The Syndicate

Young Lady

The Scotty2 reveal is extra nice, it affects my perspective of a couple people for their treatment of her last day.

I think Golden is more likely to be the seemer than boo.

Young Lady

Only chance to check in and vote. Out with friends. Voted Cookie, I think it's a preferable choice over boo.

Young Lady

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:
SVS 2 wrote:@ Lacey

I don't think you're all bad, but someone among the four could be. I thought boo's point was a good one though and I'd like to see how it's received by the other three who voted for him. I'm always wary of votes that appear easy to me, and policy lynches are the easiest it gets. You've stated your case and while I don't agree with your logic, I don't necessarily suspect you for it.

Someone among any group of four in a mafia game could be bad. My problem with your logic is that suspecting anyone who votes for him because they cast an easy vote, to the point you would be willing to vote for them, would just be you casting an easy vote of your own. The difference would be they would recognize the vote was easy, while you would become a hypocrite. Then who looks worse?

I've stated my reason for concern with this specific group of four. If I were to vote for one of you solely on the strength of the boo vote, then yes I agree that wouldn't be the strongest case. I haven't done that though. I presented my misgivings and prompted the four of you to expand on your votes. I've not voted for anyone yet and I have no intention of doing so tonight. If I were to vote for one of the four boo voters, it'd be because that vote pinged me, I didn't like their response to my following prompt (assuming those responses eventually come), and I explored their posts further to arrive upon a more substantial justification.

Young Lady

I might not be around much tomorrow night, I'm going to be with friends. I'll try to make an appearance though and won't miss the vote.

Young Lady

@ Lacey

I don't think you're all bad, but someone among the four could be. I thought boo's point was a good one though and I'd like to see how it's received by the other three who voted for him. I'm always wary of votes that appear easy to me, and policy lynches are the easiest it gets. You've stated your case and while I don't agree with your logic, I don't necessarily suspect you for it.

Young Lady

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:You're missing the point of 'policy lynching' someone then. It isn't about getting ahead in the game, it's about making this game, and future games, more enjoyable.

Boo 2 has expressed an intent not to change his behavior. If he isn't going to stop being an asshat in this game, I see no reason to expect him to not be an asshat in future games. And asshats aren't fun.

He has also outright stated that he does not intend to post, only vote. So fine, here's a case for why he is bad from an in game perspective.

You are calling 4 one time votes suspicious, because they are easy and do not help the civilians. How does keeping someone who has said they plan to do a drive-by vote in this and every remaining lynch in this game have any accountability for their votes? How can you possibly trust the intentions behind each vote? If the person is bad, how are you ever supposed to figure that out when they say nothing?

And you have to agree that makes him look bad, because it's your own logic for why we look bad. Only there's more to him looking bad, because we're actually posting and taking aaccountability for our
lynch votes, even if you do not agree with the reasons for them.

I think it is the job of the hosts and mod to take care of players who are making the game less fun for everyone because of their behavior. I don't know what Rox and splints might have planned, but I think a player who refuses to post in the game thread is as deserving of a modkill as anyone who doesn't vote or send in actions I should think. Participation requires all three.

Hostesses, do you have a policy in mind for players who refuse to post in the game thread long-term?

You're right that it'd be hard to hold him accountable for his votes and to get a read on him. I think that's why a modkill would be necessary, that is a valid description of why players should be obligated to make at least some relevant posts in the thread. Civs can't fairly be expected to get a read on players who don't play.

I don't think his behavior implies that he is bad in this game as much as it implies that he is frustrated, much like Synonym earlier in the game but worse. Basically I don't think I have ever supported a policy lynch in any game. I can understand wanting to move on from a negative atmosphere, but I'm also concerned with winning the game and this lynch is an important part of seeing to that objective. Boo is a completely unknown entity in part because of his own behavior, whereas there are probably more substantial discussions to be fielded about other players.

Young Lady

Dom 2 wrote:And Cookie, it appears that your entire suspicion of me is based on this one statement that you think is a lie. I understand why you think it is a lie, but I think we both know that such roles are pretty uncommon in games on this site, especially on the mafia side of the fence.

I don't think such a role would fit into this game.

I agree with you that it's uncommon, at least in my own experience generally playing mafia all over. I would ask though what brings you to the conclusion that such a role wouldn't fit in this game?

Young Lady

boo 2 wrote:Some of you would make good trolls. You do a great job of making me reply when I already told myself not to.

Cookie your reason for voting me is pretty damn terrible. Not because it could result in my death, of because I'm civ, but for the sheer numbers game of it. There are 15 players are alive right? Only one person died that we know for a fact was Mafia. And there are probably third parties at play. Given the starting numbers of players, I would guess that the game started with a solid 5 Mafia players. Add in that there are usually 1-3 third parties in every game and the possibility that about 4 Mafia are left, we maybe have somewhere around 8 civs left.

Those aren't the kind of numbers that would allow for you to be playing wannabe moderator trying to get me bumped off for no reason other than that you don't like me. Killing me is of no use to town. If you want to vote me, go ahead. But at least make a viable case for me before you do.

I think that apart from the snark, boo makes a sound point here. The people voting for him should answer to it, because we're far enough into this game that policy lynching someone can really serve no benefit to the civs unless he is bad, and it can definitely hurt the civs if he isn't. If someone can make that case that he's bad then great, do that. Otherwise all four of those votes look bad to me.

Young Lady

SVS 2 wrote:I've even stated in here that my shift at work has recently altered and it has effected when I've been around, but I have still been plenty active almost every day.

I must have caught Epi2's grammar sickness.

Young Lady

Llama 2 wrote:
Bass 2 wrote:Would anyone dispute my knack for making friends? Golden 2, you're probably the only person who has an inkling of who I actually am, what say you?
I know who you are! You are Bass2!

I am voting for SVS. I haven't heard from her in a while and I think I know why.

Something tells me mafia are having a field day letting this boo thing permeate the thread. I do not think boo is bad or should be voted for. But I have a strange inkling that SVS is having a great time not having to be involved.

This is my first time in the thread today.

I got home from work a couple hours ago and then took a nap. I've even stated in here that my shift at work has recently altered and it has effected when I've been around, but I have still been plenty active almost every day. You seem to me like you're just capitalizing on me being away from the game at this particular moment so you can render this accusation.

Now that I'm here I'll state my opinion on the boo lynch: I don't support it because it looks like a very easy place for people to deposit pressure-free votes. His conduct might be frustrating, but that's not relevant to which team he plays for.

Young Lady

Glad we took care of Elo2 relatively early. That role looks like it could have become a big issue later.

I think it's very likely that she recruited at least one person and maybe more, which would lend a lot of credence to the notion of another civ-threatening faction. I'll have to reconsider my reads of some players in light of that moving forward.

I'm voting for Cards Against Humanity even if it drove me nuts to lose after playing so hard.

Young Lady

It's been a fun game hostesses, thank you for letting it continue.

Young Lady

I'm feeling most comfortable with an Elo lynch, so I'm placing my vote on her.

Young Lady

Reywas 2 wrote:I think Blooper 2 is Bass and I think he'd be more involved if he had a team.

Yikes.

It was such a miserable day for the whole family when Roxy was forced to modkill her own child.

Young Lady

So many votes still on the table with so little time.

Young Lady

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:How certain would you be on a track result early in the game? It would be a point of suspicion, but not much more.

I just think it's a good starting point for figuring out how to handle Golden 2, without losing an active player, who may be telling the truth.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

I wouldn't be dead certain, but I'd have strong feelings and I'd try to convey them in the thread in a clear way. You're right that a baddie flip by Bloops would imply BR2 was the real tracker and that Golden is a seemer. A civ flip by Bloops though would be such a huge waste of a lynch. I'm considering voting Bloops, I'd just like to be more confident about lynching someone who is probably going to be modkilled anyway at this rate.

Elo is another possibility, I've suspected her for a while now and that hasn't changed with her absence.

Young Lady

Lacey, how confident are you that BR2 tracked Blooper and received evidence against her? The lingering doubt for me is in this post:

Black Rock 2 wrote:Well that was pretty easy. The only people Long Con mentioned in regards to suspicions was SVS 2 for tunneling, blooper 2 for her posting, and syn. Just for the sake of transparency I also called blooper 2's behavior as odd. We could say from this look back that SVS 2 and Blooper 2 are likely to be civs but we don't know if we have 1 or 2 mafia teams. I didn't see Long Con 2 defending or talking good about anyone. I hope someone else will take a look back on his posts and make sure i didn't miss anything. From what I saw I don't know that there are any take aways from what he posted (or she posted).

She seemed to still be considering Bloops from both sides of the coin at this point, after namedropping her ominously earlier in the game. Does she do this if she has hard evidence on Bloops, like tracking her into a night kill?

Young Lady

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:
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.
Lies.
"You don't acknowledge his [Synonym's] part in the LC lynch?"
That's a blatant lie.

Here's the post again.

SVS 2 wrote: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.

^^^ Me disputing your suspicion of Syn based on the multi-baddie team theory. I never said or implied that you believe Syn is on the same baddie team as LC2. I was disputing your argument, that he might be on a different baddie team, with my own perspective. For you to say that I never read or cared about your argument is clearly not true, because I addressed your point in this post. You don't have to agree with me, but you have to acknowledge that what I said was completely relevant to your true argument.

When I said you haven't acknowledged Syn's part in the LC2 lynch, I was saying that it hasn't made any impact on your read of LC2 (or at least not any impact that I've seen in your posts). Instead of acknowledging that it might be a positive reflection for him, you moved to a theory of multiple baddie teams instead to sustain your suspicion of him. That is what I found suspicious. Is there a reason I shouldn't find that suspicious?

Young Lady

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.

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:You don't deserve to be yelled at?
You know what I don't deserve?
Being told I'm not plyaing the game when I have more posts than several alive players. Being wholly ignored by most people playing. Literally quoting my own post to see if anyone cares that I wrote it.

I never told you that you're not playing the game. I haven't ignored you. If you see fit to take your frustration out on me, please utilize the mod on duty instead.

Young Lady

If one of the trackers is a seemer, I think Golden is more likely because of the way BR2 handled her lynch. There's potential for manipulation either way though, and it could be that neither of them is bad. I haven't suspected Golden for his content at least.

I'll be back later to place my vote, but I'll probably miss the end of the day again.

Young Lady

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

Why not?

Young Lady

Cookie, I went back to look at the post you were referring to and in this case I think I side with Dom. I don't know what everyone else is used to in their mafia games, but a baddie that can't be lynched until all of their team mates are dead sounds incredibly powerful (way overpowered). I'd believe you if you say you've seen the role before, but that'd make one of us.

Cobalt, could you point to Dom's content in his big posts that you find weak? I don't know what you're referring to.

Young Lady

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.

We seem to be in each other's heads in this discussion, Rey.

Young Lady

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.

Young Lady

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:
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.
I don't like that people who do not suspect him are so quick to forget that he did not know the civilian win condition, and that his explanations for how he actually did were very, very bad. Just saying.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

I'm not convinced he didn't know the civ win con. Besides, I'm not sure how he's supposed to blurt out info from his role without breaking the rules. What has you so convinced to the contrary? Sorry I'm sure you've covered this already, but I haven't engaged you on it personally.

Young Lady

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.

Young Lady

Synonym 2 wrote:Lynch me. I pushed for my own lynch when I was frustrated. If this will clear the air and make the game more easy to work through for town, then lynch me and get me out of the way. But I will NEVER let you hear the end of it when I flip town because I've told the truth the whole god damn game.

But if you're going to do it: DO IT NOW. I will NOT put up with me being the target of unfounded, biased suspicion for another four fucking days if you aren't gonna follow through. Put your money where your mouth is or back the fuck up off me. Kay? Kay.

TBH Syn I am inclined to believe you and I won't vote you. I think you will get lynched though if you keep asking for it, and if I'm right that will not help the civ cause. If you feel nobody is listening to you, then maybe you'd be better served ignoring your accusers and just baddie hunting.

Young Lady

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Well, first thing I notice is the exchange between BR2 and Blooper 2 started on N2, with Blooper 2 asking BR2 when she thought she would be caught up. BR2 said later she found the question odd, so that may have been enough for BR2 to have tracked Blooper 2 that night.

She also specified it was not her ISOs that she wanted us to look at, which I think means if she did track Elohcin 2 or Cookie 2, she did not find that they targeted anyone who was NKed.

So of the three, if she wanted one of them lynched, I think it must be Blooper 2.

That's true, I had forgotten about that earlier exhange between BR2 and Bloops. I think BR2 was still pretty new to the game at that point too, so that may have been all she needed to decide on a target (instead of basing it on the whole thread that she was still trying to process). It's hard to tell with the timing of the reywaS/juliets switch.

Young Lady

Like I said, I'm looking over BR2's posts in relation to the civvie tracker and seemer situation.

Both BR2 posts here suggest to me that she was wary of Golden 2 because of his civvie tracker reveal, but did not outright distrust him for it. She was acknowledging that he isn't confirmed as civ and it's easy to see why now, but she wasn't condemning him. If her attitude changed on this then that would be very telling, because I think it's pretty likely she would have tracked Golden 2 some time after his reveal.

Black Rock 2 wrote:
Synonym 2 wrote:
Black Rock 2 wrote:Welcome back and congrats on your rezz Golden 2, assuming of course that you are good. I'll be gone to see about the horses part of the day tomorrow but will be back in plenty of time for discussion.
What do you mean "assuming of course that you are good" he is writeup mod-confirmed as town are you serious

BR2 slipping into my scum reads.
What do you mean he is write-up mod-confirmed as town? You mean because his role was revealed as town? Wasn't there conversation earlier in the game about there being a possible seemer in this game because it was in the host survey? Personally, I will have some doubt about any death that is a civ death because of that risk. Something I learned from past mafia playing.

One thing I notice is a couple mentions of Blooper 2 when nobody else was talking about Bloops really. This quote is snipped from a bigger post about LC2 and Syn as well. The way BR2 just kind of dropped this Bloops mention in there might be indicative of some kind of inside information, but it's hard to say.

Black Rock 2 wrote:Those are my thoughts as they stand right now. There are some other interesting people like Blooper 2 but I'd like to see some more behavior.

She did vote for her fake hubbie tho. If she knew something about Bloops then she didn't press the issue very much.

Black Rock 2 wrote:I have decided to vote for LC 2. I'm uncomfortable with his insinuation that other lynches can be avoided, even if he only affected one of the two lynches he was involved in prior to this point. Will this lynch be avoided too? I don't know but it's worth it to me to find out. With that said, I'm sorry sweetheart that I have to vote this way but you know as well as I that you would vote for me if the situation were reversed.

Actually this post might not work with that little theory about Bloops. BR2 was still exploring the civ possibility even if she wasn't sure.

Black Rock 2 wrote:Well that was pretty easy. The only people Long Con mentioned in regards to suspicions was SVS 2 for tunneling, blooper 2 for her posting, and syn. Just for the sake of transparency I also called blooper 2's behavior as odd. We could say from this look back that SVS 2 and Blooper 2 are likely to be civs but we don't know if we have 1 or 2 mafia teams. I didn't see Long Con 2 defending or talking good about anyone. I hope someone else will take a look back on his posts and make sure i didn't miss anything. From what I saw I don't know that there are any take aways from what he posted (or she posted).

Spoiler because it's a big post. BR2 came out with this thorough review of Elo. It reads very objectively to me, so I think BR2 was really suspicious of Elo but probably not with inside info.

Spoiler: show

Black Rock 2 wrote:Elochin:

First couple of posts were joking in sock mode.

Third post says she doesn't want to vote for LC or Synonym. Then quotes Cookie on Cookie's sig 2 suspicion, but goes on to say she won't vote for sig 2 either but will vote for MM for a non-existent reason for voting Synonym. I'll have to go back and look at that but my memory of reading early in the game is that MM 2 was acting very much like MM 1 and not having a good reason to vote sounds very MM 1. MM seems to be hiding behind the sock i think so maybe Elochin's vote here isn't bad.

Fourth and fifth posts - turtle bread and night vote for Super Meat Boy.

Sixth post - says there is not enough on Scotty and TH to draw a conclusion as to whether they are suspicious. Says it looks like Dom 2 is baddie hunting. Believes people jumped on Long Con for his case which isn't any good. Says she agrees with Cookie in her vote post but i don't see a vote post. Only Cookie interaction seems to be the sig 2 info which she said she disagreed with. Thinks Synonym's reactions are frustrated civ behavior. Says she doesn't know why her previous vote should be a problem - she doesnt vote for people she thinks are civ and she doesnt vote for people simply because of bandwagons. For me, this sounds reasonable. It may not have been right but I don't think she's the only one who felt this way about either LC or Synonym.

Seventh post - RIP post and votes for Biblical.

Eight post - Says she can see why Long Con is getting so many votes. First, comments on the lynch surviving power being more likely baddie than civ. Second, his evasion of questioning (barring info dumping). Third, weird reply to Cobalt 2's questioning (it depends). Says her mind has changed from what it was before and she now will vote for LC. Did she change her mind? I can't think of a good reason to suspect she didn't except she voted for LC second to last and so may have decided to join in for civ cred. I need to think this through a little more before I can give a definitive opinion. Her reasons for changing her mind are good ones but that late vote is definitely a ping.

Ninth post - Congrats to people who voted LC from the beginning. Votes American Gods.

I will be interested in others opinions are in whether she really changed her mind or voted LC for the civ credit.

Then there were her two big posts reviewing Cookie. She put a lot of work into this, she summarized every Cookie post.

I do wonder if she knew something from her role and she was trying to build an influential case on Cookie. She had less nice to say than she did about Elo, and the sheer effort is important too. juliets didn't go to this much trouble for anyone else. I'm curious what other people think of this. I should also say though that at the end of the review she seemed open to differing opinions.

I don't know if this has changed my feelings a lot on any players, but it might for someone else so tell me what you think. She could have just wanted to reveal her role via being lynched because of how it might implicate Golden 2.

Young Lady

After a quick skim, I don't think anyone has looked through BR2's posts for more clues about what exactly she had in mind when she encouraged her own lynch? I'm going to do that. The reveal as a civvie tracker is significant on its own power for the reasons everyone is discussing already relating to Golden and that may have been all she meant, I'll see if I find anything else. She may have left additional crumbs.

Young Lady

Sorry for being absent all day, it's been a crazy weekend. I should be around to catch back up on Monday though.

Young Lady

I'm not going to be here much today, I'm going out with friends. I'll definitely miss the end of the day. I'm voting for Elo.

Young Lady

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?

Young Lady

I have no idea who Cookie is, but I hadn't really suspected her to this point just based on tone. I also get a slightly positive feeling from LC2's random question only to Cookie (Dom referenced it above), it was a weird way for LC2 to focus his question and I don't know if he does that with a team mate. That's not that substantial though I grant. I'll let Cookie respond to Dom's points and allow my feelings to develop from that.

Young Lady

Llama 2 wrote:
Epignosis 2 wrote:With Long Con 2 flipping mafia I find it more likely that Synonym 2 is clean.

Cobalt 2 on the other hand I'm unsure of, I would like to see some posts know that long con is dead they can no longer follow the Cobalt Long con hunt sock game.

One thing I find interesting is that Llama 2 voted for gamer guy 2 day 1, I really don't see his reasoning for that, he is also targeting low posters at the moment I will be watching him.

MetalMarsh 2 is another player of interest to me he defended Long Con 2, voted for Synonym 2 on day 1 then for Cobalt 2 on day 2. So Day 1 he voted to protect Long Con but left that on day 2 and voted solo. His general posting style seems off as well he is leaning mafia to me.
The Gamer Guy vote is understandable for garnering suspicion, dear Epi. But what to you is suspicious about eyeing low posters?

What about your TGG2 vote makes you call it an understandable reason for suspicion?

Young Lady

I agree with the Elo2 suspicion. There was still time for someone else to be lynched on Day 2 when she voted for MM2 (who to be fair is also suspicious to me), and the baddies could have wanted to try to make that happen before deciding to use the switch ability. I also thought TGG2 picked up on something before he died that I pointed out earlier.

Young Lady

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?"

Young Lady

omg this is my favorite poll. I picked American Gods because I'm so proud of the work juliets and I went through and it was so much fun.

Young Lady

I think LC2 being bad looks good for Synonym because of this:

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.

Does anyone think LC2 pulled this on her team mate? To me it looks like a baddie making a stink about the first little thing she could find which suggests otherwise.

Young Lady

BIH LC aka Elo.

Young Lady

Dom 2 wrote:I wanted players to discuss the ideas I brought up before I gave my read on them, but I guess I could go ahead and offer my thoughts.

I am neutral on Bass. His aggression looks sincere, but it is focused on a single player. We don't know if mafia consists of five players, but I could guarantee you there is more than one. I think he needs to look at other players too, and to offer his thoughts on them.

boo I have slight baddie read on. I don't like his initial case on Gamer Guy. I also don't like that he made the statement "I have thoughts but nothing concrete" and did not expound on them, but committed a vote to Synonym instead.

Cobalt, I am neutral on. His Long Con suspicion is warranted, but his initial suspicion was not game-related, and I feel like he piggy-backed on that. I realize this sounds like a baddie read, but I need to look into Long Con before I commit to a read on Cobalt since his focus is so one-dimensional. I haven't given Long Con much attention to this point, especially considering how much he has been at the center of attention.

What I like about Bass is that he joined late and kinda just picked someone he didn't like and went after it. It's not much I admit, but I can see a civ getting into the game late and focusing on one person just because it's the easiest method to get involved and I don't think he has seemed insincere. Cobalt has done the same thing I guess, minus the late arrival and minus most of the explanation. We'll know more about him if LC is lynched I think, or at least be able to make some inferences. I've not really paid as much attention to boo yet (no offense boo!

), your thoughts are noted and appreciated. I'll see how I feel when I review.

Young Lady

I voted LC. Gonna head out for a little while, I might be back later but will probably not be around at the end of the day.

Young Lady

Reywas 2 wrote:I think this is the scummiest post in the game. "I don't have time to elaborate until later," he says. I wonder how LC2 plans on elaborating on a "NO U" and a player with two posts.

I agree, this is the second time LC has evaded explaining something, after he shrugged off my request for examples of baddies throwing random suspects into the thread on day 1 with "I need to make sandwiches"

. I don't understand why he'd need more time to elaborate if he had enough time to put up that post in the first place. And turning my suspicion back on me just for "tunneling" shows he doesn't actually have anything bad to say about me that doesn't involve him anyway. Pure No U.

Young Lady

Dom 2 wrote:
SVS 2 wrote:Nice effort on the iso's Dom. The rundowns are good refreshers, I am wondering though if you have a stance on the players you had more to say about.
Are you talking about Black Rock and Blooper? I left them alone for now because they will be modkilled if they miss the vote anyway. Blooper has 2 posts though, and nothing to look at. Black Rock has participated (and had a player sub in), but still has not voted yet, so I was just holding off on the effort in the event that it would be a waste of time.

Those were just the first 5 players alphabetically. I will get to doing ISO's of more players as time permits.

Linki: Well it likes I won't have to worry about BR missing the vote.

I meant the higher posters you covered or the ones you had more to say about, Cobalt, boo, and Bass. I'm wondering what direction you lean on them after your reviews. You may have implied it in them and I just missed it. I don't think there's really any way to get a real read on the lower posters.

Young Lady

Nice effort on the iso's Dom. The rundowns are good refreshers, I am wondering though if you have a stance on the players you had more to say about.

Young Lady

Real MM, what have you done?

:P

Young Lady

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?

Young Lady

I'm looking at TGG2's posts because if the lynch was switched then I doubt he was an arbitrary choice (I admit I'm heavily influenced by my suspicion that baddie LC saved himself). He was most suspicious of sig, Elo, and Synonym. I think he made a pretty good point about Elo before he died.

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:
Elohcin 2 wrote:I don't understand why my previous vote would worry you - it makes perfect sense to me why I would not vote for someone because I thought the case on them was bad. And if I recall correctly, when I voted, it was not a tie, but I'll give you that is was certainly close. It doesn't show non-commitment: it shows that I don't vote for who I think is civilian, and that I don't vote for people simply because they have a large number of votes. That's called bandwagoning, and that's not good civ behavior in my book.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are not recalling correctly. Long Con was ahead of votes by one, but he had specifically stated previous that his own vote would be to save himself, making it a tie. You are more focused on civ behavior than what a civ should do. In a situation as this, a civ should most definitely try to lunch the player that has even a slightly higher percent chance to be a baddie.

Had you actually been paying attention to players outside of your own circle you should've known that it was a tie. It feels as if you are playing "like" you are paying attention, while not willing to step outside a comfort zone. What member of the mafia would feel good about being the tie breaker? From what I've noticed, mafia avoid that due to placing them in the hot seat.

Elo's "that's called bandwagoning" statement pings me because I don't see a civ mindset being concerned with what "good civ behavior" is supposed to look like regarding their own posts and votes. I agree with TGG2's observation and am more suspicious of Elo now.

Young Lady

Llama 2 wrote:
SVS 2 wrote:I still don't think Synonym is bad. He's made himself an easy vote with his behavior and his pleas for it, but that doesn't mean he is bad imo. I've seen this kind of thing many times before and it usually ends with a lynched civ. I'm probably going to vote Long Con again, but I'm gonna review the game again a bit first.
My point, my dear SVS, is if he is civ, isn't he doing a disservice to our cause by asking to be noosed?

Yeah he is. The disservice is long-since done though. How do you think his behavior reflects on him?

Young Lady

I still don't think Synonym is bad. He's made himself an easy vote with his behavior and his pleas for it, but that doesn't mean he is bad imo. I've seen this kind of thing many times before and it usually ends with a lynched civ. I'm probably going to vote Long Con again, but I'm gonna review the game again a bit first.

Search found 82 matches