

MacDougall wrote:I'm with Ricochet this silence is deafening.

Maybe most are still catching up.

Who are you voting for?

Night 0 produced a great deal of things to sort through, but I'm not sure exactly how much of that pool is viable information. Off the cuff, my immediate remarks are:

1. RE: Fuzz, I'm going to have to go back and look at who exactly it was that started to look in his direction, but the Fuzz suspicion seemed opportunistic to me and I am surprised it was considered as seriously as I remember it being.

2. RE: Rico/Mac/Zebra: In that whole exchange, the civviest looking one of the three IMO is Mac. The one that looks least civvie is Rico. Rico's comments to Epi alluded that there was a gimmick in play, and I don't see "gimmick" and "civ" being in the same wheelhouse. Particularly given the apparent nature of this "gimmick"

3. Llama's comments regarding Rico and Mac are noteworthy. An eye his way as well.

4. I'm willing to treat the LoRab Role debate as semantics.

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I'm with Ricochet this silence is deafening.

Maybe most are still catching up.

Who are you voting for?

I haven't decided yet.

Yes, DH, my comments to Epig in which I told him there is NO gimmick allude to there BEING a gimmick. You're a genius.

MacDougall wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I'm with Ricochet this silence is deafening.

Maybe most are still catching up.

Who are you voting for?

I haven't decided yet.

Who are leaning towards voting?

*Busts out thesaurus*

*Looks up gimmick*

*Not a synonym for post count or mention count*

In case anyone in particular is curious, eliminating two gimmicks does not mean eliminating every gimmick. Also, I said in my post that there was an allusion to a gimmick being at play. The phrasing of the reply "Post count or mention count have nothing to do with it", to me, indicates that there is something gimmicky behind the behavior, but post/mention count are not it.

Does that make sense?

Good.

There is no gimmick.

Dammit, the title needs changin' to D1, I'm not that OCD to edit each reply individually.

Ricochet wrote:There is no gimmick.

So you're intentionally playing like a moron.

Now why did you go an' vote me? You only said I look least civvie, not that I'm bad.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Ricochet

Feels good to be back. Metalmarsh89

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Feels good to be back. Metalmarsh89

Self-voting is frowned upon.

Metalmarsh89

Ricochet wrote:Now why did you go an' vote me? You only said I look least civvie, not that I'm bad.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Ricochet

Your behavior tells me that one of two things is true:

Either you don't care enough to further the civvie cause or you have reason to deter the civvie cause. In either case, a vote for you at this stage is my best option.

MM obvi.

See? He even thinks so!

DharmaHelper wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Now why did you go an' vote me? You only said I look least civvie, not that I'm bad.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Ricochet

Your behavior tells me that one of two things is true:

Either you don't care enough to further the civvie cause or you have reason to deter the civvie cause. In either case, a vote for you at this stage is my best option.

I gave you baddie names and you went looking at the one I green'd. Who's going the wrong way here?

linki: JJJ appears cursed, but I like it. Any idea which role in the past was about cursing players to emoji?

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh there are already three pages. Which is great from an info perspective, bad from a I'm-drinking-Manhattans-and-wasn't-ready-for-this perspective.

But I like this poll. Lots of different interpretations: what roles people liked, which ones they actually think are in the game. Another theory: could this poll actually be determining the role of one player? It could be like a play-in game in the NCAA tournament, as it were. I don't know how closely the roles have been imported, but if they are faithful, that'd seem to hint against Watari, because there were so many role interactions going on in Death Note.

Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.

Question: Does anyone think this is too defensive? Follow up question: Does anyone remember any other contribution Tranq made to Night 0? Anything at all?

I am voting Rico. He has said a few things that have pinged me and if you want to read which they are you can click my in-topic as I have already mentioned them. I wish not to add anything else is there are already a monstrous amount of posts in this game. I swear, my new years resolution is to play only speed and small games after this one.

Elohcin wrote:I am voting Rico. He has said a few things that have pinged me and if you want to read which they are you can click my in-topic as I have already mentioned them. I wish not to add anything else is there are already a monstrous amount of posts in this game. I swear, my new years resolution is to play only speed and small games after this one.

I sorry.

Ricochet

Circling back to Fuzzy, DFaraday called his behaviour "weird" and "unusual". Kind of half-baked if you ask me.

I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

Three posts ago you had 5555 posts, DH.

Sweet.

Linki - MM is bad. Remember, Lorab, when I invited you to vote for MM or Turnip in M:AWR and you weren't sold quite then either? Same thing here. Do it. DO IT!!!

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

DharmaHelper wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh there are already three pages. Which is great from an info perspective, bad from a I'm-drinking-Manhattans-and-wasn't-ready-for-this perspective.

But I like this poll. Lots of different interpretations: what roles people liked, which ones they actually think are in the game. Another theory: could this poll actually be determining the role of one player? It could be like a play-in game in the NCAA tournament, as it were. I don't know how closely the roles have been imported, but if they are faithful, that'd seem to hint against Watari, because there were so many role interactions going on in Death Note.

Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.

Question: Does anyone think this is too defensive? Follow up question: Does anyone remember any other contribution Tranq made to Night 0? Anything at all?

I agree with you. Boomslang is bad.

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

Matt wrote:Three posts ago you had 5555 posts, DH.

Sweet.

Linki - MM is bad. Remember, Lorab, when I invited you to vote for MM or Turnip in M:AWR and you weren't sold quite then either? Same thing here. Do it. DO IT!!!

Baller

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

Fiend, you are using Lorab's own smiley against her!