The Syndicate

Egad

Well, bye Synbalt.

I only played Economics, but I don't exactly have a good rep for that one...



So I'll please the Hosts tonight and vote Sgt. Pepper.

Reywas 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:Two more minutes and I'd break a tie by voting "Eloh"? Seriously?

Why Eloh and not cookie?

My suspicions on both haven't changed much, in that I've reading Eloh bad and got mixed stuff from Cookie. The "win con" stuff she got tangled it got my eye as well, but for once she hasn't even come back with an explanation what the hell she actually meant.

This is a nice catch by Rico 2 as well. If Golden 2 is getting bad vibes from Elohcin 2 as he says here, what does Golden 2 mean by "Seriously?" It should be an easy vote for him at that point. If Golden 2 is bad like I suspect he is, this post makes me think Cookie 2 is someone he doesn't want to lose.

That's no catch, he pushed for "Cookie"'s lynch and wanted to know why I'm looking the other way. I would have reacted the same way to any tie, with 2 minutes left to vote, because I made it clear why I had to wait with my vote. A tiebreak can be compromising.

Also, stop doing equations that I'm confirmed baddie and my interactions lead to baddies. I'm not bad, so the mentality can fail big time - except if you're not exactly civ and that's your idea of doing damage.

Pretty weak NO U at the end here Golden 2. C'mon, you can do better

Yeah, no. Deflecting a mere alternative interpretation of your actions as simple OMGUS? This proves your intentions are clean how?

I don't know about sheep, but this was me all day long.

Reywas 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:Two more minutes and I'd break a tie by voting "Eloh"? Seriously?

Why Eloh and not cookie?

My suspicions on both haven't changed much, in that I've reading Eloh bad and got mixed stuff from Cookie. The "win con" stuff she got tangled it got my eye as well, but for once she hasn't even come back with an explanation what the hell she actually meant.

This is a nice catch by Rico 2 as well. If Golden 2 is getting bad vibes from Elohcin 2 as he says here, what does Golden 2 mean by "Seriously?" It should be an easy vote for him at that point. If Golden 2 is bad like I suspect he is, this post makes me think Cookie 2 is someone he doesn't want to lose.

That's no catch, he pushed for "Cookie"'s lynch and wanted to know why I'm looking the other way. I would have reacted the same way to any tie, with 2 minutes left to vote, because I made it clear why I had to wait with my vote. A tiebreak can be compromising.

Also, stop doing equations that I'm confirmed baddie and my interactions lead to baddies. I'm not bad, so the mentality can fail big time - except if you're not exactly civ and that's your idea of doing damage. When I'll have a baddie, I'll lead to to him. The rest is regular hunting.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:This poll lacks Sockface and Daisy Wedding.

Actually, Sockface and Daisy Wedding is a Special Game, so it wouldn't belong since the poll specifies Speed Games. :P

Actually, it was speedy and it was a one hit wonder, so close enough.

This poll lacks Sockface and Daisy Wedding.

Noice. Day 5 sounds like enough time to have recruited one or two players, so we should keep an eye on this path as well.

And speaking of "Llama", the guy completely vanished today.

Speaking of, this must be the quickest change of D/N polls I ever witnessed.

Golden 2 wrote:

boo 2 wrote:Wow what the fuck I clicked on Elo why did it vote Llama

What? Did you even vote in time?

Nevermind, I see it now in the polls.

boo 2 wrote:Wow what the fuck I clicked on Elo why did it vote Llama

What? Did you even vote in time?

EBWOP: for one thing*, I meant

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:Two more minutes and I'd break a tie by voting "Eloh"? Seriously?

Why Eloh and not cookie?

My suspicions on both haven't changed much, in that I've reading Eloh bad and got mixed stuff from Cookie. The "win con" stuff she got tangled it got my eye as well, but for once she hasn't even come back with an explanation what the hell she actually meant.

Well hey "rey" did the honors.

Voted myself.

Two more minutes and I'd break a tie by voting "Eloh"? Seriously?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Could be. I'm just of the opinion that it would be worth confirming, since it is time-limited before Blooper 2 is gone.

But that doesn't appear to be happening, so I will go with cookie 2 for the same reasons.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

For what same reasons? Earlier you said the door "BR" may have left open for "Blooper" is not the same with leaving a door open for "Cookie".

The ones Ricochet 2 and I discussed earlier when Cookie 2 made the slip, and that he just recapped when he voted...?

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Ah, understood. I thought the context was down to that post.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Could be. I'm just of the opinion that it would be worth confirming, since it is time-limited before Blooper 2 is gone.

But that doesn't appear to be happening, so I will go with cookie 2 for the same reasons.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

For what same reasons? Earlier you said the door "BR" may have left open for "Blooper" is not the same with leaving a door open for "Cookie".

I could go with "Eloh", but I also have self-preservation to consider.

14 votes to go with 15 minutes to go is batshit stuff.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:Sorry Lacey, I am not following your blooper 2 logic. I don't understand how blooper being bad would prove that golden was on her team, it seems like you are saying it proves your theory about golden self-rezzing and being killed by his own team, I don't understand how?

I do understand the idea about killing blooper giving us info we wouldn't have if there was a modkill, so there is that.

Blooper 2 being bad would prove BR2 is the tracker.

BR2 being the tracker would prove Golden 2 is not.

Golden 2 not being the tracker would prove he is a liar, and is a seemer. That would mean he is bad.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Nope.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:That, for you, points at non-ISO suspicions, namely "Blooper".

For me it points at her subtle claims.

If you believe the former, do you believe there is no actual conflict of flips between me and "BR"? She couldn't have said "go look at both".

You are her subtle claim.

So either we lynch you, assuming she was the real tracker, or we lynch Blooper 2, and get a better sense of you in the process.

Blooper 2 is way less risky, so that would be my preference.

I still think the possibility exists that you are independent, and neither of you are actually a seemer. But that would still make you the dishonest one, even if you are not bad, so you'd still have to go if Blooper 2 did come back bad.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Why is that? There is no clear sense of me to be gotten from this process. You would only be insisting on the perception that a bad flip from "Blooper" would certify "BR" as the tracker. But that's all it is, a perception.

Now that you bring it up, in my view, a baddie "BR" would also be quite cognizant that "Blooper", if bad, is not doing a good job out there and take distance from "Blooper"'s sudden pokes at players - or pressuring the team mate, in the open, to do more than that and explain himself.

For you, the equation would be ""Blooper" flipped bad, "BR" must have tracked her, let's get that fucker "Golden"". For me, in the position that I believe "BR" has fake contested my flip (and that's the real posts she hid and referenced afterwards, near lynch), it could obviously be much less conclusive than that, more like "Blooper flipped mafia, BR distanced and kept wary of her gameplay all along".

The point of Blooper 2 flipping bad is that it would mean BR2 is the tracker, yes. That would mean her contesting your flip was honest, and you are not the tracker. If you are not the tracker, but have never stopped insisting you are, then it means you are the seemer, and at that point, you're a baddie.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

The certainty of the first sentence cannot stand at 100%. It will just be the perception that "BR" left a good legacy on that. That's my point.

Meanwhile, I stand by being who I am and since "BR" can't be confirmed as tracker in any way based on any suspicion flipping bad, there are still other possible explanations, including the one that such a loose mafia low poster would not go unchallenged in the open by teammates - which only adds to my personal description that "BR" was calculated in every move. Of course, it will be much more difficult for everyone else to see it this way, I'm no fool to believe otherwise, because of perception, but that doesn't outright exclude the possibilities.

Reywas 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:Rey, yesterday you gave the most rational argument for waiting on golden. I wish we could flesh this out but I feel like end of day is too close now, because I'm interested in why your sudden change of heart. If I'm reading you right, I feel like perhaps it is entirely about sock identification? Could you point to things that make you feel confident in that?

linki @ rey - bass reads entirely buddy buddy to me too.

I think the cautious approach on Golden 2 is to wait and see what he gives us or if the baddies take him out. That said I think he's lying about who he is (fits him being seemer), his posts before LC2's flip shows him wanting to stay out of making a judgment on her, his HIMYM posts rub me the wrong way because he had nothing to say about LC2 beforehand and I don't think he had an alternative ending to the gag in mind. The only thing giving me pause is maybe I'm wrong about Juliets. And he's going to flip civvie again when/if we lynch him so it's not going to feel especially rewarding. But at this moment in time I think he's bad.

Can't really point to anything specific re: why I think he's lying about his identity. The cadence of his posts, word choice, syntax make me think he's someone specific.

role playing role playing role playing role playing role playing

Also, what do you mean about me staying out of making a judgement on "LC"? Her D3 die-hard shenanigans, combined with actual results of a different lynch, was precisely what made me make a judgement on her. And vote her, too. Your evolution of suspecting "LC" was roughly the same, in fact.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:That, for you, points at non-ISO suspicions, namely "Blooper".

For me it points at her subtle claims.

If you believe the former, do you believe there is no actual conflict of flips between me and "BR"? She couldn't have said "go look at both".

You are her subtle claim.

So either we lynch you, assuming she was the real tracker, or we lynch Blooper 2, and get a better sense of you in the process.

Blooper 2 is way less risky, so that would be my preference.

I still think the possibility exists that you are independent, and neither of you are actually a seemer. But that would still make you the dishonest one, even if you are not bad, so you'd still have to go if Blooper 2 did come back bad.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Why is that? There is no clear sense of me to be gotten from this process. You would only be insisting on the perception that a bad flip from "Blooper" would certify "BR" as the tracker. But that's all it is, a perception.

Now that you bring it up, in my view, a baddie "BR" would also be quite cognizant that "Blooper", if bad, is not doing a good job out there and take distance from "Blooper"'s sudden pokes at players - or pressuring the team mate, in the open, to do more than that and explain himself.

For you, the equation would be ""Blooper" flipped bad, "BR" must have tracked her, let's get that fucker "Golden"". For me, in the position that I believe "BR" has fake contested my flip (and that's the real posts she hid and referenced afterwards, near lynch), it could obviously be much less conclusive than that, more like "Blooper flipped mafia, BR distanced and kept wary of her gameplay all along".

That, for you, points at non-ISO suspicions, namely "Blooper".

For me it points at her subtle claims.

If you believe the former, do you believe there is no actual conflict of flips between me and "BR"? She couldn't have said "go look at both".

Reywas 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:Do we know that LC2's team killed Golden 2?

So then there is evidence of a second baddie team, and you need to reassess.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

He also could have been killed by the civ ninja so I don't think this is as cut and dry as you want to make it seem If I feel that there's sufficient evidence of a second baddie team and I'm unhappy with Syn 2's contributions (he's been resting on his laurels ever since the LC2 lynch IMO) then I'll look that way. But you trying to strongarm me into going that direction doesn't make me want to do it.

Except that is an absurd argument to make. Go read Timmer 2, and explain to me why he would have chosen to kill Golden 2.

Either there is a single baddie team, and you need to come up with a compelling reason Golden 2's own team killed him, or there is compelling evidence that there are 2 baddie teams.

Anything else is making up excuses to hold on to theories that do not actually hold up.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

I'm not going to do any of that.

When I'm the civ ninja I tend to kill people I'm suspicious of that I don't bring up in-thread. I don't claim to know the inner workings of Llama's mind.

Golden 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:Do we know that LC2's team killed Golden 2?

So then there is evidence of a second baddie team, and you need to reassess.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

He also could have been killed by the civ ninja so I don't think this is as cut and dry as you want to make it seem If I feel that there's sufficient evidence of a second baddie team and I'm unhappy with Syn 2's contributions (he's been resting on his laurels ever since the LC2 lynch IMO) then I'll look that way. But you trying to strongarm me into going that direction doesn't make me want to do it.

So "Timmer" killed me and the mafia just slept on the job that Night?

Don't act like I'm being ridiculous. It wouldn't even be the first time in this game that the mafia kill didn't go through.

Circumstance upon circumstance.

Speaking of "Eloh", what happened with the viewpoints on her? She went from vote train the other Day to zero traction right now.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:Do we know that LC2's team killed Golden 2?

So then there is evidence of a second baddie team, and you need to reassess.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

He also could have been killed by the civ ninja so I don't think this is as cut and dry as you want to make it seem If I feel that there's sufficient evidence of a second baddie team and I'm unhappy with Syn 2's contributions (he's been resting on his laurels ever since the LC2 lynch IMO) then I'll look that way. But you trying to strongarm me into going that direction doesn't make me want to do it.

So "Timmer" killed me and the mafia just slept on the job that Night?

And since you are here, do you have any thoughts on my proposal for a Blooper 2 lynch?

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

I can't dispute "BR''s tracker status being genuine and endorse the "BR hinted at these people (whether it's "Cookie" or "Blooper") being bad" angle at the same time. I don't believe "BR"'s tracker status is genuine. Your read on their exchange is correct, but it could equally be a ping, based on "Bloopers" inactivity. Her last actual impression is that "Blooper" is likely civ, from the looks of who "LC" called out.

On its own, "Blooper" does raise indeed the question of why, out of 4 posts, two are very direct ones. The "Syn" one looks slightly worse, if you ask me. It's something, for instance, that "BR" didn't hinge on, which makes me think she was just uncomfortable with her own exchange. "Blooper"s inactivity and odd questioning could make anyone wonder, especially the players "Blooper" referred to out of the blue.

Also, you've pointed out that "BR"s candidates might be "Blooper", "Cookie" and "Elohcin", but have then fixated only on "Blooper". Do you have no thoughts on the others, from the same angle?

Reywas 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:One problem I've got with Golden 2 is his kitschy posts leading up to the LC 2 flip. He posted those How I Met Your Mother memes and finished up with the classic "Dary!" as if he was already expecting the result. I mean what was Golden 2 gonna post if LC2 flipped civ? That was bizarre IMO.

Once again, I shouldn't have to point out what compelled me to do all those "kitschy posts" throughout the duration of a Day phase. What was it that was kitchy, anyway, considering that I implemented my regular thoughts into them instead of just fooling around (well, maybe a little)?

As for the HIMYM reference, it was a paraphrase to two things: a) the player I was referencing with the so called "kitschy posts", who did these HIMYM lynch flip shenanigans in a previous game and b) a lynch drama regarding "LC" that lasted for three Days and was still in effect, considering the talk that "LC" might be get another good roll, if a die-hard, and survive yet another Day. The "Dary" picture would have been adapted to a less enthusiastic one (well EDIT: you already asked for proof), should "LC" have flipped civ, but the whole thing in itself was nothing short of a reference gag.

I'm calling your HIMYM memes "kitschy", not your image posts in general. I think that's a reference you make only if you know what the result of the flip will be. And your less enthusiastic version doesn't make much sense tbh. You were neither a proponent of lynching LC2 or defending her, so I don't know what compelled you to make the HIMYM reference during that specific lynch unless you knew you could complete the gag after the flip. I think you were coasting on your free civ cred and made a careless mistake by telegraphing the result. I think it points to you being on LC2's team.

A gag is a gag. I only made it to paraphrase the second skin I had to live in and to wrap up my phase of posting like that. Plus, re-read my point b). I didn't telegraph any result, I adapted it to a situation in which "LC" would have either flipped mafia, after three Days of hounding, either survive another lynch, and prolong the whole thing once more, or flip civ, and make the whole thing a blunder. All three would have made a lasting effect. You're putting too much sense into those posts. Vote to lynch me, if you really think that's your big lead.

It's just a piece of the puzzle, my tennis-loving friend.

One in which you're keeping the other pieces in your pocket, because all I've heard so far is that juliets would never plunge to get lynched as a baddie and I wouldn't be playing like the real TGG.

Reywas 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:Do we know that LC2's team killed Golden 2?

So then there is evidence of a second baddie team, and you need to reassess.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

He also could have been killed by the civ ninja so I don't think this is as cut and dry as you want to make it seem If I feel that there's sufficient evidence of a second baddie team and I'm unhappy with Syn 2's contributions (he's been resting on his laurels ever since the LC2 lynch IMO) then I'll look that way. But you trying to strongarm me into going that direction doesn't make me want to do it.

So "Timmer" killed me and the mafia just slept on the job that Night?

Reywas 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:One problem I've got with Golden 2 is his kitschy posts leading up to the LC 2 flip. He posted those How I Met Your Mother memes and finished up with the classic "Dary!" as if he was already expecting the result. I mean what was Golden 2 gonna post if LC2 flipped civ? That was bizarre IMO.

Once again, I shouldn't have to point out what compelled me to do all those "kitschy posts" throughout the duration of a Day phase. What was it that was kitchy, anyway, considering that I implemented my regular thoughts into them instead of just fooling around (well, maybe a little)?

As for the HIMYM reference, it was a paraphrase to two things: a) the player I was referencing with the so called "kitschy posts", who did these HIMYM lynch flip shenanigans in a previous game and b) a lynch drama regarding "LC" that lasted for three Days and was still in effect, considering the talk that "LC" might be get another good roll, if a die-hard, and survive yet another Day. The "Dary" picture would have been adapted to a less enthusiastic one (well EDIT: you already asked for proof), should "LC" have flipped civ, but the whole thing in itself was nothing short of a reference gag.

I'm calling your HIMYM memes "kitschy", not your image posts in general. I think that's a reference you make only if you know what the result of the flip will be. And your less enthusiastic version doesn't make much sense tbh. You were neither a proponent of lynching LC2 or defending her, so I don't know what compelled you to make the HIMYM reference during that specific lynch unless you knew you could complete the gag after the flip. I think you were coasting on your free civ cred and made a careless mistake by telegraphing the result. I think it points to you being on LC2's team.

A gag is a gag. I only made it to paraphrase the second skin I had to live in and to wrap up my phase of posting like that. Plus, re-read my point b). I didn't telegraph any result, I adapted it to a situation in which "LC" would have either flipped mafia, after three Days of hounding, either survive another lynch, and prolong the whole thing once more, or flip civ, and make the whole thing a blunder. All three would have made a lasting effect. You're putting too much sense into those posts. Vote to lynch me, if you really think that's your big lead.

So, chronologically

1) "SVS", I appreciate your review of "BR"'s posts, but if the main conflict between us being trackers is real (as opposed to a misunderstanding of how many roles might exist or how some other effects might be at work), then I still feel, personally, that "BR" could have fabricated the whole thing, the way I've expressed it before: react to my rezz right away, seed those posts below a good pile of reads and such, switch back to the plan when the lynch opportunity arrived. Your conclusion is that someone like juliets would never go to so much trouble doing such an extensive read on "Cookie", but I actually wonder if her "Cookie" ISO is not the very definition of Too Much Work, hence a very dubious attempt to look involved. You and "Lipsticklacey" posit that these reads are the things she asked to go back and read, but I'm confident that she sent everyone back to her thoughts on my flip, way behind her entire wall of reads.

2)

Ricochet 2 wrote:I'm surprised to see so much doubt around a Golden lynch. I feel like it is the obvious thing to do, I can't understand why Juliet would get herself lynched and lie, but I also find a lot of the theories that have been put out there confusing.

If there is someone out there who genuinely thinks we should not vote golden today, could you give me a really clear summary of why I shouldn't assume he is bad?

The two of every role thing doesn't work to me because there are 25 of us which is not even.

I would still recommend putting me and juliets through the same lense. To me, the way she crafted ambivalence on the "LC" vs "Syn" matter until the boat finally rocked and flipped towards "LC", combined with the sequence of contesting my flip, resuming regular gameplay and then hinting back at it as soon as the lynching plead had grunds, makes me believe her posts could have been neatly put in place, instead of genuine.

As for juliets being the kind of person who would be sincere in her initiative, I believe someone else already pointed out that, if she's part of the baddie team, she can well adapt to the team's plan and even execute it masterfully.

3)

Reywas 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:OK, cookie, two questions

1) If Juliet is bad, can you think of a plausible motive for making the move?

2) If we give golden the benefit of the doubt, how are we to figure out his trustworthiness long term?

If Golden 2 is a civvie then we need to make him the baddie's problem. They'll either need to kill him because he's got a powerful role or else he'll start to figure things out.

If Golden 2 is a baddie then he'll need to help us lynch some baddies or we're gonna lose faith in him.

I'm uncomfortable making that judgment at this stage in the game. I don't think juliets was bad tbh. That's not a move she makes if she's a baddie. My concern is that it's possible there's 2 civvie trackers and I want to let it play out. Either way, Golden 2 owes us a baddie sooner rather than later.

I'd say I already am the baddies problem and it's obvious what they attempted, as soon as I was rezz'd. Disposing of me via another kill isn't the only option, when they can push for my disposal in a different way and preserve their kill for future victims.

I understand what you expect of me, but have to wonder if you'd expect the same without this tracker/seemer conflict? As in, do all outed roles that are brought back in the game (via a rezz) suddenly need to cough up results to prove worthiness? I'll do my best, for sure, but my role can still misfire, except if I locate a baddie whose moves were obvious in the results of a phase, since there are civvie and baddie targeters alike.

As for juliets not making such moves if a baddie, read above what I've pointed out to "Rico".

4)

Reywas 2 wrote:One problem I've got with Golden 2 is his kitschy posts leading up to the LC 2 flip. He posted those How I Met Your Mother memes and finished up with the classic "Dary!" as if he was already expecting the result. I mean what was Golden 2 gonna post if LC2 flipped civ? That was bizarre IMO.

Once again, I shouldn't have to point out what compelled me to do all those "kitschy posts" throughout the duration of a Day phase. What was it that was kitchy, anyway, considering that I implemented my regular thoughts into them instead of just fooling around (well, maybe a little)?

As for the HIMYM reference, it was a paraphrase to two things: a) the player I was referencing with the so called "kitschy posts", who did these HIMYM lynch flip shenanigans in a previous game and b) a lynch drama regarding "LC" that lasted for three Days and was still in effect, considering the talk that "LC" might be get another good roll, if a die-hard, and survive yet another Day. The "Dary" picture would have been adapted to a less enthusiastic one (well EDIT: you already asked for proof), should "LC" have flipped civ, but the whole thing in itself was nothing short of a reference gag.

5) I'm reading things again on civ win cons vs baddie win cons and I find some of the stuff head-scratching. Things like "Cookie" saying that, if civs have a dead-or-alive win con, it can't be known if baddies do too and that "baddies have to be alive". Like, WTF. In what universe does a *team of mafia* need to survive as a whole to win??

I'll get back to you on that, just let me finish catching up.

Reywas 2 wrote:

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?

You are not Gamer Guy. You are Omelette Guy.

Whatever goes through your head, dude.

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?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Golden 2 wrote: HOSTS how are seemers designed? Do they get assigned different random roles upon flip?

They pick their own

This is what was actually said about how the seemer works.

I still don't get why Golden 2 and Sig 2 are trying to drag the sock/player thing into it. There is no reason to think those do not show up exactly as they are. Golden 2 is GG, BR2 was juliets, one of them is the real tracker, and the other is a seemer who, on being lynched, chose to show up as a seemer.

All of that fits into the explanation Roxy actually gave about how the seemer in this game is designed. Anything else is stuff you are adding yourselves, without basing it on anything either hostess has said in the thread.

I believe "Sig" was still implying that he had a chat with the Hosts in which they told him seemers pick player identities.

I didn't drag anything into it, I was weighing in on the player identity vs sock debate and the odds of that. And if seemers can pick a player identity, then I believe it is a tweak to the mechanics, considering that there are no roles (characters) in addition to the socks. There is no 'Bilbo Baggins" for a seemer to show up as a character, because there are no characters added to the socks, just the socks.

Otherwise, if what you say is the *sole* standard for seemers in this game (picking powers), then yes, the conflict between which "BR" and myself is the civ tracker is real.

Sure, but your question was more encompassing than that, since you also asked how seemers are designed. If there was anything else to it, I think Roxy would have mentioned it.

I do not see a reason why, if there were more to it than that, and Roxy chose not to share it in thread, she would share it in PMs with Sig 2, unless he is a seemer. And if he's a seemer, I don't think after getting that information he would then turn around and start dropping it in the thread, since that does not benefit him at all.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Why would "Sig" be a seemer? That'd be like the third candidacy already, besides mine and "BR" based on events. Also, I doubt the seemer needs clarifications on how his seeming works. Unless his intention is phoning it in.

Reywas 2 wrote:For what it's worth I don't think Golden 2 has been acting very Gamer Guy-esque. I have another player in mind for his sock.

It's called role playing.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Golden 2 wrote: HOSTS how are seemers designed? Do they get assigned different random roles upon flip?

They pick their own

This is what was actually said about how the seemer works.

I still don't get why Golden 2 and Sig 2 are trying to drag the sock/player thing into it. There is no reason to think those do not show up exactly as they are. Golden 2 is GG, BR2 was juliets, one of them is the real tracker, and the other is a seemer who, on being lynched, chose to show up as a seemer.

All of that fits into the explanation Roxy actually gave about how the seemer in this game is designed. Anything else is stuff you are adding yourselves, without basing it on anything either hostess has said in the thread.

I believe "Sig" was still implying that he had a chat with the Hosts in which they told him seemers pick player identities.

I didn't drag anything into it, I was weighing in on the player identity vs sock debate and the odds of that. And if seemers can pick a player identity, then I believe it is a tweak to the mechanics, considering that there are no roles (characters) in addition to the socks. There is no 'Bilbo Baggins" for a seemer to show up as a character, because there are no characters added to the socks, just the socks.

Otherwise, if what you say is the *sole* standard for seemers in this game (picking powers), then yes, the conflict between which "BR" and myself is the civ tracker is real.

Seemer getting to pick the sock, instead of the player, doesn't make sense, becuase the socks are visibile. If a seemer would flip "Gary 2" and "Gary 2" would be alive in the game (or even dead, for that matter), it'd be a fail of a seemer effect. Everyone would be able to tell that the seemer's "Gary 2" flip is fake balls.

I think the sock mechanics of this game is slightly changing how this works, compared to a regular game. In a regular game, a seemer player would choose which civ/innocent character/role (say "Bilbo Baggins") and power (say "civ tracker) it wants to show up as. But in a sock game, the character/role is our sock itself, there is no additional character/role assigned to each sock (like in Biblical, for instance - where sock Lot had the role of James, son of Zeeweepeewee or whatever). Hence, the seemer's choice must have to do with a player's identity and/or?? (I'll get to this in a minute) power.

By such logic, "Sig" is actually right that something doesn't add up. If the seemer picks player and power and, for all intents and purposes, I'm the seemer, then how come "BR" didn't flip as the real TGG - civ tracker? Even the reverse poses the question: if "BR" is the seemer, why didn't she choose to flip as the real TGG - civ tracker?

My gut still tells me that "BR" may be bad (and the seemer) in having done a fine job planting fake clues as soon as I got rezzed (then left it seeded, then returned to this as soon as she saw the opportunity to get lynched), but this discrepance in "BR" flipping only as a tracker, not as the real TGG, makes me consider if it's not a whole misunderstanding and the likelihood of two trackers is real. We had Watchmen with two trackers recently - although those trackers also formed a sort of duo, and this is definitely not the case here. Maybe "BR", as soon as I flipped tracker, also thought it unlikely that two civ trackers would exist and thus entitled to contest my identity.

Synonym 2 wrote:

boo 2 wrote:

Cookie 2 wrote:Plus the mafia influenced circumstances of his death.

Might I ask where you acquired that information? Unless I missed something, all they did was kill him. I don't remember seeing anything else.

Was that a scum slip?

Did you kill me, "Cookie"?

Mixed feelings now turned to baddie feelings.

Reywas 2 wrote:I'd like to hear who Golden 2 thinks we should lynch. I'm leaning towards believing BR2 was the tracker because she sounded genuine to me but I'm not ready to make a judgment.

I'm still leaning towards an Elohcin 2 vote at this point. Her defense did nothing for me.

I made a large post on Day 3 which can be tl;dr as: fair baddie read on "BR", slight baddie read on "Eloh", mixed feelings on "Cookie", eyeballing "Scotty". It also included "Timmer" for his "Synonym" out of the blue vote, but it appears he flipped civ (and judging by the real player behind that sock, I'm now not surprised of his actions). Right now I'd probably stick with these suspects.

Anyway, not that I'm not expecting a cascade of unflinching votes down my path, but should you take more time and you still want to think it through first, I'll be here to talk. Don't go wasting another cycle of civ deaths (mine and likely another victim the following Night), just because "BR"'s flip gets automatic credence. It doesn't. Think of what I said below. Don't be blind to my previous posts, read 'em, interpret 'em.

Golden 2 wrote:
Treat me and "BR" on the same page. One of us chose the tracker as a fake flip. Judge which one, that's all I'm asking.

RIP "Timmer" / llama.

Ninja stands for ninja civ, a civ with a kill. Might also be better known as the vigilante on other boards.

Unfortunately, that doesn't imply "Timmer" had any real info on "Syn".

Yes, "Lipsticklacey", me and the Mafia fooled around with a kill, a seemer flip AND a rezz, wasting all three (the kill of that phase on a teammate, the seemer flip by exposing myself in the eyes of the real roles and the rezz as a power) as early as the second Night. Makes total sense.

You are correct that rezzes are usually one time use and can be submitted at any time. I tend to believe I was rezzed as soon as the civ rezzer was displeased with my death. "TGG"'s ressurection seems to be at the hands of someone else, but I don't imagine anybody except a civ making use of that, as well.

I did not win any prize whatsoever so far, except for the Day 3 wear-a-labcoat thing. I believe you are aware what kind of prizes (or losses) those contests offer.

Also, your last theory is in dissonance with disbelieving, at the beginning of your post, that OP roles would exist: so I'm indy, seemer AND have an auto-rezz. What am I, a broken anime character?

"I question why she chose the tracker instead of the doctor to emulate."

"TGG"/Wilgy got lynched on Day 2 due to the Mafia's lynch switch and flipped doctor. There's less to gain from emulating a dead (at that time) player's role, that they used a switch on to kill (and save their own), in order to try to frame Wilgy as the seemer.

I was killed on Night 2 by the Mafia, flipped tracker and then got rezzed. There's everything to gain by having their seemer start beaming fake signals right away, beg for lynch when the vote train on him happened to gain enough traction [notice how her Day 3-Day 4 game evolved from quick comment on my rezz, then engaging in reads to bury her initial impulse, doing very little to defend midway through when players were reading her bad, culminating the reads in a post-by-freaking-post ISO on "Cookie" only to spot that she has enough votes already and resume the initial plan], manually set the seeming to tracker and get me framed for being the seemer.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Golden 2 wrote: HOSTS how are seemers designed? Do they get assigned different random roles upon flip?

They pick their own

Boom. So much for "astounding coincidence", hmm?

Treat me and "BR" on the same page. One of us chose the tracker as a fake flip. Judge which one, that's all I'm asking.

Something tells me Golden tracked you Night 3 and learned that you didn't go anywhere.

Go where? I don't follow.

A seemer would not go anywhere at night. A tracker would.

I don't expect you to have a defense against such a statement, but I want to discuss the possibility with other players.

There isn't a defense against such a statement, because the angle is misconstrued. "BR" faked her tracker flip, so she couldn't have learned anything about me from a power she doesn't actually have. Stop trying to entrap me with slang.

"Llama", put everything you said under Mafia killed me, saw their efforts cancelled by the rezzer and quicly put their seemer to work.

I don't get the "she would have faked her civ tracking earlier if bad". "BR" the first was inactive/dormant right about until I died. Furthermore, isn't the fact that she didn't show any civ tracking hints prior a sign that, in fact, she started cooking that after my rezz?

Also, I didn't ask the Host seemer functionality details, as much as clarification/confirmation at a point where "Sig" said it works randomly.

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Golden 2 wrote: HOSTS how are seemers designed? Do they get assigned different random roles upon flip?

They pick their own

Boom. So much for "astounding coincidence", hmm?

Treat me and "BR" on the same page. One of us chose the tracker as a fake flip. Judge which one, that's all I'm asking.

Something tells me Golden tracked you Night 3 and learned that you didn't go anywhere.

Go where? I don't follow.

Good to see you back, "TGG"!

Roxy wrote:

Golden 2 wrote: HOSTS how are seemers designed? Do they get assigned different random roles upon flip?

They pick their own

Boom. So much for "astounding coincidence", hmm?

Treat me and "BR" on the same page. One of us chose the tracker as a fake flip. Judge which one, that's all I'm asking.