The Syndicate

boo 2 wrote:

Cobalt 2 wrote:

boo 2 wrote:

Cobalt 2 wrote:You're kidding me right.

Am I?

Are you?

Look at my posts. Do you think typing the alphabet was all that was required? Get real.

Jesus dude. You piss me off so much. Pay attention or I will get mad and ask you to lynch me tomorrow.

This post has been edited due to offensive content. Let me be clear that this kind of abusive and discriminatory comment and behavior will not be tolerated here.

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.

Reywas 2 wrote:Okay but if that's true we still have the problem of 2 civvie trackers because BR2 wasn't Gamer Guy.

Roxy wrote:

Someone wrote:If we cannot figure out the Golden thing, I think a Syn lynch is a good idea as an alternative.

Reywas 2 wrote:

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....

And my point is that finding LC2's team is the most efficient use of our time.

boo 2 wrote:I'm waiting to see if Synonym has anything to say.

How should I put it. Something feels............wrong.

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?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

Epignosis 2 wrote:The issue I'm seeing with Golden being mafia is why would they kill him? Black Rock 2 was being considered as suspicious for awhile, she was going to get lynched at some point maybe this was a set up. The other option is that if there is a vigilante then they killed Golden 2 and it wasn't the mafia. This then brings up his revival, was the a misused civ power or a mafia ability? Assuming Golden is mafia that is.

Hmm I do see what you mean. The wrinkle in the equation is the recent revival of Dom. Would mafia have 2+ stocks of revival? That would be quite OP. OP I say!

If Golden really were the tracker, this would give credence to both his and Wilgy's revival. The more likely scenario is the civ ability to revive every even day.

Black Rock's predecessor not being active on night 1 fits with my theory of mafia being mostly inactive on night 1. I question why she chose the tracker instead of the doctor to emulate. Otherwise, I must admit Golden does bring up some good points on the matter. What other job would a seemer have? Sacrificing herself to "benefit" civs when getting a little flak is a clever strategy, but also inherently lacking if her goal was to only shed light on Golden. Tracker could be that much more useful later on than just a one-time reveal.

You think the mafia having 2 ressed would be OP, but a civ ressed being able to do it every even night is plausible? That seems even more OP to me.

I don't think Golden 2 was ressed by the civ resser, and I think the doctor was immediately brought back by the civ resser when they saw the lynch result because they wanted to make it clear Golden 2 was not their work.

Typically, the civ resser only gets to use the power once, and it is anytime. Your theory that they can res every even night makes no sense for a few reasons, besides just being crazy powerful because: Golden 2 was not ressed at night, so a civ resser who can only res on an even night could not have brought him back; and because if it is a night only power, it should not go through immediately like it did for GG2, but in the night post, because it should be open to be roleblocked or misdirected, or other similar powers.

So, I think Golden 2 or a potential teammate won a prize that allowed them to res him. Or, and I kind of have an easier time believing this, because it seems a little early in the game to have given out a res as a prize, he is an independent, who has the power of a seemer, and at least 1 auto-res.

boo 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

boo 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

boo 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:
Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.

It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.

That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"

You do know the villain says that, right?

Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.

Good thing paraphrasing that line doesn't also make you a villain trying to kill me.

Well I mean I've never actually seen the movie. I've just seen that scene a bunch of times in youtube videos, or referenced in other media. Good guy in a tux strapped to a table, death laser heading for his junk etc, etc.

Besides, if I were a villain trying to kill you, this conversation wouldnt be happening. I just wouldve killed you last night. I like to keep my games clean cut and simple.

I wonder who else caught on to that thing I'm doing.

Cobalt 2 wrote:

Cookie 2 wrote:I know I have been flogging the "civ/civ" horse pretty hard, but even i am having a hard time thinking either of you are civ at this point, LC & Syn. Especially you, Syn, since you & Sig both seem to know something about the Day One lynch that the rest of us don't.

This looks like you BACKED OFF in a big way when it looked like Scum Con was going down, but then you made Synonym your prime target while tossing sig into the mix.

I don't even know how to make a scum name for cookie because I like cookies. But you are a Scum Cookie.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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 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.

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:

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?

SVS 2 wrote: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.

Cobalt 2 wrote:OH MY GOD

I hand you your first scum on a fucking silver platter and now you're suspecting ME. YOUR WELCOME YOUR MAJESTY.

Just lynch me already. then when I flip town AND I WILL FLIP TOWN you can see how stupid you look in that mirror you're constantly admiring. I've done nothing but TELL THE TRUTH.

I'm so over this. Gonna go eat my feelings.

Golden 2 wrote:In all fairness and on a serious note, right now I'll give around 10% credence to the thought that someone might have meta uber-bussed LC. Let's call it the "Epignosis bussing effect". You just never know. A meta grudge, such as the "Scum Con" one, can, *in pure theory*, be an ideal distancing tactic, in case that player and "LC" have had the misfortune to be paired as mafia.

Llama 2 wrote:Syn, this does not completely absolve you. But it does you credit for the civ cause. Glad to hear you're ready to appear civ again. Welcome back on board!

Reywas 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:Nicely done. Now I will have to reconsider my read of lacey because I thought she was Elohcin.

That's crazy talk. Why did you think that? Lacey 2 is playing nothing like Elohcin.

Cobalt 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Just so you know, this is almost a mirror image of Bullets over Broadway mafia except with sock accounts.

Some of my off-site peeps know who I am, esp the real Synonym, so let me just say - in BoB I was right about Long Con the entire game, switched a lynch onto him on Day Two but someone pardoned it, he got lynched as scum down the line but I got lynched for being scummy anyway. Was town.

This game, I was right about Long Con the entire game, pardoned my OWN lynch when it came to a tie between the two of us, and Long Con goes down 2 phases later as guess what? Scum. And I'm, guess what? Town.

Either roll with it or get me the hell out of this game. Because I'm not dealing with bullshit anymore.

It didn't take me that long. I guess I'm the better you.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Actually, no, please lynch me. I would love to see the looks on Dom, Ricochet, and Lipsticklacey's faces.

Please, please do it.

Spoiler alert: for me, it will be one of happiness regardless of your alignment. I haven't enjoyed playing with you, and find you very unpleasant. I also happen to respect myself enough to not want to continue playing with someone such as that. Based on the first actual rule for this game, coupled with our Hostesses claims that they have no problem host-killing people, it actually baffles me that you have not been host killed. That I strongly believe you to be bad just makes it win-win.

I already apologized to you sincerely and you blew it the fuck off and made a mockery out of what we were supposed to do, so don't say I didn't try.

I would much rather be out of this game, so do move forward with lynching me.

No, you did not. You did something you were required to, if you wanted your vote to count. And then you made a mockery of yourself by following it up with a ridiculous statement, and when I called you out on that, you gave up all pretence of actually being sincerely apologetic.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Actually, no, please lynch me. I would love to see the looks on Dom, Ricochet, and Lipsticklacey's faces.

Please, please do it.

Spoiler alert: for me, it will be one of happiness regardless of your alignment. I haven't enjoyed playing with you, and find you very unpleasant. I also happen to respect myself enough to not want to continue playing with someone such as that. Based on the first actual rule for this game, coupled with our Hostesses claims that they have no problem host-killing people, it actually baffles me that you have not been host killed. That I strongly believe you to be bad just makes it win-win.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Bass 2 wrote:Lacey someone had asked you a question about something and you disappeared. You returned to post a picture of a turtle but still ignored them. Why?

If by "someone" you mean Synonym, yes, like I said, I'm done talking with him. I'm not going to try and engage with a brick wall that just has a temper tantrum every now and again, it's a waste of time.

"Disappeared" also isn't really accurate, I was around, posting, then left. Just because Synonym 2 expected an immediate response because it suited him doesn't make what he said true.

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.

boo 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:
And when people tell me I'm having an attitude when I'm not having attitude, that is when I start to get a fucking attitude.

Problem with this statement is that you actually do have an attitude. If you dont think you do, then perhaps you should check your tone, and maybe read what you write before you commit to posting it. Because it sure as fuck comes across like you do.

Cookie 2 wrote:I know I have been flogging the "civ/civ" horse pretty hard, but even i am having a hard time thinking either of you are civ at this point, LC & Syn. Especially you, Syn, since you & Sig both seem to know something about the Day One lynch that the rest of us don't.

Cookie 2 wrote:Do you think that is what Sig was also referencing when he said LC survived "again" as well?

Cookie 2 wrote:Also that was *Actual Real* Long Con that survived in that other game, right? Not this sock Long Con? So not even really the same person?

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Y'all are so quick to dog pile on potential discrepancies it's disgusting.

It's not dog piling. I'm one of exactly two people who voted for you. If you say things that don't add up, I SHOULD be questioning you about it. Why are you getting pissed off at ME when it is YOU who said something that didn't add up... look at your clarification, how was I supposed to know that? Especially when Long Con who didn't die in another game isn't likely to be Long Con 2. I wish you would lose the attitude, if you are really civilian. But I don't think you are.

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Nobody lynched me?

And Scum Con survived again?

Gonna be Day 1 again on Day 3 if no kill happens?

Lol k.

I thought you said it was YOU who survived on day one.

Long Con 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:I agree with this. SVS says that I pushed too hard on the Syn and mafia issue but I really didn't. I kept getting asked to clarify my initial reaction to Syn's post. I think the fact that I reiterated my initial thoughts three times, or so, made everyone go after me as if my theory was a huge deal. Have I pushed for a Syn lynch? No, not at all. I voted for him in order to save myself, that is all. My original reaction/theory to Syn's post was blown out of proportion and everyone who is still on it needs to move on.

This may have some merit. I read back for context and you did raise the issue when prompted aside from the first time. I'm still bothered by it though because you maintained it as a real cause for suspicion and I really don't think it is, even on day 1. Synonym could have named any number of people and this logic could apply the same way, suspecting him for naming five people instead of four or six or whatever seems forced. Also there's this:

Long Con 2 wrote:SVS-I have no specific example at the moment as I need to hurry off and prepare some sandwiches. However, I can say off the top of my head that I have seen mafia throw names out in the beginning of a game in order to gauge reaction from the civilians. I guess this allows them to see who it is best to "find suspicious".

I'm assuming there's no need to make any sandwiches now, so I hope you can address this point. I asked you for an example of a mafia member blurting out a pile of names on day 1 because you said you think baddies do that. I don't see how baddies would gain anything by "gauging reactions" about random names at the very beginning of the game.

Not blurting out a pile of names, but bringing up a person or persons begin mafia when there is nothing to go on yet just to see how they and the thread reacts to those specific names. It a way to know their next move, who they should seriously consider making a "case" for. In all honesty I don't know how to give you a specific example without going back and reading Day 1 of the games I have been in before and I don't have to time to do that as I have played several games over the years. Please forgive me but mafia doesn't mean THAT much to me that I would spend hours searching for those examples. I am shocked that you have never seen such a thing happen. I have even had a fellow mafia player tell me (outside of mafia) that he/she does this on a regular basis at the beginning of his/her game.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:It's really awesome people can make posts they pretend are genuine, and then immediately revert to using a lazy stand-in name to say a person should be lynched. That makes the whole thing seem really sincere, and not forced on top of forced.

Ricochet 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:I don't really understand why people are reading Synonym as genuine. He sounded like a cornered baddie to me, and the explanation he gave was tenuous. Now we've even had clarification from the hosts that they might agree something conditional:

How do you think a genuine Synonym would have looked? I don't know about you but I've seen plenty of civs behave like that. I've seen baddies carry on and make a scene, but rarely if ever is it quite so abrasive.

I've seen baddies make an abrasive scene, and every time people go 'oh, they must be civ' and then are surprised when they are not. I don't think how upset you get is relevant, baddies can fake that. MovingPictures is someone I can think of, Long Con another. But I don't think its the tone that caught him. It's what he said. I think he said things that don't ring true, read his posts and forget the tone just think about if what he said is believable. I think people should read back Synonym and JaggedJimmyJay and see how much sense their posts and votes make together if they are a team (especially one who knew outright that Synonym had an extra vote on him somehow, because I don't believe his conditional lynch stop was a thing.)