The Syndicate

2 Stupid Dogs

Bass 2 wrote:
Golden 2 wrote:"I died with 2 what on me yesterday?"
My bad, I was listening to Lacey 2.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:No, I don't like the idea of taking a single vote, seeing as Golden 2 got lynched with only 2 votes on him
And as for how I'm acting with regards to the sock, what do you people want from me? I don't say much, Lacey 2 calls it "hiding behind the sock", I talk more and you give me crap for not acting like Bass. Could you guys at least get on the same page before you tell me what to do?

Gamer Guy 2 being the lynched and then golden 2 being NKed and being gamer guy got things mixed up for me.

And we aren't all a singular person, so I'm not sure why you would expect us to be in agreement about what we want from you.

2 Stupid Dogs

Bass 2 wrote:
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:And this post is the sort of thing I mean. You acted with your initial question to me like you had just come off reading through everything, so your recall of the unanswered question and nothing else did not seem genuine to me. It has also been the only real thing you have discussed, which I find troublesome. I think you're the strongest example of someone in this game hiding behind the sock, because the more you post, the clearer to me it is you are nothing like the real Bass, and are quite aware of what is going on. The obvious issue there is, why would a civilian the hide behind the sock, when they could clearly be contributing far more then they are. Which makes me believe you are up to no good.
You make one important assumption with this last paragraph. You assume that I could clearly be contributing far more than I currently am. Do you know without me telling you when I'm not working and available to post? Do you know for a fact that I'm not saying every conclusion I come to? I appreciate the assumption that I'm perceptive and/or smart (and/or Mafia, as that's what you're getting at) but those aren't necessarily facts just because you think I'm not saying everything I know.

Regarding the "recall of the unanswered question and nothing else" I'd argue that is the normal outcome. If you've just read over 100 posts and you're not going to go back and get the specifics, as I clearly didn't, then wouldn't the opposite be true? If I had remembered everything about that interaction perfectly wouldn't that have been strange?

Can you clarify on what you mean by the "only real thing" I've discussed? At the time I'd made two or three posts. Do you want me to discuss game mechanics when roles are hidden? The conclusions we can draw with knowledge of the two players that've died by Day 3, both through strange means?

As for being afraid of a singular vote because Golden 2 died with 2 yesterday, have you taken steps to better understand what happened? Long Con 2 explained that, to some extent, it is difficult to lynch him. Did you consider the possibility that one of the two voters on Golden 2 had an ability that interfered with the lynch? Why do you assume that I have some kind of ability that threatens you if I vote you? Or, if you fear a lynch-switcher ability, are you assuming that the switch target would need to have a vote? You say you're afraid because shenanigans happened yesterday but, and be honest with me for a minute here, how much thought have you put into it?

You're giving me conflicting vibes, with the only constant being fear of death, and you're not getting lynched today unless something radically changes, so if it'll make you feel better I won't vote you.

Well, I just finished writing up a response to this and then lost it, so let's try this again. I will go bullet point this time to save time.

- no idea when you're working, it also isn't relevant
- completely certain you haven't shared all conclusions
- 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. There is more to you. This strikes me as an indicator you have Btsc.
- in terms of what you have actually discussed, this is essentially your only talking point. I do not believe you did not go back and look at the question to write the post asking about it. I think you are trying to come up with some sort of loaded question, and I do not believe that there is a civilian intent behind it.
- 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.
- my issue was with your seemingly poorly thought out vote, that you had no clear reason for. That there is so much manipulation in this game is pbvious, based on the results so far, and that you aren't carefully considering your vote when that is the case makes me think you really do not care about lynch results.
- then you are misreading me. And also ridicuoulosly easy to sway, apparently.

2 Stupid Dogs

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.

2 Stupid Dogs

boo 2 wrote:I'm sure somewhere in Australia, actual Synonym is contemplating mass Koala genocide over his doppleganger.

I have ideas, but nothing concrete. So I will just contribute to ridding this game of Synonym 2 so we can concentrate on more fruitful, future endeavors on later days.

hopefully it goes better than the Australian-Emu war.

2 Stupid Dogs

Bass 2 wrote:I didn't ask you why you found me disconcerting, I asked you what other conclusions you drew from what I said. You didn't answer, and that led me to believe that you didn't have an answer.

It's evident that you're upset. It appears that you're taking out your frustations towards Synonym 2 on me. It's not my intent to be rude, so if something upsets you tell me and I will stop.

You read annoyed or cautious in your post answering me yesterday but after I announced intent to vote you today you became aggravated towards me, hostile even, and attempted to shake suspicion with a No U. One person saying they'll vote you, when two other players already have small trains forming on them, shouldn't be enough to cause that reaction. Therefore I believe that you aren't on my side.

For clarity, here's the timeline of our interactions:
Spoiler: show
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?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote: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.

And the fact that you can remember that it was me, someone, and something, all really seems selective and disconcerting to me. So on you.

Bass 2 wrote:Aside from "disconcerting", what conclusion would you draw from what I said?
*I receive no response*

Bass 2 wrote:I intend to vote for Lacey 2.
*Long Con 2 asks me why*

Bass 2 wrote:Ignoring someone's posts (Syn 2) when she had a feud with them is understandable. I asked her a question last night and she came back without an answer. She said she found my post "disconcerting" but chose not to elaborate when given the opportunity. That tells me that the comment wasn't thought out, just put out there to make it appear as if she was suspect of multiple people. That's mafia-aligned survivalist behavior.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Except I did answer, because your question was based on your ability to remember that I had not answered a question, but inability to remember who asked it, why they asked it, and what they actually asked. In answering that question, I said that your asking me about it was what I found disconcerting, and then your follow up question was why I found you suspicious. Which was literally in the post I made responding to you.

I don't know if you're just trying to do a full-on accurate Bass impression; and if you are, so far so good, but your question was ridiclous in the context of someone freshly caught up and for some reason needing to ask, and that you are now basing a vote on... whatever exactly your basis is, is even stranger. Short of this being forced, I see no scenario where you look good here.
For the record, you also contradict yourself by saying you didn't respond to Synonym 2 when posting a turtle picture because he isn't worth trying to argue with. However, you respond to him immediately after your most recent post towards me.

Ok, the only thing I drew from it was a distrust of you. So yes, I suppose I didn't answer that question because I had nothing else to add.

No, I haven't found anyone else to be rude, and that includes you. I also don't think I'm taking frustrations out on you, so much as just responding to you, but apologies if it comes across that way.

I don't agree with the next bit, my response to you was essentially just about my confusion of how you reached your conclusions. A lot of what you have said since becoming active hasn't made much sense to me. No, I don't like the idea of taking a single vote, seeing as Golden 2 got lynched with only 2 votes on him, so yes, any vote I may take I want to be very clear on why. I'm not actually clear on why you're considering voting for me, so yes, I'm going to push you on it.

Yes, I did finally cave and quote him in something I said. And yes, I see the contradiction. Sometimes I just can't help myself, and it is something that I hadn't already said and wanted to clarify.

And this post is the sort of thing I mean. You acted with your initial question to me like you had just come off reading through everything, so your recall of the unanswered question and nothing else did not seem genuine to me. It has also been the only real thing you have discussed, which I find troublesome. I think you're the strongest example of someone in this game hiding behind the sock, because the more you post, the clearer to me it is you are nothing like the real Bass, and are quite aware of what is going on. The obvious issue there is, why would a civilian the hide behind the sock, when they could clearly be contributing far more then they are. Which makes me believe you are up to no good.

2 Stupid Dogs

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.

2 Stupid Dogs

Bass 2 wrote:Ignoring someone's posts (Syn 2) when she had a feud with them is understandable. I asked her a question last night and she came back without an answer. She said she found my post "disconcerting" but chose not to elaborate when given the opportunity. That tells me that the comment wasn't thought out, just put out there to make it appear as if she was suspect of multiple people. That's mafia-aligned survivalist behavior.

Except I did answer, because your question was based on your ability to remember that I had not answered a question, but inability to remember who asked it, why they asked it, and what they actually asked. In answering that question, I said that your asking me about it was what I found disconcerting, and then your follow up question was why I found you suspicious. Which was literally in the post I made responding to you.

I don't know if you're just trying to do a full-on accurate Bass impression; and if you are, so far so good, but your question was ridiclous in the context of someone freshly caught up and for some reason needing to ask, and that you are now basing a vote on... whatever exactly your basis is, is even stranger. Short of this being forced, I see no scenario where you look good here.

2 Stupid Dogs

Reywas 2 wrote:LC 2 probably has a role where he has a 50% chance to make a vote not count or 50% of votes for him don't count or something. I think lynching him by a wide margin would be ideal. He said he was going on the offensive today and that he was done defending himself, but it sounds to me like he's more interested in talking about how hard it's gonna be for us to lynch him

Vote Long Con

And either of those options make sense as a baddie power to you?

2 Stupid Dogs

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.

And the fact that you can remember that it was me, someone, and something, all really seems selective and disconcerting to me. So

on you.

2 Stupid Dogs

Llama 2 wrote:
Dom 2 wrote:
SVS 2 wrote:When I have time I'm gonna reassess the game in light of the TGG switch.

For now though I might be less active for a couple days. I'm moving to a different shift for training for the time being, it's going to be so much fun.
Now that you mention it, who would go after Gamer Guy 2 when he was acting like the real Gamer Guy?

I'd bet it is someone from JTM, and possibly even the real Gamer Guy. I know I said before that trying to find out who the real players behind the socks are would be unproductive, but I think I'll be eating my words.
I think there is definite validity in identifying the foot behind the sock. I know who mine is, and I know which alignment I wanted to make myself. Whether or not Roxy and splints gave any credence to my preference is yet to be seen.

Also identifying someone's play style can help identify their meta. Like, for instance, synonym 2 is either playing a very good fake Cobalt, or is Cobalt.

I doubt that preference for the sort of role you like played into what role your '2' version actually is. Golden 2 would have wound up being some sort of independent, that the real Golden would play as civilian-friendly.

Tracker does not really scream Golden, at least for me.

It would also make finding baddies pretty simple, since anyone who said that that is their preference; and isn't bad in their sock, would just be able to come out and say we should lynch their '2' account

2 Stupid Dogs

RIP gamer guy.

And I voted.

2 Stupid Dogs

Golden 2 wrote:I think only "Epignosis" and "DrWilgy" are in danger of missing the third vote, but the former seems to be finally picking it up.

Ok, I hadn't looked it over, I just knew there were around ten missing votes in the last lynch, and that the first wasn't much better. I figured it would be more like 3 or 4 at risk of being mod-killed.

2 Stupid Dogs

Black Rock 2 wrote:Ok let me test my understanding of my thread read:

LC2 is being suspected because it is perceived by some that he was pushing a Synonym lynch. In his defense he pointed out that he had just been repeating himself because people had been bringing up his reasons and he had been responding.

Synonym is being suspected because it is perceived by some that the things LC2 were pushing (or not) on were true, including his being a baddie for naming 5 names with no other explanation as being mafia. Synonym's defense of this is that he was just calling out names in a trolling sense and not serious about them.

I can't figure out why Sig is suspected so I will read through just his posts and see if I can find something, or maybe one of you who suspect him can tell me why.

At this point, without any additional information it seems like both LC2 and Synonym 2 could be civs. I am though, having a hard time discerning whether Syn 2's reaction to all this is cornered baddie or genuinely frustrated civ.

I feel sure there are nuances or other facts that i am missing in this relationship between the two or about one of them so please add on anything you think I got twisted or missed.

That's why Long Con 2 was minorly suspicious of Synonym 2 on Day 1, and a reason some people used to justify voting for him that day. On Day 2, it was just myself and Ricochet 2 who voted for Synonym 2, and I know that wasn't my reason for voting for him on Day 1 or Day 2; I'm also fairly sure it was not Ricochet 2's reason for voting for him.

My reason is, that since he was someone who was taking flak, and I thought there was an easy solution to determine whether or not it was justified. I asked my question, "What do you think of your win con?", and Synonym 2 responded, "My thoughts are that it's... civvie".

To my mind, that was not an adequate answer, and I pushed Synonym 2 on it. And then everything that has happened since, happened; and none of that has made me feel any better about him. That stuff is harder to recap, and really just opinion, so if you can't remember it, I'd hope you'd go back and read Synonym 2 again to get a better feel for it.

2 Stupid Dogs

Dom 2 wrote:
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:
Dom 2 wrote:I was pretty stellar in Shawshank Redemption.
I think that was less Dom being stellar, and more S~V~S being insane (Dom was the SK in that game, got killed, and then she resurrected him quite late into the game, for anyone not in the know).
We don't have to talk too much about the details.

Tell me, who are you looking at voting tomorrow?

Linki: Dang boo, you're being harsh too.

Lol, sure.

I'm not voting a different way until one of us is dead, so it doesn't take much looking to know I'll be voting Synonym 2 tomorrow.

If he were not on the poll, I'd probably start by looking at Sig 2 and Elohcin 2, since they are both people Gamer Guy 2 discussed being suspicious of, and I tend to listen to my doctors.

There's also a considerable number of fairly low posters, but since I expect tomorrow will be a bunch of third missed votes, and that's the cut-off for getting mod-killed, looking there seems like it won't be the best use of time. For any of them that are on that line, but actually start playing now, I'd probably look at them going forward, since not being around and not voting in the early game might just be a cover to avoid getting into trouble early on, and let the civilians pick each other off; which lets face it, is a fairly successful strategy for the baddies on TS.

2 Stupid Dogs

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

2 Stupid Dogs

Dom 2 wrote:I was pretty stellar in Shawshank Redemption.

I think that was less Dom being stellar, and more S~V~S being insane (Dom was the SK in that game, got killed, and then she resurrected him quite late into the game, for anyone not in the know).

2 Stupid Dogs

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

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

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

2 Stupid Dogs

I doubt this will convince anyone who voted for you to not try it again, since they were not exactly starting from a rational place anyways.

You are also actually probably doing more damage then good for yourself right now, because those were some very cavalier statements from someone who survived at the cost of the civilian protector.

2 Stupid Dogs

RIP DrWilgy. I guess that's a lynch switch, or Long Con 2 has a role that does fit the meta, and makes him difficult to lunch.

2 Stupid Dogs

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.)

It's not even about baddies faking it. I do not really understand where the idea that only a civilian can get genuinely upset about being suspected comes from.

I do not think it's a question of whether or not Synonym 2 got genuinely upset, that seems obvious. The issue is why. I understand that as a baddie, getting asked a trick question would be annoying, and then having someone go after you for it would be even worse. Because that is all out of your control, and that is very frustrating. But that is why Synonym 2 is bad. After having things go out of his control, he never regained control, he simply shutdown; failing to answer questions or engage in discussion; and immediately went hostile.

On top of that, we have the curse a Synonym 2 and I were targeted with today. There is also the curse Metalmarsh 2 was targeted with. Synonym 2 and I were targeted by a curse that I have a mush easier time believing is a baddie or independent power, while the 'timmer' curse that MM 2 was targeted with seems more like a civilian power.

I raise that point, because I think the most likely scenario is that a teammate of Synonym 2's targeted us, in the hopes that it would force things in the thread to calm down between he and I, taking attention off of him for today. Which is why I did not play into it. For proof of that, I would point to his reaction to my sarcastic comment about his 'apology' and scum conning.

2 Stupid Dogs

Llama 2 wrote:
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.
On the flip side, you seem nothing like the real lipsticklacey.

And you haven't even cracked 100 posts yet, which puts your llama-ing at like a B-, tops.

2 Stupid Dogs

Llama 2 wrote:
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.
On the flip side, you seem nothing like the real lipsticklacey.

And you haven't even cracked 100 posts yet, which puts your llama-ing at like a B-, tops.

2 Stupid Dogs

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.

2 Stupid Dogs

boo 2 wrote:By the way, have we addressed the fact that this game has an ODD number of players? We assume that everybody is switched, but think about this like a paired assignment in school.

There are 25 students in the classroom, much like this game has 25 players. Mrs. Roxy and Mrs. Fingersplints tell us to get a partner for a class assingment. We do so. But there is a problem. The odd one out. The outlier. In order for everybody to be able to play as somebody else, there needs to be an even number of players. But we have that one extra person. I feel I can say with almost 100% certainty that one of those among us, is in fact playing as themself.

That... Doesn't work at all. Take a list 1 to 25, then make 1=25, 2=1, 3=2, and so on. Direct pairs are an unlikely; and yes, would be a problematic way, of sorting people into a role.

2 Stupid Dogs

Cookie 2 wrote:Wow, what a silly pointless curse.

I do not think the person who decided on it really thought it through. If a probably-civilian feels like making another civilians either worth 0 or having that other civilian say a bunch of stuff they absolutely do not believe, then I think the fault lies with the first, not the second.

2 Stupid Dogs

I'd like to make a second heartfelt apology on behalf of Synonym 2.

I really am sorry. I just couldn't help myself, but I'll try to do better. Maybe in the next game I'll manage to understand the word 'meta' as well, because I cannot seem to get that one figured out.

The end.

2 Stupid Dogs

I'd like to make a heartfelt apology on behalf of Synonym 2.

I apologize for being such a jerk.

Also, I'm not a civilian, and I promise to stop acting like one.

The end.

P.S.: I'm a jerk.

2 Stupid Dogs

I voted.

Thanks Golden 2, I hadn't considered that. You are right, llama 2 should have voted for himself.

2 Stupid Dogs

You do all know that Gamer Guy 2 is listed alphabetically, when you take into account that the 'the' in his name was simply dropped, right?

This seems like a weird sticking-point. It was someone playing as llama trying to be llama-y, and whether or not they succeeded being open to interpretation.

2 Stupid Dogs

2 Stupid Dogs

Cookie 2 wrote:I kind of feel the hostility is one sided, and not really personal.

Pretty difficult to be personal when you can't be entirely sure who you're being hostile towards.

2 Stupid Dogs

Synonym 2 wrote:
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:
Synonym 2 wrote:Says the one who called me a fun sucking jerk for wanting you to be proven wrong?
If you seriously can't tell the difference, you need to take a giant step back and look at what you're saying, and how you're treating people.
You've been straight up calling me a liar and haven't gotten off my dick since midway through the last phase. But ok.

AKA, I've been playing the game by pursuing a very well-founded suspicion, while you've long since given up on actually giving answers or having a reasonable conversation with anyone, and have instead resorted being rude.

I'm done with you, this is a childish temper tantrum, and we all deserve better.

2 Stupid Dogs

Synonym 2 wrote:Says the one who called me a fun sucking jerk for wanting you to be proven wrong?

If you seriously can't tell the difference, you need to take a giant step back and look at what you're saying, and how you're treating people.

2 Stupid Dogs

Synonym 2 wrote:Lol, the funny part is I have not said a dishonest thing for the entire game. Not sure if LC and Lacey are mafia or just fucking terrible.

Well that's dishonest, seeing as we're all supposed to be masquerading as someone else, which is inherently dishonest.

But keep being needlessly rude and offensive, that will surely help make people want to keep you around.

2 Stupid Dogs

Synonym 2 wrote:
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:
Synonym 2 wrote:Hey Lipsticklacey, did you miss the part where nobody got lynched because I used the civilian oriented lynch pardoning ability?

Pay attention.
Nobody got lynched because it was a tie.

Taking your word on anything when you're a liar who can't keep a story straight would be silly.
Then lynch me next phase just so I can prove your ass wrong when I flip civilian. Curb your fucking attitude, I don't wanna play with that shit.

I very obviously want you lunched tomorrow.

Now you're just being an annoyed baddie who got caught for a reason they don't like, know they're going to get lunched for it, and being a fun-ruining jerk. So thanks for that.

2 Stupid Dogs

Synonym 2 wrote:Hey Lipsticklacey, did you miss the part where nobody got lynched because I used the civilian oriented lynch pardoning ability?

Pay attention.

Nobody got lynched because it was a tie.

Taking your word on anything when you're a liar who can't keep a story straight would be silly.

2 Stupid Dogs

Synonym 2 wrote:I thought you were referencing something else.

I gave the correct answer. You voted me. Thus, you don't think it's the same as mine. Scum.

Really? What did you think I as referencing?

No, you did not. You gave a generic, and therefore incorrect answer. And now you're doing a spectacularly bad job of covering yourself.

2 Stupid Dogs

Synonym 2 wrote:
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:
Synonym 2 wrote:Hi, I pardoned my lynch. That was only a one shot ability. Thanks for making me use it day one. I'm a civ y'all.

Btw, my meta reason on Lipsticklacey - she asked me what I thought about my win condition.

I explicitly replied in a way that I believe a fellow civilian would have understood, given certain circumstances.

That's all I'll say.
While still failing to actually confirm that you know the correct answer. Liar.
Lol. I don't get what you're asking. You asked me what I thought about my win condition. I gave you an answer. You voted me afterwards, which makes me believe you do not have a matching condition and are not on the civilian team.

But get yourself rekt if you want to keep coming at me.

What answer am I not providing to what question?

And here you are not even managing to keep your story straight.

You claim you gave an answer that a civilian would think is right, given the circumstances, but then say you don't actually get what I am asking.

That doesn't fit.

2 Stupid Dogs

I am also not sure you know what meta means, because my asking you a question that only a civilian could know to ask should mean you would not be suspicious of me if you did indeed know the answer.

What a shoddy cover-up.

2 Stupid Dogs

Synonym 2 wrote:Hi, I pardoned my lynch. That was only a one shot ability. Thanks for making me use it day one. I'm a civ y'all.

Btw, my meta reason on Lipsticklacey - she asked me what I thought about my win condition.

I explicitly replied in a way that I believe a fellow civilian would have understood, given certain circumstances.

That's all I'll say.

While still failing to actually confirm that you know the correct answer. Liar.

2 Stupid Dogs

I went with the 2013 Tournament of Champions, since it was the only option the civilians won.

2 Stupid Dogs

Correct.

I may have been; but there were also more than 2 people in the Angry Birds BTSC. Or I could even be Metalmarsh89. Or Lacey.

Those are good questions!

2 Stupid Dogs

I don't agree. By asking the question, getting a poor response, and basing a vote on it, I think the leak has already occurred. But yes; it is worth a shot, even if I don't think the answer will be particularly valuable at this point.

I didn't want to ask the question, but it was just so present and clear, and no one else seemed interested in using what was essentially a freebie, since, A) either two civilians get confirmed; the asker and the responder, or B) the responder fails to deliver and in so doing essentially makes it clear they are not a civilian.

If Synonym 2 is a civilian, and gave a generic answer to avoid the leak, then that was a massive blunder.

2 Stupid Dogs

Golden 2 wrote:
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:
Golden 2 wrote:
Synonym 2 wrote:
Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.
I think Lipsticklacey is mafia for a meta reason.
I'm not familiar with what that meta reason might be.
She's played a single game, and was bad in it.
And? Is it set in stone that everyone who bad before (real Lipsticklacey) or mostly bad before (real TGG) must have been drawn as a baddie?

My sock-account is Lipsticklacey 2, I was answering that one out of her character, since the answer wasn't to hard to puzzle out.

I think it's a silly reason, because as we all know, Metalmarsh89 is bad in almost every game; a fact he talked about in our BTSC at the start of Angry Birds. If we're going to lunch people for meta how often-they're bad vs. good, MM would be the more obvious place to start. But, as I said, I think it's a silly reason, because, A) It would make puzzling out the baddies a good deal easier, and B) I know Lacey has only played Angry Birds, I know she was bad in it, and I know I am civilian in this game. If the meta actually held up, then yes, I would expect the role based around her to be mafia. But it is not, so clearly, I know that the meta does not hold up in at least 1 case. Since it does not hold up in 1 case, I have no reason to operate under the belief that it will hold up in other cases.

2 Stupid Dogs

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:
Lacey wrote:I still don't think this is a very good reason; and it's not why I voted for Synonym. I am curious if you have any thoughts about my reason for voting him.
I'm not sure if you are right in your judgement there Lacey. Did Syn not give you enough?

If this is the kind of game we are going to play, I'd like to know how Sig feels about his win condition.

Nope.

It was a pointed question, and it received a generic response that suggests Synonym did not understand why I was asking. Anyone who has a civilian role should know what answer I was looking for; or at least some form of it. If they do not, they could fix that by reading the role message again.

As a result, it is my view that Synonym is either mafia or one of those not a civilian roles that (I think?) change on a game-to-game basis.

2 Stupid Dogs

Golden 2 wrote:
Synonym 2 wrote:
Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.
I think Lipsticklacey is mafia for a meta reason.
I'm not familiar with what that meta reason might be.

She's played a single game, and was bad in it.

2 Stupid Dogs

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

Linki: Welcome Dr Wilgy. Good to have you Sir.

I still don't think this is a very good reason; and it's not why I voted for Synonym. I am curious if you have any thoughts about my reason for voting him.

2 Stupid Dogs

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

Then you should re-read your role message from our Hostesses again; and re-read my exchange with Synonym. If you still do not understand my reason, then you are no good.

2 Stupid Dogs

Ok, then I am voting for you. Thanks!

2 Stupid Dogs

Hey, Synonym 2, what are your thoughts on your win con?

Search found 205 matches