The Syndicate

I wouldn't have assumed the rule as it stands on page 1 would apply to a person who replaced in though anyways Bass 2, since it's 2 different people, and if you're replacing in for someone, then they probably already missed votes and actions.

And since I haven't missed votes or actions, it wasn't something I've talked about in PMs in with the hostesses and been made aware of. And I do not recall it being mentioned in the thread that it works differently.

But yes, now that you say that, it does make sense, since Gamer Guy 2 missed his third vote on Day 4 (he voted day 1 and that was it), but wasn't killed until night 4. I had just assumed that was just delayed while they waited to see if the person would return or they could replace them, but it must have been because GG2 sent in a night action N2, missed D3, missed action N3, missed D4... or never mind, they were still waiting on something in this case, because this way doesn't work following the combination of 3 straight missed votes/actions either.

@Golden 2, do you think the team using an inactive players power would count though? I think they'd have to send it in if they're missing every vote, at the very least. Which would explain why Blooper 2 has periods of activity at night, but not during the day, because she has to, or she lets down her team.

Then I don't see a scenario where Blooper 2 isn't bad. That's a rule change from what is on page 1, and I don't see why that would be done for a civilian.

If you're around and sending in night actions, but only have 4 posts and have missed; as far as I can tell, every single lynch vote in the game - then something is very wrong.

I wonder if they're contemplating pulling an MP and killing everyone who missed the vote?

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

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

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

Ricochet 2 wrote:@rey - thinking about seemer choosing an identity that is not their own makes me think...

if BR 2.0 was a seemer, could she have chosen from absolutely anyone not playing the game?

If so, the person I'd choose to gain cred is juliets. And I did find it surprising juliets was playing given she has been barely on the site in weeks, its not impossible.

I can't figure out who is behind socks so I don't know about that side of things, but I still think lynching golden is rational just because it seems like a 50/50 shot to me. But I also don't see value in putting a throwaway vote there if he isn't going to be lynched.

Right now, if it isn't golden, I'm voting cookie. I think cookie slipped and gave away that she didn't know the civ win condition, and then tried to cover. It's a big red flag for me.

If it isn't Blooper 2, I'd probably join you on Cookie 2.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Epignosis 2 wrote:I can't post much right know but I could see Lipsticklacey 2 strategy working at the same time Black Rock didn't provide much for a blooper lynh. This could be an attempt to lynch a civ and then be able to say well it was a test on Lip's part. I'm not sure about this angle to I won't pursue right know but I wouldn't follow Lipsticklacey this phase on voting for blooper.It seems like an easy way for the mafia to lynch a civ and then be able to not hold any blame for it.

I'm not feeling either of the two leading lynches, I would lean more to Reywas 2 but again not sure. I find the whole exchange with bass 2 to be off which implies mafia, and my gut says it is strange. However, I believe we have lost sight of yesterdays lynches being Elochin and Synonyms, for that reason I will be going with Elochin today as I still hold suspicions about her and I think that lynch is more likely to happen then Synonyms this phase.

I think you're missing my other point, that even if she is a civilian, she is likely going to wind up mod killed due to inactivity. And we learn nothing from that. Baddies don't benefit from lynching civilians who are going to die without their intervention.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

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

SVS 2 wrote: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?

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

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

Golden 2 wrote:

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?

She said to ignore her ISOs when going back over her, she did one on each of them.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

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

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

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

Reywas 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Also: Reywas 2, can you explain is to me. You do not want to lynch Synonym 2, because it is unconfirmed there are 2 baddie teams, but you are not willing to apply the same logic to Golden 2.

Why?

abcedfghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

I don't understand what you're asking me. I think Golden 2 is on LC2's baddie team. I don't suspect Synonym 2 but if evidence appears that there's 2 baddie teams I'm willing to reassess.

So you think Golden 2 and his team killed him then.

Why?

Also: Reywas 2, can you explain is to me. You do not want to lynch Synonym 2, because it is unconfirmed there are 2 baddie teams, but you are not willing to apply the same logic to Golden 2.

Why?

abcedfghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Actually, that would be my solution to the problem.

We lynch Blooper 2. If she comes back as bad, then we can with near certainty trust BR2 was the real tracker, and then lynch Golden 2.

If she comes back good, while that would not clear Golden 2, since it could have just been an unlucky case where Blooper 2 and the killer both targeted Golden 2 the night he was killed, it would, I think, suggest we can give him a phase or two to prove he can be trusted.

It has the added bonus of us only losing a player who I think is 1 missed vote away from being mod killed, which would give us no result, which in this case would be a pretty big loss of useful information, and it doesn't risk killing the real civilian tracker if Golden 2 is being honest.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

That is the opposite of what I said about the ISOs, actually. She said she wanted us to look back at what she had said, but clarified that she did not mean those, which is why I brought up her suspicion of Blooper 2.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Cobalt 2 wrote:If Black Rock was town, genuinely town, I'd question why the executed jumped on Cookie, like she was the Grand Vizier of Cookies.

Oh? You sure about that?

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Also you made a mistake a few posts ago; at least a z was not included. And I am pretty confident I can outpost you. So we could both just stop now, to make things easier. Just a thought.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Cobalt 2 wrote:Please vote for Dom.

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

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

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

You should use my method for at least one post, and actually give us the reasons you think Dom 2 is bad, because right, this seems pretty baseless. I went back and read your posts over the last few cycles, and as far as I can tell, this is the first time you have brought up this suspicion.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Cookie 2 wrote:Why do you think someone was more likely to "try to get herself lynched" if she is a civ?

Without that double tracker flip, I would not be considering a Golden lynch. How can you be so sure?

Here is my problem. Earlier you also said this, which gave me a vague feeling you were not thinking of the civilian win conditio when you said it.

And then you followed it up with something way more overt.

Once you got called out on, you're coming up with excuses. But what Epi does is not relevant, and you have not actually offered any examples of Roxy games where what you are saying now would support your statement making sense.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Now sure, of course you are in the know. But any baddie team would have pieced it together back on day 1. Forgetting it seems just as plausible though, and I think you did, up until Ricochet 2 gave you a reminder.

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Cookie 2 wrote:But i don't know the baddie win cons, and while I know Roxy may be flexible that way, I also know Splints hates win dead or alive win cons.

Hey, Lacey, what do you make of that!

I do not even have the words. It's a thing of beauty.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

SVS 2 wrote:

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.

Then I'd ask you to go back and read the exchange he and I had once more, it seems pretty clear to me, and given that he has consistently taken at least a few votes, I don't think I am the only one.

Are you a civilian? Are you honestly telling me you couldn't think of a very simple way to answer the question without it being outty? I asked the hostesses if I could bring it up in thread before I asked it, and they said yes. I don't think they'd have done that if they felt it was a question that would result in breaking the rules if answered.

Everything Syn2 has said and done has me convinced.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

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

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.

I hadn't really been thinking of that angle SVS 2, but that makes sense to me.

She, or the person she replaced, must have tracked at least one person she talked about being suspicious of; Blooper 2, Elohcin 2, and Cookie 2, and found them to have targeted the person who was killed on that night. It would be another reason her being lynched would be useful.

I think I need to read her more again myself thinking this way now.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:I did not say I think he is a seemer, I said the only reason I think Roxy would give him information about how the role works in a pm that she wasn't willing to say in thread is if it was his role.

Meaning, I don't think he got any information from Roxy in pm, and that he either misread or misunderstood what was actually said in the thread, or he is making stuff up.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Actually, now that I think on it a bit more, maybe he is the seemer.

I do still think you are an independent, with a power sponge type ability, and you just lucked out and found the civ resser or seemer N1, and the other on N2. That would allow you to seem like a seemer given the BR result, and also res yourself, which FS did say would be allowed.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

I did not say I think he is a seemer, I said the only reason I think Roxy would give him information about how the role works in a pm that she wasn't willing to say in thread is if it was his role.

Meaning, I don't think he got any information from Roxy in pm, and that he either misread or misunderstood what was actually said in the thread, or he is making stuff up.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

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

Damn it.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

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.

Sig 2 wrote:Okay, work with me while I sort through the Golden 2/BR 2 "who is the seemer" problem.

I asked the hosts about the specifics of a seemer role. their reply was that a seemer would pick a player in the game. Not a sock account, but a player, and when the seemer died, they would be revealed as that player, their power, and their alignment.

Thus, if I'm a seemer, and I tell the hosts to pick Golden the player, and then I die, my death would Sig 2 was Golden - his role - his power.

The interesting thing here is that the seemer would not actually find out their chosen player's sock account. In my example, I would know upon death what Golden's part in the game was, but not which sock he was.

If anyone wants to confirm this, just shout out to the hosts.

So let's look at the two deaths:

"Black Rock 2 - Lynched day 4 - civvie tracker - juliets (replaced reywaS Day 2)"
"Golden 2 - Killed Night 2 - civvie tracker - XthAtGAm3RGuYX - rezzed Day 3"

Let's say Golden 2 is telling the truth. He is Gamer Guy. He is a civvie tracker. He dies. He is rezzed. Black Rock 2 would then be the seemer. Correct? But.... wait.

For Black Rock 2 to be the seemer, and to show up as the civ tracker, who would she have had to ask the hosts to appear as? Gamer Guy. It's the only way to appear as a civvie tracker if she is the seemer. only, she didn't! BR2 was listed as Juliets, civ tracker. Thus, that cannot be the truth.

Let's flip it.

Golden 2 is the seemer. He requests to be Gamer Guy's role upon death. He dies, and is revealed as Gamer Guy, civvie tracker. BR 2 would then be a civ, right, the real civvie tracker? Except... she can't be. Because if BR2 was indeed the real civvie tracker, when she died, she ALSO would have had to be revealed as Gamer Guy! But she wasn't, instead she was juliets!

So, NEITHER way works, going by the hosts' rules. Which means there are shenanigans here that we are not aware of.

This is not right at all. The question was if a seemer gets to choose the role they show up or not when they flip, and the answer was they do. The answer said nothing about the player/sock stuff you are bringing up.

So, a seemer wouldn't be choosing the actual player; I'm not really sure how you managed to reach that conclusion, they're either choosing a role they want to show up as, or showing up as a player 2 that they choose before they die. There is no conflict here.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Golden 2 wrote: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?

Nah, just a really lucky power sponge.

@Hostesses: could a role with a res available to them use the res on the self if they were killed?

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.

Epignosis 2 wrote:

Black Rock 2 wrote:Look carefully at my posts - not the ISOs - there is one in particular I want you to be sure and see.

Lipsticklacey 2 this post as well as her saying her death would benefit the civilians.

You aren't paying much attention, huh? Golden 2 has been killed, and came back as the civilian tracker. Then he got ressed. Now BR2 has been lynched, and come back as the civilian tracker. One of them is a seemer.

Epignosis 2 wrote:Okay so she must have tracked someone and gotten something then?

No... But her second guessing Golden 2 makes more sense.

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Linki: Rico 2, it would only be double targeting if there is only 1 baddie team, so since you have 2 suspicions somewhat based around that, can we assume you do strongly believe there is only a single team?

No. I'm not sure how you got that, sorry if I was misleading. I'm trying to think who could be bad based on the possibility that either could be true, I don't have any strong view one way or the other.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think most people's minds would go directly to double targetting for why golden did not die, but if someone KNEW there were two teams they might not think of double targetting, and boo and/or llama could have been making an unintentional slip on that front.

I don't think there is any proof about whether there is one or two teams yet, but if my theory is right and boo slipped that means there would be two teams, not one.

Ahh, ok. I see what you mean, thanks.

I voted BR2. Either I am right and she is bad, or she is civilian, and according to her that is still somehow a good result.

But then, with the exception of the vote on me, I'd be happy to see any of the 3 other people who already have votes get lynched, because I think there are good reasons for all of them.

Linki: Rico 2, it would only be double targeting if there is only 1 baddie team, so since you have 2 suspicions somewhat based around that, can we assume you do strongly believe there is only a single team?

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:
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.

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

That was an in-character post, and then someone asked if it was a slip and I gave a vague answer. That actually tricked people?

Did anyone make a new friend Day 3? If you did and you will talk about it in thread, I have a question for you.

Ricochet 2 wrote:Well done people who saw LC as bad. Bye LC, glad you are gone.

My first instinct is I still think Synonym is bad, but I need to reflect on that.

I don't understand why a baddie would hold on to a lynch switch Day 1 when they're tied for the most votes, unless they know something else is in play.

Bass 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Yes, I am aware you have not voted for me. You also haven't mentioned a single other person you are considering. As far as I can tell, if you were to vote for me, you have not yet actually given a reason that makes any sense. Yes and that's not my problem. My problem is that not only are you not die-hard committed, you are not committed at all.

I did not say I think it was your intention to succeed in leading other people to vote for me. I only think it is your intention to make it appear to the thread at large that you genuinely believe you have a legitimate reason to vote for me. I dislike that, because the intention behind it does not feel civilian.

You would look cleaner if you had discussed the possibility of voting anyone other than me before saying that you may not vote for me. Because right now, if you don't vote me, your only option is placing a vote on someone you will have never previously talked about, and people don't have a tendency to look on that kindly.

So you're saying that me changing my mind about you looks dirty? I have publicly stated my reasons for wanting to vote you. You think they are insufficient, by your standards, but you're incorrectly claiming I haven't stated them.

I think we're suspecting each other of similar things. The first question of mine you answered I asked you to elaborate and you didn't, therefore I thought you wanted to have a reason to seem like you were suspicious of me without having actual content to back it up. You say that me only discussing you as a potential vote is for the ability to appear that I'm suspicious of someone without having actual content to back it up. This also ties in with your disagreement of my reasons to vote you.

Unless someone wants me to vote Long Con 2 for numbers purposes I'm just going to vote myself. There's no heinous/manipulative intent in that, but I'm sure you'll find some, and that's the name of the game so c'est la vie.

I'm fine with people changing their minds. I just happen to have a bunch of issues with what you're saying because:

- I'm still not clear on what made you think I was suspicious in the first place.
- you have not mentioned anyone else you would consider voting for, and instead of voting for me, went with yourself.
- I'm also not clear on what made you decide not to vote for me. As far as I can tell, you still suspect me, for reasons you are keeping to yourself, but maybe not?

I suppose it boils down to this: I do not trust you because it is very obvious to me you have a good understanding of the game in a broad sense, you are keeping every thought you are having in this game outside of the thread, while acting like you are not having very many thoughts on it at all, and not actually explaining the ones that you do make some mention of. That all points to Btsc, and/ or a motivation that is not in line with a civilian.

Linki: well that's an embarrassing fail. You had the green sparks from the spell before the spell was actually cast.

Reywas 2 wrote:You're just arguing semantics.

No, you said your theory was not contrary to what he claimed his power was, if he was telling the truth, and I was outlining why it was. In an event where he has the most votes, the power you said you thinkhe has would mean that he does not in fact have the most votes, so would have already survive the lynch, because he would not have the most votes. According to him, his power does not come into play unless he has the most votes. It doesn't fit both ways, so your theory and his statement are contrary.

That isn't semantics.

Reywas 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

Reywas 2 wrote:I think we're gonna need a lot more votes for LC2 if we want this to work.

Are you all illiterate? I told you how it works. Can anyone in the class tell me how I get lynched? Was anyone listening?

Yeah that's it. Me no read good.

Here is what you posted:

Long Con 2 wrote:I was joking about being unlynchable. And yes, I am claiming the latter. Every time I get the most votes, I have a chance of being lynched. As for who gets lynched instead of me, I was not given this information. I am guessing it may go to the person with the second most votes. TGG was up 2 votes on Day 2's tally, tied with Syn and MM. But of course I cannot be sure. It may have nothing to do with my non-lynch. It may be that no one gets lynched instead of me and that the TGG lynch was due to something different.

Nothing I suspect about your role contradicts your explanation, but it also doesn't mean you're telling us the whole truth. You have "a chance" of being lynched? What sort of chance is it? I suspect you won't tell us. I think you're bad, and I want you to receive as many votes as possible to increase the chance that you are lynched.

Well, actually, what you said you think his power is; a 50% chance of not having a vote count, or stuff similar to that, is contradicted by what he has said; that any time he has the most votes, he has a chance of surviving. By your theory, he would not have the most votes, which is directly contradictory to what he said about his power.

Bass 2 wrote:Perhaps I should've been more joking with my tone in that second part about being/not being like the sock. It wasn't intended to be a completely serious statement.

Lacey 2, let me clarify something. I have not voted for you yet. All of this "holier-than-thou" talk about not thinking out my vote when I have been actively discussing with you to get more information before I vote is not appreciated. You say I'm easily swayed but how many players had already decided on who they were going to vote for ahead of time? Both the Synonym 2 and Long Con 2 trains had 3 players on them almost immediately when the day started. Now LC2 has 7 voters and Synonym 2 has an additional one. Nearly half the LC2 voters, and most of the Synonym 2 voters, had locked their vote extremely early in the day considering votes cannot be changed. You yourself were the first player to vote, locking on Synonym 2. I'm not bringing this up to argue that certain players should've thought their votes out more, I'm only bringing this up to point out that I'm not die-hard committed to voting one single player regardless of what happens.

it isn't a compliment or opinion, it's a fact that you are more perceptive than you are letting on, because no one can have a presence in a game and maintain the limited views that you are talking about

So what you're saying is that it is an indisputable fact that I am aware of more than I am letting on? Because, to the best of your knowledge of the human race, nobody can "have a presence" (be checking the thread and posting?) and be as unaware/tunnel-y/etc as I appear to be?

you haven't discussed having any other suspicions, you haven't discussed with anyone else their suspicions, you haven't discussed anything else at all, essentially. Asking the question and the subsequent follow up has been the only thing you have spoken about so far

Follow me through with this train of thought for a moment. A hypothetical world in where you are civ and I am not and I want you dead. Why would I focus on one specific person, knowing that if I succeeded I would immediately not only look bad, but appear to have wasted the vast majority of my posts?

then you are misreading me. And also ridicuoulosly easy to sway, apparently

Excuse me for not locking in my vote immediately at the beginning of the day and trying not to get locked into one mindset where I have to be right on everything or else everything crumbles apart. So if I had instead insisted for no reason that you were civ and didn't even attempt to hear other possibilities I would've looked cleaner?



And yes I think Syn 2 is playing to fit the sock. I don't know if that leads to a conclusion of him being town or not, but it explains his actions better than other possibilities I've thought of.

Yes, I am aware you have not voted for me. You also haven't mentioned a single other person you are considering. As far as I can tell, if you were to vote for me, you have not yet actually given a reason that makes any sense. Yes and that's not my problem. My problem is that not only are you not die-hard committed, you are not committed at all.

Pretty much.

I did not say I think it was your intention to succeed in leading other people to vote for me. I only think it is your intention to make it appear to the thread at large that you genuinely believe you have a legitimate reason to vote for me. I dislike that, because the intention behind it does not feel civilian.

You would look cleaner if you had discussed the possibility of voting anyone other than me before saying that you may not vote for me. Because right now, if you don't vote me, your only option is placing a vote on someone you will have never previously talked about, and people don't have a tendency to look on that kindly.