The Syndicate

Cobalt 2 wrote:Ik weet blooper voor echt.

Ze zou je kiezen, omdat het haar zou vermaken.

Man en vrouw samen op het laatst.

I know blooper for real.

She would choose you, because it would amuse her.

Man and woman together at last.

Epignosis 2 wrote:Look I honestly wouldn't usually bother this hard at the very end if I was mafia. The chances of me begin lynched today is at least 80% the best will be around 50% IF I get both you (Dom) and Cookie on board with my lynch, I'm trying this hard since I've seen through Lipsticklacey and I want to be alive and win to prove that I was right to prove I can outfox the fox.

linki: I disagree in fact since you all know that it wouldn't make sense for her to pick me. If LAcey is right then lynch me next phase after we lynch them. Also being right about Rico doesn't mean much he was mafia and qa threat to them.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Epignosis 2 wrote:Okay this means someone who was afk choice not to kill someone agreed? I will say thisagain read my posts my posting style/ votes haven't changed. Lynching me will be a waste.

Also just curios why on the front page does it say Cobalt 2 is dead?

What do we think about Cookie she self voted, but trust Cobalt 2.
Rico said Cobalt 2 was recrutiee yet he then flipped mafia.
Dom saved his vote until very near the end.
While Cobalt/Lip voted early two phases ago each on a different person yet voted the same early today.

Lol, you saw the first post but want to sell us on believing the kill just wasn't sent in?

No, it means you, the killer, had your target switched with someone who didn't send one in, meaning there was no one to be killed, and that you tried to kill Cobalt 2.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Huh. and given the llama 2 result as a blocker, you don't find that interesting?

Epignosis 2 wrote:@Hostess is Cookie's 2 role claiming/info dumping or would this not count.

Cookie what are you saying in this post please explain.Or are you saying Lip 2 is the last baddie if sowhy vote for yourself?

Cobalt 2 wrote:

Cookie 2 wrote:
I was told that what I attempted to do did not go through, so that is my presumption.

And you said i am the last baddie, yet you have not voted for me

Why not?

I wonder what it was you attempted to do. Resurrect someone for the third time?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Cookie 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:I think you're a more likely recruit than Cobalt 2, Rico 2.

I know it isn't me.

I had been most suspicious of Cobalt 2 being the recruit, but that has stopped being the case based on llama 2 being civilian.

The timing of her death would suggest it isn't Dom 2 from Bass 2's possible vouch, but based on that last post, if it isn't just a post for the sake of it and does contain information; which the first page says won't be the case, so @Hostesses, can you confirm anything in that regard for us?; then it would suggest that there's at least one surviving Elohcin 2 recruit, and they inherited the ability to recruit, which means Dom 2 could also have been recruited. I probably wouldn't go with him first, because from a numbers game it doesn't make a lot of sense to do it that way, but it is a concern now.

Since I think Cookie 2 is the last baddie, that leaves you and Epignosis 2 as the top contenders for who I suspect most as the recruit. I lean a little towards suspecting you, but that's mostly because, if it turns out one of you isn't a recruit, but is actually a baddie, I think it's more likely to be you.

All that being said, I think our best bet is to lynch Cookie 2 today. We still don't actually know the recruits win condition, and taking out a baddie that's listed as a baddie seems like the better goal with this lynch.

Right, all the baddie super geniuses kill the person they have been suspecting for days. Give me a break. I trusted you out of the gate based on my thoughts on who you were, and as usual, baddie you bites me trust in the ass, Never trusting you again, lol. I also trusted Cobalt and that was apparently a joke as well, since Dom has flipped civ.

OK, the civvies are hosed anyhow. Lets lynch me. If there is only one baddie left maybe this will expose him, or her, however s/he may appear.

Voting Cookie.

Also, to the person who blocked me. Blocking me was fairly pointless, as someone else is the killer

Lets do it Lacey.

You were blocked this most recent night?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:I think you're a more likely recruit than Cobalt 2, Rico 2.

I know it isn't me.

I had been most suspicious of Cobalt 2 being the recruit, but that has stopped being the case based on llama 2 being civilian.

The timing of her death would suggest it isn't Dom 2 from Bass 2's possible vouch, but based on that last post, if it isn't just a post for the sake of it and does contain information; which the first page says won't be the case, so @Hostesses, can you confirm anything in that regard for us?; then it would suggest that there's at least one surviving Elohcin 2 recruit, and they inherited the ability to recruit, which means Dom 2 could also have been recruited. I probably wouldn't go with him first, because from a numbers game it doesn't make a lot of sense to do it that way, but it is a concern now.

Since I think Cookie 2 is the last baddie, that leaves you and Epignosis 2 as the top contenders for who I suspect most as the recruit. I lean a little towards suspecting you, but that's mostly because, if it turns out one of you isn't a recruit, but is actually a baddie, I think it's more likely to be you.

All that being said, I think our best bet is to lynch Cookie 2 today. We still don't actually know the recruits win condition, and taking out a baddie that's listed as a baddie seems like the better goal with this lynch.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:Dammit. RIP llama/scotty.

I'm really frustrated and surprised at that for more reasons that one.

I mean, if he was going to come back civilian, it isn't remotely surprising he was the blocker, he's made lots of subtle hints at it.

I am confused though, because in the non-outty answer he gave to my question of who he blocked last night, he said Cookie 2. I had assumed Cookie 2 was 'Someone' though, which was actually making me think we were going to be ok lynching him.

The other candidate that makes the most sense to me for someone is Sig 2, since they had both been not around, and one of the more recent messages from Someone was also to that effect.

So, I think we should lynch Cookie 2 next now. She's not on the even night kill team, but getting rid of her might eliminate the odd night kill team.

I've been going back and forth, worrying that Cobalt 2 had been recruited and that Elohcin 2 was making the baddie team 2, but with llama 2 coming back as the blocker, i think nothing has changed from when Bass 2 checked him. The kill did go in last night, but I'm pretty sure Cobalt 2 was one of the two people who missed sending in an action.

I want to re-read llama 2 and see if I can puzzle out any of his other night targets, because I do think he is the reason so many of the odd night kills were failing, but if he were targeting a surviving player on odd nights, and not confirmed dead baddies, then it might have not been Cookie 2, but someone else sending in the kill. I don't expect that to be the case, but it's worth trying to figure out if he left any clues, in the chance I'm wrong about Cookie 2.

Cobalt 2 wrote:

Cookie 2 wrote:Because I am full of gluten. I have many fine tributes; being gluten free is not one of them.

Now Good night

Linki, I have not said much the last 24 hours. I was trying to post this AM when the thread locked. View it as you like, but I prefer to get someone who refuses to participate other than making sanctimonious speeches periodically ot of the way. i feel it is in everyones best interests to get the hostility out of the way and move on. If you feel that tht is out of character for what you know of me, then by all means keep voting for me. You know nothing, Jon Snow.

You are not the mod. You are not the host. Your vote is bad. What happened to Dom being bad?

Cobalt 2 wrote:Voted.

Llama 2 wrote: Can I change the subject for a second?

Does anyone else find it interesting that mafia didn't get a kill in last night?

Dom 2 wrote:Whether boo flips good or bad, it is an easy lynch. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to reevaluate.

The votes for him have been because he made "dumb" comments (some of which none of us have even seen). This does not correlate to alignment in the slightest.

Dom 2 wrote:

Cookie 2 wrote:Do you still think a baddie role that can't be lynched is ludicrous?

One that can't be lynched? Yes.

As we've seen, Synonym was not a baddie and Long Con only had one chance to switch it. Do you still think it's viable?

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:Golden 2 is missing from the poll.

I went and checked and no living player has been missing from a poll before.

I'm very likely to vote for Cookie again today. I think it's pretty good that we got Eloh/ninja when we did, so I'm glad it wasn't cookie yesterday. But I still feel strongly about the slip.

Boo - I hope that you can come to a place where you are ok playing the game to its fullest. I'm not going to vote for you for being upset, but I do think that if you are not willing to post at all, you might consider asking for a replacement.

To be fair to others - I don't think voting for you is bad, I just don't like to vote someone when they are clearly upset.

Did you see his deleted post? He's upset because he was a jackass, and doesn't have free reign to continue being a jackass.

Yes I did, and I think the mods did the right thing. And I think boo might be bad too, he is right at the top of my list of suspects.

I just feel like voting him right now is kind of behaviour validation. I would rather he settle down and play or get a replacement, so I can judge the sock, not the person behind it.

Reywas 2 wrote:I'd rather boo 2 get replaced or modkilled than waste a lynch on him. I'm not a fan of his attitude, but I'm also not a big fan of anyone using this as an opportunity to set up an easy vote. If he flips civ there's absolutely no accountability for those votes.

I got my eye on Lacey 2 and Cookie 2 for that.

Cookie 2 wrote:

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 was wondering who might grab at that

I know my own win conditions, i don't know that the baddies have the same ones. Epignosis regularly has civs win dead or alive, baddies have to be alive. just becasue the civvies have one set of win cons, does not mean it is identical for the baddies, especially with these hosts

Linki; Cobalt while I would prefer not to lick your old portals, I might be on board for that last part, No U-ey as that may sound.

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!

Ricochet 2 wrote:OK, cookie, two questions

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

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

Dom 2 wrote:Cookie

Votes

• Day 1 - Sig 2
  Day 2 - Sig 2
  Day 3 - Sig 2

Looking at just her votes, Cookie looks consistent, but also may be a victim of tunnel vision, forced or otherwise. Long Con has taken tons of votes each day, and was finally lynched Day 3. Yet Cookie has voted Sig each of these days. Anyway, now to look through her posts to see what they reveal.

Day 0, Cookie makes a good point about the information in the Day 0 poll. I think this looks good for her.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:We did. The Hostess says the Day Zero poll has a point, and that a few people had info, so i think we are playing already. Paying attention to who voted what, and whatnot.

Roxy wrote:

If you have never played a game of ours then know to choose your poll choice wisely!
At least two people have info on the poll.

We just don't know whether they are good or bad, so not really sure how knowing that people have info makes much of a difference.

Day 1, Cookie points out something that catches her eye from Synonym. This is a very meticulous thing she catches, but she calls Synonym out for "recognizing what multiple sock accounts look like". This doesn't make any sense to me, as each player would not be logging into different sock accounts, even if they had baddie teammates.

Also, Cookie asks Long Con a question that looks almost forced, what with the capitalized "DID". I'll be keeping an eye on their interactions as I continue.

Yea, I tend to use capitalization for emphasis where I would use it in speech, like others use bold. It is hard to format on phone though, so i capslock.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:

Timmer 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:If it's all truly randomized then I don't see why someone couldn't be their own sock. I don't know if there's any way of knowing though or of gaining anything from wondering about it.

I must have missed the part where Roxy and/or Fingersplints said that the roles were randomized. But I agree, it's not worth worrying about right now. We need to use our time wisely. Cookie, do you have any suspicions yet?

Trying to stifle discussion?

Well, perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought he was trying to start discussion. But what do I know?

And one thing did catch my eye, but it is a little thing, and I don't want to molehill<mountain. I did think it odd that Synonym said this:

Synonym 2 wrote:Why is the forum on boring skin in the sock accounts?

Like he knew what was happening in more than one sock account. But he could be assuming the socks are just set up this way if he never played with socks here before. As i said, it's a minor thing, just something I noticed. It has mostly been joking posts, so it is easy to read into minor things, I think. I am not sure I would have even mentioned it, but Long Con specifically asked me.

Why DID you specifically ask me, Long Con?

Later on, Cookie comments again on Long Con asking her a question specifically. She then states that Long Con has given her the heebie-jeebies more than Synonym's posts had.

At the bottom of this post, Cookie introduces a new suspicion of Sig for his open defense of Synonym. Here's the problem with this accusation. Cookie has already stated a mild suspicion (or ping, whatever you want to call it) of Synonym, but then she suspects Sig also for defending Synonym, being that "mafia defend a civilian for credit when he gets lynched". This caught my eye, as it could be a forced suspicion.

Also, the progression of Cookie's suspicion is interesting. It started with a mild ping. It then became a mild suspicion. It then reached the point of a downright accusation. This whole progression is all based around a single post (as Cookie herself acknowledged in her vote post), that Cooke presumably continued to reread and develop stronger and stronger feelings with each read. I call it interesting because I don't know how I feel about this yet.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:As I have been reading back, I found myself agreeing with Timmer much of the time, until I got to this:

Timmer 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

Timmer 2 wrote:I'll be voting for someone who is trying to tell me I can't talk about what I want to talk about.

You should talk about Gamer Guy and why he is a member of the mafia.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Why is it a good point? Llama made a post pointing a finger at someone for no reason, and you think he made a good point? Did you forget the sarcastic color coding?

I actuially already addressed this somewhere, i will look for that.

It made me recall that something else he said caught my eye:

Yet at the end of this post you say you had not noticed what I ahd said, yet you are being reminded of things i said by readoing other things i siad?

Timmer 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:If it's all truly randomized then I don't see why someone couldn't be their own sock. I don't know if there's any way of knowing though or of gaining anything from wondering about it.

I must have missed the part where Roxy and/or Fingersplints said that the roles were randomized. But I agree, it's not worth worrying about right now. We need to use our time wisely. Cookie, do you have any suspicions yet?

Trying to stifle discussion?

While I did not agree that Long Con appeared to be trying to stifle, this post did remind me that he DID seem to solicit my opinion specifically for no real reason. Like maybe if I brought up a name and he ran with it, and a townie got lynched, it would somehow be my fault.

Syn, I was the one who brought up the forum skin thing. It seemed an odd thing to say. You didn't say "my" socks skin, you said "the forums sock skins" like you knew more than one was the light colour. It really was weird, but I may never have brought it up had I not been directly asked. Which kind of freaked me out a bit.

The point of all this? I agree with Timmer except when I don't. And Long Con has given me the heebie jeebies more than Syn, actually. But still not sure where I plan to vote. Also I agree with Syn that I think TGG sounds pretty civ so far, but I have just skimmed. I need to read again in more depth.

The other thing that got me was Sig saying he would look at anyonje who looked at Syn for what he considered to be a dumb reason. Wat? That was a very gauntlet-y post to make. While it could be genuine town outrage, it could also be a Mafia tactic. I have seen Mafia openly defending someone who turned up town for the cred. That is hard to say though since we don't know if we have one Mafia or two.

Cookie 2 wrote:

Sig 2 wrote:I looked back, and Syn 2 listed five names, he never said "are the five baddies" or anything that would be a true ping. I will be eyeing people who push that as a slip.

Also, isn't a "ping" an individual thing? What pings one person might not ping another? Who is to say what a "true" ping is? You?

Maybe I am just reacting to your tone. I hope to hear more from you, other than this you have not really said much.

Cookie 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:

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 don't believe it is a common strategy at all.

Well, maybe he's just doing a poor job of "being" Long Con, and that is how they do things is nis neck of the woods

I cannot count all the games I have played where people vote for really weak, dumb reasons on day one. And one thing I HAVE seen as a common baddie tactic is to make someone have to overdefend their weak day one suspicion, and soon no one is talking about anything else, so the ping gets lynched. And when that weak day one ping flips civ, they turn on the person whom they forced to defend his weak day one suspicion and attack then THEM for their "better than random" day one ping. It's a pretty good day one strategy for a Mafia.

So, to parapharase Metalmarsh, I am not going to vote for Long Con OR Synonym. Since I have to go to work now, and may or may not be back before the poll ends, I AM going to vote for Sig. His post, the only on topic one I believe him to have made so far, felt EXACTLY like that kind of thing to me. Self righteous indignation over a day one ping seems a bit overdone, no?

VOTES FOR SIG

Linki w/TGG, this is the last thing he said, the post I am voting him for:

Sig 2 wrote:I looked back, and Syn 2 listed five names, he never said "are the five baddies" or anything that would be a true ping. I will be eyeing people who push that as a slip.

I hope he answers you, too.

A little vote analyses here. This looks good for Cookie. She looks specifically at the players who could have had a major impact on the lynch, but chose not to: those players being Elohcin and reywaS. This has even more implications since Long Con has flipped as bad.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:I voted for fight club.

That was an unexpected result. Since the hostesses were not saying what led to a "no Lynch" the fact that Syn volunteered that bit about the switch is intriguing. My initial response was, "Well, that seems a pretty civ move". My second response was, "Which is exactly why I would do it myself if I were bad" so . He could be telling the truth; lynch pardon is a very typical civ power. He could also be a non lynchable baddie for all we know BUT that is somewhat risky as Roxy said the roles would be revealed "eventually".

The votes that most got my attention were Elohcin voting for Metalmarsh as voter 23, and reywaS voting for Epig as voter 25. the 24th voter tied the lynch, so either 23 or 25 could have broken the tie, since Long Con, voter 24, was a self preservation voter. Both safe votes, although I cannot criticize as I am not sure I would have voted for either of them myself. So I want to check if either of them had any opinion before they voted.

I want to reread sigs posts from today after I voted.

Cookie also proposes the idea of an unlynchable baddie. I find this idea farfetched. A lynch is the civvies most powerful (and sometimes only) tool to eliminate baddies. If a baddie is unlynchable, the civvies just can't win, especially in a closed-game setup where such things are not at least made aware to civilians.

Really Dom?? You have never heard of a baddie that can't be lynched until his teammates are dead? I know I clarified this point earlier, not sure if it was before or after you made this post, so BOTD on my part, but this looks like you are stretching to find reasons to suspect me here.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:Why? Do you expect us to believe you at face value? Perhaps you are an unlynchable baddie. Perhaps you are a baddie with a lynch save. We don't know the roles; there are a lot of "perhaps".

What happens if Long Con comes in here and say the same thing you said?

And I don't think she is tunneling. She does not seem horrible.

Cookie then has a run-in with Synonym. I think there is a strong possibility that Synonym is civilian at this point, but not definite. I still find it odd the Cookie continues to push the idea of an unlynchable baddie, especially with Synonym claiming the lynch was pardoned from him.

In the second to last quote here, Cookie accused Synonym of being single-minded. This is a bit hypocritical since Cookie has already stated three times that there could be an unlynchable baddie. Alarm bells are going off in my head right now.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:Are you a new player? This is Mafia, we call each other liar all the time. That's sort of the point.

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

Cookie 2 wrote:@Syn, we call each other liars. That is a major feature of Mafia. You don't strike me a a nub (thanks for ignoring my prior post on this point) so you would not have made it far in mafia getting this offended at being accused of lying. Initially i felt that you vs. LC was civ civ, but your fairly hostile reaction here has gotten a raised brow from me.

Linki, but we have to trust you to take your word for it. Obviously that is lacking since you were tied for most votes. There sould be an unlynchable baddie role. that is just as common as a civ with a lynch stop.

Cookie 2 wrote:Syn, there could be vote manips, there could be all sorts of things. The blanket insistence you have on laying one scenario on the table and getting pissed that others don't buy it wholesale bothers me. It is true that your outrage seems real, but Mafia can get just as outraged at suspicion as town.

Cookie 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:SEE? GM SAYS TIES ARE RANDOMIZED.

fucking THANK YOU.

The hosts also said that the lynch was not a tie.

Oh. Were the votes equal? Do we have a record of that? Cuz if so someone's got a double whammy power on my train.

I'll post @ Cookie when I get home.

I look forward to it, even though I will be afk shortly. This is because i really did not think that anything Lacey said or did was all that provacative or really all that aggressive, and you got pretty severely in her face. Like in an intimidating way. It felt very much like seeing a hidden monster with their claws out. I came into the night thinking it could be a Mafia play on both you and LC, but your reaction to lacey ...

I did not think she said anything that unreasonable. Then saying things like, "I will only explain this once", doesn't help.

Mama bear makes an appearance in this post, getting on Cobalt and others for using names like "Scum Con", etc. Moving on from that, at the beginning, she backs off of her suspicions of Long Con and Synonym, saying she is not convinced of either. A bit waffly if you ask me, but I guess it is still Night 1 at this point.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:

Cobalt 2 wrote:Cookie is a Scum Con teammate. She keeps going on about the possibility that Synonym is scum that can't be lynched. How would civilians win if scum can't be lynched? There are no role powers listed here. So how does Cookie suppose that? Is there a townie killer to take out the person who can't be lynched?

Cookie and Long Con are scum.

Wow it's pretty neat that several of you are all calling Long Con "Scum Con". So clever, I see what you did there

And um, no, sorry. Wherever it is that you play musy have a very limited repertoire of roles. I have played LOTS of games where one of the baddie teams had a member, generally the Don, who could not be lynched until all other members of the team were dead. And I am not pushing it; I am presenting it as one possible alternative to Syns "Hey, I stopped the lynch on myself! Am I civ or what, because the only possible possibility for me surviving a lynch is a civ possibility. And you must be bad if you don't believe me" schtick.

He could be right; I was by no means convinced he was bad. But I really hate the way he is throwing it down as proof in game with no known roles which means it is no such thing.

And I am by no means convinced that Long Con is bad either. Remember this post, which I don't recall you or Syn or sig commenting on?

Cookie 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:

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 don't believe it is a common strategy at all.

Well, maybe he's just doing a poor job of "being" Long Con, and that is how they do things is nis neck of the woods

I cannot count all the games I have played where people vote for really weak, dumb reasons on day one. And one thing I HAVE seen as a common baddie tactic is to make someone have to overdefend their weak day one suspicion, and soon no one is talking about anything else, so the ping gets lynched. And when that weak day one ping flips civ, they turn on the person whom they forced to defend his weak day one suspicion and attack then THEM for their "better than random" day one ping. It's a pretty good day one strategy for a Mafia.

So, to parapharase Metalmarsh, I am not going to vote for Long Con OR Synonym. Since I have to go to work now, and may or may not be back before the poll ends, I AM going to vote for Sig. His post, the only on topic one I believe him to have made so far, felt EXACTLY like that kind of thing to me. Self righteous indignation over a day one ping seems a bit overdone, no?

VOTES FOR SIG

Linki w/TGG, this is the last thing he said, the post I am voting him for:

Sig 2 wrote:I looked back, and Syn 2 listed five names, he never said "are the five baddies" or anything that would be a true ping. I will be eyeing people who push that as a slip.

I hope he answers you, too.

That is what yesterday looked like to me, the bold italicized part. You have never seen that before? I will vote for Sig tomorrow, too, and will probably keep doing so until he or I are dead. Or maybe for you. To be honest, I am not 100% sure you are not buddying up to Syn, strong possibility.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:Can we please lynch Sig tomorrow? Synonym, will you help me?

Why?

iirc he was one of the earliest to call Scum Con on his bullshit.

Scum Con again. Can you & Fauxbalt not resort to name calling? Thanks

And isn't proclaiming that Long Con is pretty much a proven baddie (which is what you are trying to do, right?) putting the cart before the horse? Let's find out if he is before we start making value judgments based on proximity to him, eh? Just like I am not damning YOU for sigs fairly bad looking (in my opinion) Day One posts, even though he was defending YOU.

While I DO believe sig is bad, and probably Fauxbalt with him, I am not as sure about you. A lot of Day One felt civ/civ to me, like what I outlined up there. Certainly Long Con felt backed into a corner forced to defend a dopey day one ping. Like 99.5% of day one pings are. I have the stats to prove that...somewhere In any case, if you are civ, you should be careful about the company you keep. First you're hanging with people who think calling people names is an awesome way to make them look bad, then next thing you know, you're hanging on a street corner shooting up.

True story, it happens all the time.

Let's see if I can get this straight. Cookie finds Synonym genuine here. She calls LC's ping of him on Day 1 weak, and so will suspect anyone for blaming him? I think I missed a connection here, but she has backed off of Long Con and Synonym entirely and gone after people who are suspecting Long Con (but not those suspecting Synonym). Conveniently, Sig is in this group.

Cookie was very interested in looking at the late voters in the Day 1 lynch, but has lost interest. I guess her reads up to this point match up with the lack of interest in looking at the Day 1 votes.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:Sorry I was afk yesterday, it was a beautiful day and I had no other plans... so I spent most or it outside. It is supposed to rain today, but I should be around more, even if by phone.

I am seeing more of a civ/civ thing going on here than anything. Like I said, I suspect the people trying to blame LC for a weak day one ping on Synonym, who has sounded more genuine than not, (even if BOTH of them have said things I find questionable) as a way to set up a bang,bang way of lynching two townies in a row.

So once again, VOTING FOR SIG

Cookie created a formula here, and stated that she cannot imagine a mafia Synonym making such an argument. But she then says that she has never seen a civilian say such a thing. Two contradictory statements here.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:

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.

And for reference,this is the post that has me feeling most town about Long Con. Had it been me in this position, as a Mafia, at this point I would have agreed with Cookie (me) and latched onto her reasons for thinking Syn might be bad, and make my own secondary, thus being able to blame her for the eventual lynch of Synonym. Instead he blew off my thoughts, and reiterated his own. I don't see a baddie doing that, at least not an experienced one, and from his posts I think LC has been around the Mafia block.

I recall feeling this way very clearly since this was right after LC had asked me if *I* had any suspicions, which kind of freaked me out a bit. Why was he singling me out? But this reply made me feel all kinds of better.

For Syn, it is more of an over all tone. He sounds sincere about kidding around, and sincerely pissed, not faux baddie pissed. This post went far for me towards feeling that way:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:Can we please lynch Sig tomorrow? Synonym, will you help me?

Why?

iirc he was one of the earliest to call Scum Con on his bullshit.

While I disagree with his conclusion (for me, anyone coming out and saying "I will vote/suspect anyone who votes/suspects *X* because of the stoopid ideas of *Y*", as sig did, ESPECIALLY on Day One when we ALL have stoopid ideas to be almost ALWAYS have been said by a Mafia) I can't imagine an actual Mafia Syn saying this about LC. He is coming out and saying that, in his opinion, LCs ideas are actually bullshit, not true. If he knew that Long Con was actually right, and Syn was bad, I don't know that he would have said this so baldly. Like i said, tone. But it reads sincere to me, even If I disagree with him here.

Personally I think we should all vote for Sig. Because now that I am thinking about it, I don't think I have EVER heard a town aligned player say something like: "I will vote/suspect anyone who votes/suspects *X* because of the stoopid ideas of *Y*". Have ANY of you ever said something like this when you are town? On Day One?

In any case, back later.

Night 2, suddenly Cookie changes her mind and can't see either Synonym or LC as civilian. She mentions no reason to change her mind about LC, but thinks that Synonym knows something about the Day One lynch (which Synonym has been saying ever since Day One), and that Sig does too. I don't know what posts Cookie might be talking about here, but this is the first time she's brought anything new up about Sig since her Day One vote.

Spoiler: show

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.

If Cookie is civilian, she needs to be a little more careful. I don't know if she is right or not, but focusing she hasn't shown interest in looking at players other than Sig.

Also, what happened to her suspicions of Synonym/LC? Why would she vote Synonym for a meltdown when she found such feelings to be genuine. This whole post is too preemptive to me, and isn't productive.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:

Black Rock 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Black Rock 2 wrote:Welcome back and congrats on your rezz Golden 2, assuming of course that you are good. I'll be gone to see about the horses part of the day tomorrow but will be back in plenty of time for discussion.

What do you mean "assuming of course that you are good" he is writeup mod-confirmed as town are you serious

BR2 slipping into my scum reads.

What do you mean he is write-up mod-confirmed as town? You mean because his role was revealed as town? Wasn't there conversation earlier in the game about there being a possible seemer in this game because it was in the host survey? Personally, I will have some doubt about any death that is a civ death because of that risk. Something I learned from past mafia playing.

Personally, I agree that nothing is confirmed; I plan to take it on a case by case basis. I think it is rather unlikely, though possible. He seemed pretty civ to me.If we knew how many Mafias there were, we could get a better feel for this. If only one, it is especially unlikely that he is bad. It could be a crazy power ploy to gain a role civ cred, especially if the rezzer was on their team, but it would be a big risk to use up powers that way this early. Plus MOST of the time, the rezzer is a civ power. Someone had said earlier that they usually use the Seemer to throw doubt into a lynch, and I agree, but if a Seemer is NKed, they still use it.

But yeah, unknown roles, anything is possible, so even with Host posts, no one or nothing is confirmed for realz.

I am, as usual,planning to vote for Sig unless Syn melts down & calls me stupid again. I liked that so much!

Cookie still "wonders" about LC, but commits to a Sig vote anyway. I realize that LC already had 11 votes so was a sure lynch though, so it doesn't matter that much.

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:I am voting for Sig, as I expected I would do. Nothing I read today was very compelling either way on LC vs. Syn. Just like something other than a lynch save on Day One could have saved Syn, I have seen civ lynch switches, but admittedly far fewer civ than bad. The lynch switch is what has made me really wonder about LC, since I felt he was pushed ino a corner to defend a weak day one ping.

And I felt sig was the first to make a substantial push that way with his third post of the game, which was pretty hyperbole-esque imo. So still sticking with Sig.

This was never the case. Cookie had never mentioned Sig's and LC's names together. Sig and Synonym, yes. Synonym and LC, yes. But never Sig and LC. Also, Cookie's read on Sig never changed. On the other hand, her reads of Synonym and LC were constantly fluctuating. This comment reads as bullshit to me.

No, but I did mention him & Syn together. Selective reading? I thought both were being set up, and said so repeatedly

Spoiler: show

Cookie 2 wrote:Yay! Good job LC voters

And Sig, since a big part of my suspicion of you was based on LC being set up since he really did not seem that nefarious (and being Eloh explains that), I will have to reevaluate that.

Addendum: Wow, I can't believe I never noticed Cookie's posts up until now. Objectively, she has been quite involved, even if she's not been in the middle of it all. Subjectively, I've got a very strong baddie read from her. If the day ended now, she would get my vote.

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.

Synonym 2 wrote:

boo 2 wrote:

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

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

Was that a scum slip?