The Syndicate

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Bass 2 wrote:These are some strange times we live in, aren't they?

Lacey 2 I like your forethought.

MM2, in a world where Golden 2 gets lynched today (and flips civ tracker TGG because he's either a seemer or real TGG) what would you want to do tomorrow?

Also voting for Golden 2. This hanging will not sadden me.

You never answered this question MM2.

I didn't. you're right.

TBH.. No clue. Still no clue what I want to do. I'm at a loss

Are you still here and able to respond for a few minutes if I ask you some rapid fire, answer using instinct questions?

ok

Cobalt 2, civilian or bad?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Bass 2 wrote:These are some strange times we live in, aren't they?

Lacey 2 I like your forethought.

MM2, in a world where Golden 2 gets lynched today (and flips civ tracker TGG because he's either a seemer or real TGG) what would you want to do tomorrow?

Also voting for Golden 2. This hanging will not sadden me.

You never answered this question MM2.

I didn't. you're right.

TBH.. No clue. Still no clue what I want to do. I'm at a loss

Are you still here and able to respond for a few minutes if I ask you some rapid fire, answer using instinct questions?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Bass 2 wrote:These are some strange times we live in, aren't they?

Lacey 2 I like your forethought.

MM2, in a world where Golden 2 gets lynched today (and flips civ tracker TGG because he's either a seemer or real TGG) what would you want to do tomorrow?

Also voting for Golden 2. This hanging will not sadden me.

You never answered this question MM2.

Llama 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:That's kinda a relief.

Still means there are at least 2 baddies out there, and possibly more.

Can you explain your reasoning here?




I'm open to a Cookie, Rey, or Dom vote.

You might have trouble voting for Rey.

Dom 2 wrote:That's kinda a relief.

Still means there are at least 2 baddies out there, and possibly more.

Llama 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:I dont' want to play with people who are flat out rude. Bye.

I don't think you are who you are trying to be either.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Oh right; you know, you can give me all the trouble you want for voting boo 2, but given how things have shaken out, I am 100% satisfied with my vote and the part I played in getting him lynched.

I truly found him unpleasant, and I had zero desire to continue playing with him in this game or ever again.

The result of his lynch also tipped the scales, helping push us firmly in the direction of lynching Golden 2. We may have gotten there without lynching him, but I think the we probably would have lost the game if that lynch had gone to Cookie 2 instead, regardless of her alignment.

Also, to your questioning my alignment, and subsequent reading and eyeing me, I say:

Eye me all you want,

Golden 2 wrote:

Roxy wrote:Trivia Time!
Who am I?

I joined The Syndicate Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:29:59 pm.
I have Hosted many games.
I am a well known member of the A.S.S.
My mustache is the envy of every man on the forum.

boo 2 wrote:For the record, I hate being censored. I am in the process of making amends with a certain somebody, but only because the line was actually closer to my foot rather than farther. I am not apologizing because anybody wants me to, or is attempting to make me to, but because I want to, and when you fuck up with a friend you gotta eat your words and smooth that shit over.

That said, I am about done with this game because I will not play with a fucking muzzle on my face and a potential ban sentence dangling over my head. The only thing stopping me from replying to certain people in the true way that I normally speak, is my respect for certain other people who I happen to enjoy the company of. Even then, only barely does it hinder me.

I will come in here and place votes so as to not make the hosts resort to mod killing me out of respect for having created and hosting the game.

Certain other changes will happen, but that is tied to my real account. Not this one.

Friendly life tip: Lighten up. Enjoy life more. None of us really has that long to do so.

That will be my final post in this thread.

Golden 2 wrote:Busy RL once again, but I'll try to catch up in the next hour or so.

For now, I cannot say I get the jump on "Dom", except for "Cookie" having a problem with his ISO on her. I'd have to go back and study his posts, but the ISOs, overall, didn't give me the impression that they're superficial. I also have in mind who he might be and can't say his reads give me the wrong vibe. Au contraire.

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of Dom.

But you said, merely three posts earlier in the thread, that you'd need reasons to be inclined to lynch "Dom". Where has that motivation vanished?

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:Playing the victim when I don't lay down and let you lie about me? Really?

You ignored my question. You just say, "Wait why are you mad?"
I'm pretty mad that you keep ignoring my point. And you NOW say you don't agree with it. NOW. AFter you've been called out by someone else. Convenient.

I literally stated that I don't agree with your point in the exact post you screamed at. You interpreted it as something entirely apart from what I was saying. Maybe I was unclear, but if you just read the post again with a fair mindset then I don't think you'll struggle to see that I'm being honest here. It's all there.

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:SVS 2, since apparenlty, I haven't made it clear ENOUGH that I DO NOT think Syn is on LC2's team and that I am suspicious of him because he wanted instant exoneration from all suspicion because he lynched a baddie, here's some condensed reading for you.
TBH I'm pretty sick of the way people have treated me this game. It's not even a personal thing, it's just annoying and I have never been ignored like this. I have never been treated like this-- but socks bring out the worst, I guess.

So, please, read these posts and tell me where I "don't even acknowledge his place in LC's lynch". Get your facts straight because you're looking MIGHTY bad to me right about now.

Somewhere along the way as you screamed at me for "not reading your posts", you failed to read my post. Or you sorely misconstrued it.

Everything I said was entirely about the potential for Syn to be on a different baddie team from LC2 and my feelings on that point. I know you haven't stated they're on the same team. I never attributed that statement to you. Please calm down and read my post again with this in mind, and next time if you see fit to scream at me please just don't. I don't deserve that, I'm just playing the game.

What I am saying is that you're not changing your perspective of Syn at all in spite of his favorable position in the LC2 lynch, and I view that with suspicion. You're finding other reasons to cast suspicion on him, primarily a second baddie team which currently has not been confirmed to exist.

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of Dom.

Why not?

Reywas 2 wrote: Kindly get your facts straight at well. I'll take a page out of your playbook and tell you to READ MY POSTS before simply assuming that I don't care about your input. Your righteous indignation at me is misplaced. I think your input is misguided because looking for a baddie outside of LC2's suspected teammates = less of a chance of lynching a baddie.

Bass 2 wrote:Are you as game as I am for a Reywas 2 lynch MM2? Also, game aside, I'm sorry you're getting upset, I'll try to more actively engage with you.

Reywas 2, you're right that I was manipulative. I wanted to get Metalmarsh 2 back into the thread because it seemed he was being intentionally ignored. Manipulation is an underrated civilian tool, loaded questions can get you some surprisingly useful answers from people you don't even ask.

I couldn't help but notice that Cobalt 2 was the only one to vote so far, 20 hours before phase end. That's much different than the previous days, and I assume it's because people are afraid of throwing the first stone in the wrong place, so to speak, where as until today there were very obvious wagons that people could flock to. I'll take that burden off your hands for you, aren't I such a nice guy?

Cobalt 2 wrote:Please vote for Dom.

Zealous people will say he's good.
He's not.

All because chiefly Dom endures focusing getting a hell of a lot of posts of people with icy dispositions just keenly makes me pissed off. Quite right, you might say. To use big posts to make you look good is vocal bullshit.

What I'm saying is this: Exercise caution and vote Dom. You should vote Dom. Zealots of town should vote Dom.

Reywas 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Bass 2 wrote:Metalmarsh 2 analysis:

Spoiler: show

He begins the game on Day 0 by listing people he won't be voting for. His criteria was seemingly that he didn't want to vote for people who hadn't appeared yet. However, the below quote convinces him to not vote Cookie 2, but instead vote either Long Con 2 or Synonym 2.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

The next player he won't vote for is Dom, for this reason.

Long Con 2 wrote:I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions

Dom 2 wrote:I don't believe it is a common strategy at all

He then clarifies that he won't vote for the real Dom because he believes the real Dom was involved in the lynch stop. Next he disputes boo 2's illogical assertion that because there are 25 players someone MUST be playing as their own sock.

He then appears to have been "Timmer cursed", turning this post into borderline nonsense:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:timmer, this is ridiculous tbqh.
timmer hasn't given a single reason to suspect timmer other than that timmer has been acting like timmer in order to try and last longer in a gme that timmer has, lately, been NK'd in a lot for very little reason.

The next day he asks people why they suspect Long Con 2, and in a response to why people don't suspect him, he says that there is virtually no reason to suspect him, and all suspicion thrown his way has been unsubstantiated.

He is asked by Golden 2 about what his contributions for the day are. Votes, suspicions, plans, anything. Metalmarsh 2 states that he's been ignored, saying that he's asked questions and participated, but people have been rude. Later that day, when Synonym 2 was excited about Long Con 2 flipping scum, Metalmarsh 2 is one of the first to bring up the possibility of two baddie teams. Literally 14 hours later nobody had responded to that statement and he quotes himself asking if anybody wanted to contribute to his post. After this, SVS 2 responds by saying that it's the same question as "How does Synonym know if there are five baddies" and Metalmarsh 2 disputes the equality of the two statements. This goes on, and ends with Metalmarsh 2 lamenting his fate of being ignored and then treated suspiciously.

Metalmarsh 2 asks Epignosis 2 how in response to his statement about being curious towards MM2's posts.

Reywas 2 asks people why they're voting Synonym 2, and Metalmarsh 2 responds saying Syn 2's immediate declaration of innocence after Long Con 2 flipped scum is premature at best, as we don't know if there are multiple baddie teams, independent roles, recruiter roles, etc. Reywas 2 misconstrues this and begins preaching that Synonym 2 is most likely not on Long Con 2's team, which is something Metalmarsh 2 has stated repeatedly.

Metalmarsh 2 appears to be genuinely frustrated at everyone ignoring him. For this reason I don't believe he's on a scum team, or at least a scum team with teammates, as literally a fourth of the game ignored him. While it is common for baddies to not interact with each other very much in thread, he has been asking questions that have been flat-out ignored, and his consistently ignored status appears uncoordinated. While I don't know if he's necessarily civilian, I'm pretty confident that he's not scum.

Metalmarsh 2, do you think Reywas 2 was intentionally redirecting your question to avoid discussing the possibility of multiple baddie teams and/or independent roles, or do you think he misinterpreted your statement?

I find it unlikely that if Black Rock 2 believed that there was only one civilian Tracker, and if she was that singular civilian Tracker, she would wait days before contesting Golden 2 in any way aside from planting a seed. After seeing the flip and knowing that juliets was behind the sock, do those actions add up more than they seem to without that knowledge? I'm unfamiliar with the player and I'm trying not to discount playstyle differences.

I appreciate your interest in me. You might be the first person all game to actually care about my thoughts and not just be condescending and rude to me because I chose to role-play more to see if I'd live longer (I did).

I definitely have an eye on Rey. I might vote for him, but I also find Syn and Cookie a tad suspicious as well. I am very unclear of anything having to do with this seemer business. I don't know TGG well enough to really have an opinion.

Reywas 2 wrote: What do YOU think, and why are you asking Metalmarsh 2 about it? Trying to act interested in his thoughts?

PING.

lol you're playing right into Bass 2's hand. And I know that's not gonna win me any brownie points with you but I'm saying it cuz it's the truth.

My problem with Bass 2's post is that he asked a leading question of Metalmarsh 2 expecting a certain answer. He's placating MM2 by asking his opinion when MM2 has felt slighted/ignored and he asks it in a way that he hopes will lead to MM2 suspecting me. Bass acknowledges that MM2 is feeling ignored and in the same post asks MM2 a question about me hoping to simultaneously drum up suspicion of me and get on MM2's good side. That's baddie manipulation straight up.

There was no misconstruing happening in my post intentional or otherwise. I realize MM2 doesn't think Syn 2 is on LC2's baddie team, and my point stands that finding baddies on that team is our best lead right now. If evidence pops up that there's a second baddie team we can start looking that way but it's unproductive at this moment and I don't care if you think I'm bad for saying that.

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:I guess that's fair but I think it's highly unlikely he's on LC2's team and I think we're better off pursuing other leads. My two cents: I think Syn 2 is just indignant re: interactions with LC2 and the thread at large, and felt genuinely vindicated by the LC2 flip.

I don't think he's on LC2's team....

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:Can people explain why they want to vote synonym 2? Apparently I'm missing something.

I think he has been quick to say "There's no way I can be bad NOW!" for almost no reason. We have no idea if there's independents, multiple baddie teams, recruitments, etc.... why should we trust him based on one flip of LC?

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"

Yes, it is.

Synonym quietly exonerating themself from any further suspicion by subtly putting this forward is very different than a slip that I thought might have merit on Day 1.


Start actually reading my posts, please.

How was Synonym "quietly exonerating himself"? He shouted at everyone in caps lock. I think you have to fish in this Syn post to arrive at the point you made, and I felt the same way about LC2's accusation of Syn on day 1. Hence the comparison.

What do you mean by the last sentence? What suggests to you that I'm not reading your posts?

No you don't have to *fish* to come to the conclusion that in a game where we do not know any role breakdowns, Synonym used his right standing on ONE issue to exonerate him for the rest of the game. That is suspicious to me. We don't know if there's independents, neutrals, recruiters, a second baddie team... we just don't know. Being right about one baddie does not exclude you from those other groups. In some cases, it wouldn't even exclude you from being in the group you were right about! But hey-- dismiss me, everyone. Just like you have all fucking game.

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"

Yes, it is.

Synonym quietly exonerating themself from any further suspicion by subtly putting this forward is very different than a slip that I thought might have merit on Day 1.


Start actually reading my posts, please.

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

Don't know but if there is one I'm not on it.

Bass 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:@Bass 2, that wasn't what I had in mind when I asked, no. But sure.

I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?

BITCH WHET?

how do you know ther's only one team?

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

Bass 2 wrote:Metalmarsh 2 analysis:

Spoiler: show

He begins the game on Day 0 by listing people he won't be voting for. His criteria was seemingly that he didn't want to vote for people who hadn't appeared yet. However, the below quote convinces him to not vote Cookie 2, but instead vote either Long Con 2 or Synonym 2.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

The next player he won't vote for is Dom, for this reason.

Long Con 2 wrote:I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions

Dom 2 wrote:I don't believe it is a common strategy at all

He then clarifies that he won't vote for the real Dom because he believes the real Dom was involved in the lynch stop. Next he disputes boo 2's illogical assertion that because there are 25 players someone MUST be playing as their own sock.

He then appears to have been "Timmer cursed", turning this post into borderline nonsense:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:timmer, this is ridiculous tbqh.
timmer hasn't given a single reason to suspect timmer other than that timmer has been acting like timmer in order to try and last longer in a gme that timmer has, lately, been NK'd in a lot for very little reason.

The next day he asks people why they suspect Long Con 2, and in a response to why people don't suspect him, he says that there is virtually no reason to suspect him, and all suspicion thrown his way has been unsubstantiated.

He is asked by Golden 2 about what his contributions for the day are. Votes, suspicions, plans, anything. Metalmarsh 2 states that he's been ignored, saying that he's asked questions and participated, but people have been rude. Later that day, when Synonym 2 was excited about Long Con 2 flipping scum, Metalmarsh 2 is one of the first to bring up the possibility of two baddie teams. Literally 14 hours later nobody had responded to that statement and he quotes himself asking if anybody wanted to contribute to his post. After this, SVS 2 responds by saying that it's the same question as "How does Synonym know if there are five baddies" and Metalmarsh 2 disputes the equality of the two statements. This goes on, and ends with Metalmarsh 2 lamenting his fate of being ignored and then treated suspiciously.

Metalmarsh 2 asks Epignosis 2 how in response to his statement about being curious towards MM2's posts.

Reywas 2 asks people why they're voting Synonym 2, and Metalmarsh 2 responds saying Syn 2's immediate declaration of innocence after Long Con 2 flipped scum is premature at best, as we don't know if there are multiple baddie teams, independent roles, recruiter roles, etc. Reywas 2 misconstrues this and begins preaching that Synonym 2 is most likely not on Long Con 2's team, which is something Metalmarsh 2 has stated repeatedly.

Metalmarsh 2 appears to be genuinely frustrated at everyone ignoring him. For this reason I don't believe he's on a scum team, or at least a scum team with teammates, as literally a fourth of the game ignored him. While it is common for baddies to not interact with each other very much in thread, he has been asking questions that have been flat-out ignored, and his consistently ignored status appears uncoordinated. While I don't know if he's necessarily civilian, I'm pretty confident that he's not scum.

Metalmarsh 2, do you think Reywas 2 was intentionally redirecting your question to avoid discussing the possibility of multiple baddie teams and/or independent roles, or do you think he misinterpreted your statement?

I find it unlikely that if Black Rock 2 believed that there was only one civilian Tracker, and if she was that singular civilian Tracker, she would wait days before contesting Golden 2 in any way aside from planting a seed. After seeing the flip and knowing that juliets was behind the sock, do those actions add up more than they seem to without that knowledge? I'm unfamiliar with the player and I'm trying not to discount playstyle differences.

Reywas 2 wrote: What do YOU think, and why are you asking Metalmarsh 2 about it? Trying to act interested in his thoughts?

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:Can people explain why they want to vote synonym 2? Apparently I'm missing something.

I think he has been quick to say "There's no way I can be bad NOW!" for almost no reason. We have no idea if there's independents, multiple baddie teams, recruitments, etc.... why should we trust him based on one flip of LC?

I don't like that you're not even acknowledging his part in the LC2 lynch, especially while nearly being lynched himself. You're right that it doesn't mean he is automatically civ, but when we don't know anything about the setup it should at least help his case a little bit because of the very reason you keep preaching. We have no idea if there's multiple baddie teams, there might not be. If we encounter a reason to think there are then that'll hurt his standing some, but we haven't yet.

Synonym 2 wrote:I think if there was some miscommunication between the hosts and the players about how the seemer role would work in this game it needs to be addressed, pronto. Because the way I posted it is the most logical way I think it would appear in a game like this.

Reywas 2 wrote:I guess that's fair but I think it's highly unlikely he's on LC2's team and I think we're better off pursuing other leads. My two cents: I think Syn 2 is just indignant re: interactions with LC2 and the thread at large, and felt genuinely vindicated by the LC2 flip.

Reywas 2 wrote:Can people explain why they want to vote synonym 2? Apparently I'm missing something.

Ricochet 2 wrote:I've just read through the posts of the people I suspect the most, here are my thoughts:

Boo - often feels like he is jumping to conclusions on mechanics to suit a particular perspective, but the thing that stands out most for me is how much emphasis he placed on golden not being NKed night 3 when he was night 2 and it would be double targetting. Immediately this seemed to me like a slip - genuine baddie hunting while part of a second baddie team who knew they had the kill the night before and double targetting wouldn't apply. Boo, do you have any response to this?

MM - had begun to contribute, has talked only really about LC and synonym so far in the game. I still think MM has done quite a bit of hiding behind the sock and hasn't really come to the party with much more yet. Llama also pointed out a case of soft defending LC. MM, who else have you got opinions about?

Epignosis 2 wrote:Why Timmer?

I find Elohcin 2 suspicious and could vote for them day 1, however, i'm also curios about MetalMarsh 2 posts about Synonym.

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"

Yes, it is.

Synonym quietly exonerating themself from any further suspicion by subtly putting this forward is very different than a slip that I thought might have merit on Day 1.


Start actually reading my posts, please.

How was Synonym "quietly exonerating himself"? He shouted at everyone in caps lock. I think you have to fish in this Syn post to arrive at the point you made, and I felt the same way about LC2's accusation of Syn on day 1. Hence the comparison.

What do you mean by the last sentence? What suggests to you that I'm not reading your posts?

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"

Synonym 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

Don't know but if there is one I'm not on it.

Bass 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:@Bass 2, that wasn't what I had in mind when I asked, no. But sure.

I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?

BITCH WHET?

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

SVS 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:in fact, i asked why people find long con suspicious because i am confused abotu that and no one, i think, answered me.

I think he was too eager to sell a questionable point on day 1 about Synonym naming five baddies, and later he said he's seen baddies pull that move before. He couldn't give me any examples though when I asked and just sound disingenuous explaining himself, it sounds like bull to me. Now he's survived a lynch that went to a civ instead and has only given really vague reasons for it that don't look honest at all to me.

Why do you find him not suspicious?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:why are people being rude

i have, in the past, discussed these things. i have asked questions. i have participated. people have been really rude to me and i'm just not really willing to bend to your will.

in fact, i asked why people find long con suspicious because i am confused abotu that and no one, i think, answered me.

You are correct. I apologize for my vote yesterday. You are spot on that I didn't really "quantify the suspicion" as anything other than hiding behind the sock.

I don't have an answer to your question about Long Con, because I don't have a suspicion of him.

I've decided to move on from all this bickering and rudeness though. We have a mafia game to play, and some of us (myself included) are going about this all the wrong ways.

Golden 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:why are people being rude

Llama 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:why do people suspect long con

why don't people suspect you?

Cookie 2 wrote:Just an fyi, my Uncle just got a very bad diagnosis and is going into hospice this week. Until the hospice placement is set, my family will be tag teaming the hospital to sit with him as musch as possible since the hospital upsets him. So I will be kinda scarce. i will be around, but some of the time I would have spent here will instead be spent with my Uncle. Like today was, for instance. Thanks for understanding.

And is Metalmarsh actially cursed? I thought he was chanelling a curse he had in a different game, the Timmer curse.

Dom 2 wrote:I voted MM. That guy really has got to go.

boo 2 wrote:By the way, have we addressed the fact that this game has an ODD number of players? We assume that everybody is switched, but think about this like a paired assignment in school.

There are 25 students in the classroom, much like this game has 25 players. Mrs. Roxy and Mrs. Fingersplints tell us to get a partner for a class assingment. We do so. But there is a problem. The odd one out. The outlier. In order for everybody to be able to play as somebody else, there needs to be an even number of players. But we have that one extra person. I feel I can say with almost 100% certainty that one of those among us, is in fact playing as themself.

Dom 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:Question for our lovely hosts

Is there a rule against infodumping in effect in this game?

i might vote svs next time




also i think dom had something to do with the lynch stop

I think Dom happens to be the only player who reads our lovely hosts' posts.

nah i read the post. thanks 4 being condescending tho
is synonym a host now?

Synonym is not a host.

Do you believe that Synonym had something to do with this "lynch stop" or not?

Dom 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:Question for our lovely hosts

Is there a rule against infodumping in effect in this game?

i might vote svs next time




also i think dom had something to do with the lynch stop

I think Dom happens to be the only player who reads our lovely hosts' posts.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:also i think dom had something to do with the lynch stop

Turnip Head 2 wrote:Synonym is more than likely civilian at this point.

I feel like the lipstick/Syn confrontation was civ/civ. I don't see mafia causing a fight that could potentially end in a mod-kill.

SVS 2 wrote:Question for our lovely hosts

Is there a rule against infodumping in effect in this game?

Synonym 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:[insert game solving supertown post here]

Mafia is Golden, Long Con, Metalmarsh, Cobalt, and Rico.

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

Also, what does the skin of my sock account have to do with anything? I asked a question because the forum looked drastically different and much more boring when I originally logged into this account. You say it doesn't bother you "as much" as me listing five names, but why does that even bother you at all?

You are right. The skin thing doesn't bother me at all actually. In fact, I assume that the person who last used your sock account had just left it that way. Naming five names right out of the bat like that does bother me a bit. Specifically naming five names could mean that you know there are five mafia members. That is all I meant to imply with my post. That said, can you tell us why you chose to name the five players that you did? And can you tell us why you stopped at five?

Long Con 2 wrote:To clarify, when I say "stopped at five", I mean, you could have named more, you could have named fewer. Why five? Also, I don't mean for this to sound like an interrogation, just conversation.

I won't go into detail but one of my own (not Synonym's) best townplays nailed down five baddies in one post. Five is a common number for scum where I'm used to playing. So that's what I defaulted to.

Actually, the fact that you've focused in so hard on whether or not I know five is the actual number of scum makes ME think that YOU know that five is the actual number of scum and that's why you're trying to use it against me.

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:

Sig 2 wrote:I looked back, and Syn 2 listed five names, he never said "are the five baddies" or anything that would be a true ping. I will be eyeing people who push that as a slip.

Why, because listing 5 while saying "Mafia is" is not the same? Sig, are you trying to scare people into not looking into something that may end up as revealing?

No civ should have any reason to defend Syn for saying something like that.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:[insert game solving supertown post here]

Mafia is Golden, Long Con, Metalmarsh, Cobalt, and Rico.

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

Also, what does the skin of my sock account have to do with anything? I asked a question because the forum looked drastically different and much more boring when I originally logged into this account. You say it doesn't bother you "as much" as me listing five names, but why does that even bother you at all?

I am starting to think that it is possible that you are using your satire specifically so that you don't need to play as civ Synonym, because of how strong Synonym's civ game is. Synonym does a good job of hunting baddies, setting up your character as a satire of Synonym so that you don't need to baddie hunt, would really serve a baddie well. On the chance that you are trying to play as mafia Synonym, you would need to care a lot less, and act apathetic.

That... actually makes a lot of sense. Just know that the post was only intended to be a joke at the time when others were making jokes about their socks - there was no actual strategic element to it like you claim there could be.

That's actually a really towny post though. I like you.

Dom 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

Linki: Welcome Dr Wilgy. Good to have you Sir.

I don't believe it is a common strategy at all.