The Syndicate

Sig 2 wrote:@BR2, you are currently a vote behind with half an hour to go. Do you honestly want me to vote you? But, you are civ? Please clarify?

Bass 2 wrote:BR2 I feel like you're dwelling on when you subbed in too much. It feels like you're trying to use that as an excuse for behavior that seems scummy. If you really thought you hadn't done anything "baddie-like" I don't think you would be so defensive of your actions using your sub in as a defense.

Dom 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote: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.

That's a good point. With the lynch getting switched to Gamer Guy, this might have something to do with it.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:I tried posting this earlier, but things went screwy and my post got eaten, so I have to do it again. Anyways: @Bass 2, yes, I still want to lynch Synonym 2, for not knowing the civilian win condition, not keeping his story straight, and being rude to anyone who bothers directing a statement at him to the point that having him the game is extremely unpleasant.

But, there is someone else I want to look at.

Black Rock 2 was replaced early on. The original BR2 was the one in the role Night 1, which fits the theory that the kill was not protected or blocked, but just not sent in. You are ignoring the theory that the team can send in the actions for everyone on the team whether that team member is present or not.
Once the current BR2 came in on Day 2, got caught up over Night 2, and became involved in the game on Day 3, things started to become sketchy.

She was one of the first people to question whether the resurrected Golden 2 was still a civilian here. I questioned whether the resurrected Golden 2 had ever been civ, not whether he was still civilian upon resurrection. That is how a seemer works. In her next post, after being challenged on the statement, she refers back to the seemer discussion, and some vague statements about past games. I don't trust these two posts, because immediately making a challenge to a confirmed civilian that gets resurrected at this point, because there may be a seemer in the game, does not seem well thought out. If there is a seemer in the game, and the seemer is Golden 2, then that means there is a tracker in the game that Golden 2 used the identity of. Since we learn the role of anyone who is killed, with the exception of mod-kills, it would make sense to me that this is an issue we can wait and see on, since either the real tracker will be killed, and we'll need to decide if we think that person or Golden 2 is a seemer, or the real tracker will eventually speak up and make a real attempt at getting Golden 2 killed. We can wait and see on this subject. I never suggested we couldn't. There is no other way to prove there is a seemer. I doubt seriously the real tracker would speak up though as it would put a target on their head.
Then there's the bigger issue I have with BR2, her Day 3 talking about her vote and then the actual vote. She talks about it in this post:

Spoiler: show

Black Rock 2 wrote:Dom 2, there probably isn't a need to explain this but I will anyway. Prior to Sunday I was not Black Rock 2 so that first missed vote was not "me". Then I was asked to replace on Sunday and agreed but it was too late in the day to get a handle on what was going on and vote. Today i will most surely vote.

Speaking of voting, I am really torn about Long Con 2. As I said earlier I thought he offered a genuine or believable defense of himself but that defense did not extend to explaining how he had avoided being lynched twice. I realize it could have been two different mechanics at work but this is where I'm really torn - was it Long Con or a teamember both times or does it make more logical sense that he or a teamate interceded on his behalf in the first lynch but it was Synonym 2 who saved himself in the second lynch, after being on the losing end of the randomization. One thing seems definite: LC 2 can save himself from more than one lynch. I'm getting this from the way he has worded his talk about lynches of him. He could have a role where everyone on his team has to die first (making him bad unless there is a small civ btsc team) or it could be a completely different mechanic. But that begs the question why Synonym would have jumped in and said he saved himself on that second lynch. As I said, I am torn about him.

What has gotten my attention most about Synonym is his pleas to be lynched. I know I have gotten so frustrated in some games that I wanted to be lynched as a civ so I know how that feels. The fact that he hasn't asked for a replacement makes me think he is more likely a civ since a baddie would be urged severly by his team to ask for a replacement. This all assumes he hasn't asked for a replacement because it is possible he has and hasn't told us. He did say however that he was not the second one who had asked to be replaced. I'm seeing Synonym as civ or indy at the moment.

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 says she is very torn about LC2, but that it seems definite that LC2 can save himself from more than one lynch. Now, there were some of us who discussed the possibilities for how LC2 would survive multiple lynches based on the claims he made, but I don't think most people tried to spin it in a way where LC2 was telling us an actual fact in the way that BR2 did in this post.

She also discusses Synonym 2 and Blooper 2 in this post, I think to lay out the groundwork for voting for one of them if at all possible.

Just under 2 hours later, when the lynch is firmly going in the direction of LC2, she comes back, and is no longer torn, voting for LC2. I never said I was no longer torn.She also no longer seems to think it is 'definite' that LC2 can survive multiple lynches, and instead refers to it as just an insinuation he made, and that she wants to find out if it is true. I do not think this post rings true, and it does not fit with what she had previously said. This makes me think she is only voting for LC2 at this point, because she is trying to avoid future attention. She was the 8th LC2 voter, of 12, and at the time, Synonym 2, the next closest, had 4 votes, with it being a reasonable assumption that LC2 would bring that up to 5. She could have made it 7-5, but then would have looked bad for the save play. Or she could have waited a little longer, to see where other votes were going to fall, but would have risked looking like a last-minute band-wagoner. So all-in-all, this seems like a very calculated vote, with some timing that is just to perfect to seem genuine. I'm sorry you believe it's too perfect to be genuine but I voted when I became more convinced LC 2 was a baddie. I still had doubts but don't most people when they vote?

The rest of her posts going into night 3 and day 4 were her trying to go onto the offensive, mostly asking questions and joining other peoples suspicions. It still all feels like some very sanitary plays though, where she is getting involved but not risking anything. I don't know what you mean by not risking anything. I asked questions where I felt appropriate. What type of behavior are you looking for when you want me to involve myself in risk? This is all your opinion based on what you think that I think.

I think the biggest concern for me on her post-Day 3 is this post:

Black Rock 2 wrote:No because there is no behavior from me that is baddie-like. Like I said, I don't know for sure why my predecessor didn't vote but my guess since he didn't talk at all day 1 is that s/he quit playing and that's why s/he never posted day 1 or night 1.

If feel you need to tell people that there is no behavior from you that is baddie-like, then you're being baddie-like. This is a baddie true-ism you just made up on the spot because it fits. That post was an answer to a direct question regarding me agreeing that I could be bad.

I think you made this case because you find it convenient. You forget perhaps that I've only been in this game a few hours on Day 2 and all of Day 3. Things you had 3 days to think through I only had 1 day and had to reach some conclusions fast. You can vote for me if you think I am bad but you would be mistaken in your opinion.

Llama 2 wrote:Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?

Long Con 2 wrote:I don't have time to elaborate further until later but I wanted to get something out there. I want to prove to my fellow civs that I can be trusted. Hopefully this will at least foster discussion and I will be back later to converse as well.

I know I have said that I would try to stop playing defense and pay offense instead. I am starting off my suspicions with SVS. I know it my sound as if I am only targeting her because she has been targeting me, but oh well. She is tunneling and I it makes her look bad.

My next suspicion is blooper. She has two posts in the whole game. There is a small number of players participating in the thread. Some of the mafia must be inactive and she seems like a perfect candidate in my opinion.

Lastly, full disclosure, I am still on the fence about Syn. My thoughts of him were that he could have slipped and really knows there are five mafia. I thought his initial reaction was genuine, but that his posts quickly turned sketchy.

Linki: I wish you would have waited. However, I would still like your input on my thoughts.

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.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:You couldn't change your vote anyways, I just thought it was a silly explanation for your vote since the statement was true about all the games because they are all his.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Black Rock 2 wrote:I haven't finished catching up but I will go ahead and vote for biblical since Epignosis ran it and he runs so many games I think the statement could be about him.

You're aware that Epignosis ran all of the games on this poll, right? And MovingPictures07 hosted all of the games on the poll before that, and Roxy before that.

Assuming there are enough people who have hosted multiple games to use, I think it's a safe bet every night poll is going to be the same sort of thing.

Blooper 2 wrote:Will you catch up tonight and in the morning.