Game Over -The Syndicate Mafia

#601

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.

Lunatella · #602

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.

NurseWilgy · #603

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.

How can we be assured you wouldn't pardon your lynch again if we attempt to lynch you like you are proposing?

2 Stupid Dogs · #604

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 · #605

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.

Phoebe Buffay · #606

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.

Celeste · #607

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.

Who is more likely to be able to survive lynches like that, town or scum?

2 Stupid Dogs · #608

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.

Kent Brockman · #609

This thread reminds me of my parents after they'd been hitting the bourbon just a tad too hard. Hostile, bitter & full of regrets, yet somehow ironically detached.

Good Show.

NurseWilgy · #610

Cookie 2 wrote:This thread reminds me of my parents after they'd been hitting the bourbon just a tad too hard. Hostile, bitter & full of regrets, yet somehow ironically detached.

Good Show.

Ben Linus · #611

what the fuck

NurseWilgy · #612

Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?

Prisoner 509378 · #613

Llama 2 wrote:
Metalmarsh 2 wrote:why do people suspect long con
why don't people suspect you?

because there is virtually no reaosn to suspect me

the suspicion against me has not been substantiated whatsoever just kind of brough up again and again

Phoebe Buffay · #614

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

Please, please do it.
Spoiler alert: for me, it will be one of happiness regardless of your alignment. I haven't enjoyed playing with you, and find you very unpleasant. I also happen to respect myself enough to not want to continue playing with someone such as that. Based on the first actual rule for this game, coupled with our Hostesses claims that they have no problem host-killing people, it actually baffles me that you have not been host killed. That I strongly believe you to be bad just makes it win-win.
I already apologized to you sincerely and you blew it the fuck off and made a mockery out of what we were supposed to do, so don't say I didn't try.

I would much rather be out of this game, so do move forward with lynching me.
No, you did not. You did something you were required to, if you wanted your vote to count. And then you made a mockery of yourself by following it up with a ridiculous statement, and when I called you out on that, you gave up all pretence of actually being sincerely apologetic.

That's not what happened, but keep believing that. I was nothing but sincere and never dropped any pretenses because there were none to be had in the first place. I got pissed when you blew me off so yeah I don't care anymore.

I followed it up with the Scum Con thing because I still thought he should be lynched????? Like how was that a ridiculous statement. Clearly other people still feel he should be lynched too or it wouldn't be tied with my wagon, just saying.

Lunatella · #615

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.

Jack Shephard · #616

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:
Llama 2 wrote:
Metalmarsh 2 wrote:why do people suspect long con
why don't people suspect you?
because there is virtually no reaosn to suspect me

the suspicion against me has not been substantiated whatsoever just kind of brough up again and again

Jack Shephard · #617

Llama 2 wrote:Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?

Jack Shephard · #618

Jack Shephard · #619

Chuck · #620

I'm having difficulty accessing the forum so I've been absent for a while. Still not able to access this consistently so I'm talking to the hosts about it. Currently voting myself because I haven't read anything. Not comfortable wagoning with no information.

Jack Shephard · #621

Kent Brockman · #622

I had that problem several days ago, but not since.

I am inclined to keep my vote for sig as I still feel he is bad, but I should be home before the poll ends and I have nowhere else to be tonight, so I will wait until I get home.

Prisoner 509378 · #623

why are people being rude

Jack Shephard · #624

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:why are people being rude

Larry David · #625

Llama 2 wrote:Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?

I can't tell whether your tone is in jest or serious. If serious, what would be the reason(s) you would vote for Gamer Guy?

Paul Stevens · #626

Golden 2 wrote:

No, I think he is not.

Jack Shephard · #627

Black Rock 2 wrote:
Llama 2 wrote:Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?
I can't tell whether your tone is in jest or serious. If serious, what would be the reason(s) you would vote for Gamer Guy?

Paul Stevens · #628

Black Rock 2 wrote:
Llama 2 wrote:Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?
I can't tell whether your tone is in jest or serious. If serious, what would be the reason(s) you would vote for Gamer Guy?

Gamer Guy 2 was lynched yesterday and Gamer Guy has been shown to be Golden, a civvie tracker.

I doubt llama has good reason to vote for him, but I have been proven wrong in this game before.

Linki: Precisely.

Paul Stevens · #629

I think it's time for some ISO's.

Paul Stevens · #630

First thing's first. We need one of these lists.

Bass 2 - Posts
Black Rock 2 - Posts
Blooper 2 - Posts
boo 2 - Posts
Cobalt 2 - Posts
Cookie 2 - Posts
Dom 2 - Posts
Dr Wilgy 2 - Posts
Elohcin 2 - Posts
Epignosis 2 - Posts
Gamer Guy 2 - Posts
Golden 2 - Posts
JaggedJimmyJay 2 - Posts
Lipsticklacey 2 - Posts
Llama 2 - Posts
Long Con 2 - Posts
Metalmarsh 2 - Posts
Reywas 2 - Posts
Ricochet 2 - Posts
Scotty 2 - Posts
Sig 2 - Posts
SVS 2 - Posts
Synonym 2 - Posts
Timmer 2 - Posts
Turnip Head 2 - Posts

Celeste · #631

HEY LONG CON

Cobalt 2 wrote:
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.
Who is more likely to be able to survive lynches like that, town or scum?

This wasn't a rhetorical question.

NurseWilgy · #632

Black Rock 2 wrote:
Llama 2 wrote:Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?
I can't tell whether your tone is in jest or serious. If serious, what would be the reason(s) you would vote for Gamer Guy?

Golden 2 wrote:
Black Rock 2 wrote:
Llama 2 wrote:Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?
I can't tell whether your tone is in jest or serious. If serious, what would be the reason(s) you would vote for Gamer Guy?

Dom 2 wrote:
Golden 2 wrote:
No, I think he is not.

Dom, I am disappointed in your lack of confidence in the supatown. Are you convinced that DrWilgy's puppet Gamer Guy was really the doctor? Don't you think that is...convenient, considering the puppet master's name?

Golden 2 wrote:
Llama 2 wrote:Do I still have time to vote Gamer Guy?

For the record, I'm liking these picture posts, Golden. Will you continue with them after the curse is lifted?

sig is on my radar because he is probably bad. That's why I voted him.

Phoebe Buffay · #633

pls lynch me

Ned Flanders · #634

Cobalt 2 wrote:
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.
Who is more likely to be able to survive lynches like that, town or scum?

That depends on what is best for the balance of the game. 25 players, how many are bad? How many are independent? We know none of this. Perhaps civs were give more power and baddies numbers are greater. I am not sure.

Synonym 2 wrote:pls lynch me

You heard the man.

NurseWilgy · #635

Synonym 2 wrote:pls lynch me

I understand if you aren't having fun with this game, but if you really are civ, why not ask for a replacement instead of willingly asking us to lose a civ on purpose?

Young Lady · #636

I still don't think Synonym is bad. He's made himself an easy vote with his behavior and his pleas for it, but that doesn't mean he is bad imo. I've seen this kind of thing many times before and it usually ends with a lynched civ. I'm probably going to vote Long Con again, but I'm gonna review the game again a bit first.

NurseWilgy · #637

SVS 2 wrote:I still don't think Synonym is bad. He's made himself an easy vote with his behavior and his pleas for it, but that doesn't mean he is bad imo. I've seen this kind of thing many times before and it usually ends with a lynched civ. I'm probably going to vote Long Con again, but I'm gonna review the game again a bit first.

My point, my dear SVS, is if he is civ, isn't he doing a disservice to our cause by asking to be noosed?

Young Lady · #638

Llama 2 wrote:
SVS 2 wrote:I still don't think Synonym is bad. He's made himself an easy vote with his behavior and his pleas for it, but that doesn't mean he is bad imo. I've seen this kind of thing many times before and it usually ends with a lynched civ. I'm probably going to vote Long Con again, but I'm gonna review the game again a bit first.
My point, my dear SVS, is if he is civ, isn't he doing a disservice to our cause by asking to be noosed?

Yeah he is. The disservice is long-since done though. How do you think his behavior reflects on him?

Paul Stevens · #639

Bass 2

Votes

Day 1 - Cobalt 2
Day 2 - missed

There aren't many posts to sift through, so let's begin. Day 1, Bass RVS's and goes with Cobalt. He states he is not comfortable voting elsewhere.

Spoiler: show

Bass then disappears for a little bit including missing the Day 2 vote, and comes back and apologizes for it Night 2. He then calls the night poll intriguing.

Spoiler: show

Day 3, Bass makes his first accusation. He shoots a somewhat vague question at lacey. Bass doesn't seem to recall all of the details about the whole situation with lacey such as who asked the question or what question was asked, but he did remember that she came in to post a picture of a turtle. Selective memory?

He continues to probe lacey though. Generally this is good baddie-hunting behavior, but Bass did set her up with a vague question, so this makes it somewhat null.

After reading Bass more, two things come to mind. 1) I had a civvie read on lacey for a while, but the interactions between lacey and Bass have shifted my read a bit. I will keep an open mind when I read lacey, but I know longer feel the strong civvie vibe I felt early on (which came partially because I think I know who is behind the sock). 2) Bass has only gone after lacey. This is some strong tunnel vision. Bass hasn't even responded to another player this whole game except for lacey. So while his pursuit of lacey looks solid, his play is far too centered on one player to be agreeable.

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?

Bass 2 wrote:
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote: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.
Aside from "disconcerting", what conclusion would you draw from what I said?

Bass 2 wrote:I intend to vote for Lacey 2.

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.

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:

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.

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.

Black Rock 2

Votes

Day 1 - missed
Day 2 - missed

I'll hold off on this one to see if Black Rock votes today. If she does not, she will be modkilled.

Blooper 2

Votes

Day 1 - missed
Day 2 - missed

Same deal here. Another missed vote will result in a modkill. But she better get her but in here and participate. At least Black Rock has posted a few times while blooper has almost zero contribution.

boo 2

Votes

Day 1 - missed
Day 2 - Gamer Guy 2

Day 0, boo says he will vote SVS (presumably on Day 1). Not sure where this came from, but I will assume for now that he was just bantering with MM.

Spoiler: show

Night 1, boo manages to forget Day 1 happened, and missed the vote. Oh well, these things happen I guess.

Spoiler: show

Day 2, boo proceeds to call Day 1 unproductive, which may or may not be true depending on how you look at it. We got a lot of posting and some emotional behavior, but we also learned nobody's role up to this point. Also, there have been no clear cut lynches, which is rough in a closed setup.

Spoiler: show

boo's first suspicion. Boo calls out Gamer Guy's post suggesting what roles are around. The problem that I have with this suspicion is that it is also a way to stifle discussion. It is an original suspicion, but it is one that dissuades a player from discussing a certain topic. Gamer Guy flipping civ doesn't help either.

The second quote that contains boo's response to Gamer Guy, this one looks unconvincing and forced. Mafia has the ability to communicate about anything behind the scenes, so they can discuss these things without repercussions. Telling civs not to discuss such things with a theory they will give baddies information to use is a bad theory imo. I don't like these posts from boo.

Spoiler: show

boo 2 wrote:
Gamer Guy 2 wrote:
I have a question for everyone, what roles do we think are in this game? I'll start.
Vote Manipulator - Possibly a mayor like role, something that makes your vote worth +1 or +2
Medic - LOL @ no NK last night ...Or maybe they forgot to submit a kill?
UC - I can't imagine there not being one in this game
Pardoner - Based off of Synonym (I wonder if it is actually one time use)
Blocker - Role blocks are a basic Mafia necessity, and this was one of the survey roles
Curser - Based on the hosts survey
Seemer - Based on hosts survey
Jester or Fool - Based on Llama's play

I would like to state that I find this post to be very un-civilian. From my past experience playing these games, the only people that should be concerned with what roles are in the game, are the mafia team because they need to know what they are fighting against. This could also be seen as a baiting tactic. In the event that somebody proposes a certain role in addition to this list, that mafia may be able to role hunt them for it, essentially killing roles they did not predict existed.

While it can be true that knowing what mafia roles are in the game can be beneficial to a civilian, it is not required. As long as civs hit mafia when the lynch comes around, everything will eventually fall into place regardless of what mafia roles there are. Civs dont need to know the other civ roles in order to win. It is nothing more than a pleasantry.

boo 2 wrote:
Gamer Guy 2 wrote: 1. I understand the concern, but here is my stance. I don't even know how many friendly players I have.
2.The amount of information that I do have is that there are 27 players, and that we've already seen at least 2 role powers.
3.Info dumping is against the rules, so I was not looking to obtain information about anyone, rather I would like to see what everyone's mindset is.
1. Much like the knowledge on roles, it is not a necessity. Knowing the player ratio does nothing more than let either side know how close they are to victory or defeat. It lets us know if we are in a "mislynch and lose" situation yes. But that in itself is also a pleasantry and unneeded information in the pursuit of rooting out mafia. Civilians need only know the "who". Not "how many".

2. 27 you say? Are you quite certain of that?

3. My theory does not require the use of info dumping. If someone were to suggest that an oddball role could be in play, whether or not it's theirs, mafia could use that as a potential role hunting foundation. Someone with a particularly large set of balls could even bring up their own, but as long as they dont say "I am this", it is not info dumping. Merely an implication that something may or may not exist, and therefore does not break rules. It's a simple mind game.

Night 2, boo then goes after Synonym for his "childish antics" as he calls them. I don't really understand this. I know boo needed a new suspect since Gamer Guy was lynched, but I don't understand this tactic. I won't call it civvie or mafia, as it is just weird.

Spoiler: show

Day 3, commits to "ridding this game of Synonym". I want to hear more of these ideas you have boo, whether they are concrete or not. There is more to this game than Synonym.

Spoiler: show

Cobalt 2

Votes

Day 1 - Long Con 2
Day 2 - Long Con 2

From his votes, it is clear that Cobalt 2 is channeling his inner Cobalt. Cobalt has a tendency to go after Long Con's... weave.

Day 1, Cobalt tells us all to lynch Long Con for things that happened last game. I would call this unhelpful.

Spoiler: show

Cobalt goes after Cookie calling Synonym an unlynchable scum. I haven't looked into Cookie's posts yet, but if she did do this, then Cobalt has a fair point. I'll hold this though until I get to Cookie.

But I have to remember that Cobalt always goes after Long Con, and this is nothing new, so it could be a case of "hiding behind the sock". He even stated early on that he wanted to lynch Long Con for something unrelated to this game.

Spoiler: show

Day 2, same thing. Cobalt pursues Long Con and is surprised at his survival.

Spoiler: show

Cobalt defends the accusations that he is buddying up to Synonym. Whether he is trying to or not, it appears that he is. Cookie suggested that Synonym is a baddie who can't be lynched until his teammates are lynched. Cobalt is using this proposition to state that Synonym must be civilian and that Cookie must be bad, agreeing with half of the idea that Cookie has set forth to accuse her of being mafia. This may have different intent, but it is buddying.

Spoiler: show

Cobalt 2 wrote:
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.
OMGUS much?

Here is a link to my posts.

Please show me where I am buddying up to Synonym. I would like evidence of this, not your say so.

You defend Long Con, I see. That's not buddying up. That's straight outta Compton DEFENSE. Funny on Night 1.

Scum Con gotta go. I don't care what little cutesy nicknames you throw at me.

But this is still a solid question that Cobalt asked Long Con. I agree it is far more likely that a civilian would be unlynchable then a baddie in such a role, but Synonym potentially surviving one lynch does not make him utterly unlynchable. There are still a lot of things we don't know, but I can at least give Cobalt kudos for his aggression.

Spoiler: show

Young Lady · #640

I'm looking at TGG2's posts because if the lynch was switched then I doubt he was an arbitrary choice (I admit I'm heavily influenced by my suspicion that baddie LC saved himself). He was most suspicious of sig, Elo, and Synonym. I think he made a pretty good point about Elo before he died.

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:
Elohcin 2 wrote:I don't understand why my previous vote would worry you - it makes perfect sense to me why I would not vote for someone because I thought the case on them was bad. And if I recall correctly, when I voted, it was not a tie, but I'll give you that is was certainly close. It doesn't show non-commitment: it shows that I don't vote for who I think is civilian, and that I don't vote for people simply because they have a large number of votes. That's called bandwagoning, and that's not good civ behavior in my book.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are not recalling correctly. Long Con was ahead of votes by one, but he had specifically stated previous that his own vote would be to save himself, making it a tie. You are more focused on civ behavior than what a civ should do. In a situation as this, a civ should most definitely try to lunch the player that has even a slightly higher percent chance to be a baddie.

Had you actually been paying attention to players outside of your own circle you should've known that it was a tie. It feels as if you are playing "like" you are paying attention, while not willing to step outside a comfort zone. What member of the mafia would feel good about being the tie breaker? From what I've noticed, mafia avoid that due to placing them in the hot seat.

Elo's "that's called bandwagoning" statement pings me because I don't see a civ mindset being concerned with what "good civ behavior" is supposed to look like regarding their own posts and votes. I agree with TGG2's observation and am more suspicious of Elo now.

Paul Stevens · #641

@llama, no I think that Gamer Guy 2 knew that there was a medic.

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:I have a question for everyone, what roles do we think are in this game? I'll start.
Vote Manipulator - Possibly a mayor like role, something that makes your vote worth +1 or +2
Medic - LOL @ no NK last night ...Or maybe they forgot to submit a kill?
UC - I can't imagine there not being one in this game
Pardoner - Based off of Synonym (I wonder if it is actually one time use)
Blocker - Role blocks are a basic Mafia necessity, and this was one of the survey roles
Curser - Based on the hosts survey
Seemer - Based on hosts survey
Jester or Fool - Based on Llama's play

The lynch post was made 7 minutes after the day phase ended on Day 2. It is unlikely that Gamer Guy knew he was going to be lynched based on the vote counts, so I doubt he could have sent in that option for a seemer role anyway.

Prisoner 509378 · #642

Golden 2 wrote:
Metalmarsh 2 wrote:why are people being rude

i have, in the past, discussed these things. i have asked questions. i have participated. people have been really rude to me and i'm just not really willing to bend to your will.

in fact, i asked why people find long con suspicious because i am confused abotu that and no one, i think, answered me.

#643

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:
Golden 2 wrote:
Metalmarsh 2 wrote:why are people being rude

i have, in the past, discussed these things. i have asked questions. i have participated. people have been really rude to me and i'm just not really willing to bend to your will.

in fact, i asked why people find long con suspicious because i am confused abotu that and no one, i think, answered me.

You are correct. I apologize for my vote yesterday. You are spot on that I didn't really "quantify the suspicion" as anything other than hiding behind the sock.

I don't have an answer to your question about Long Con, because I don't have a suspicion of him.

I've decided to move on from all this bickering and rudeness though. We have a mafia game to play, and some of us (myself included) are going about this all the wrong ways.

Young Lady · #644

Metalmarsh 2 wrote:in fact, i asked why people find long con suspicious because i am confused abotu that and no one, i think, answered me.

I think he was too eager to sell a questionable point on day 1 about Synonym naming five baddies, and later he said he's seen baddies pull that move before. He couldn't give me any examples though when I asked and just sound disingenuous explaining himself, it sounds like bull to me. Now he's survived a lynch that went to a civ instead and has only given really vague reasons for it that don't look honest at all to me.

Why do you find him not suspicious?

Young Lady · #645

Real MM, what have you done?

:P

Lunatella · #646

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?

#647

SVS 2 wrote:Real MM, what have you done? :P

I'm helpless.

NurseWilgy · #648

SVS 2 wrote:Real MM, what have you done? :P

Oops.

Sorry guys.

These aren't the droids you're looking for...

Young Lady · #649

Nice effort on the iso's Dom. The rundowns are good refreshers, I am wondering though if you have a stance on the players you had more to say about.

Larry David · #650

Dom 2, there probably isn't a need to explain this but I will anyway. Prior to Sunday I was not Black Rock 2 so that first missed vote was not "me". Then I was asked to replace on Sunday and agreed but it was too late in the day to get a handle on what was going on and vote. Today i will most surely vote.

Speaking of voting, I am really torn about Long Con 2. As I said earlier I thought he offered a genuine or believable defense of himself but that defense did not extend to explaining how he had avoided being lynched twice. I realize it could have been two different mechanics at work but this is where I'm really torn - was it Long Con or a teamember both times or does it make more logical sense that he or a teamate interceded on his behalf in the first lynch but it was Synonym 2 who saved himself in the second lynch, after being on the losing end of the randomization. One thing seems definite: LC 2 can save himself from more than one lynch. I'm getting this from the way he has worded his talk about lynches of him. He could have a role where everyone on his team has to die first (making him bad unless there is a small civ btsc team) or it could be a completely different mechanic. But that begs the question why Synonym would have jumped in and said he saved himself on that second lynch. As I said, I am torn about him.

What has gotten my attention most about Synonym is his pleas to be lynched. I know I have gotten so frustrated in some games that I wanted to be lynched as a civ so I know how that feels. The fact that he hasn't asked for a replacement makes me think he is more likely a civ since a baddie would be urged severly by his team to ask for a replacement. This all assumes he hasn't asked for a replacement because it is possible he has and hasn't told us. He did say however that he was not the second one who had asked to be replaced. I'm seeing Synonym as civ or indy at the moment.

Those are my thoughts as they stand right now. There are some other interesting people like Blooper 2 but I'd like to see some more behavior.

Full Games	Civilian: Mafia: Independent:
Speed Games	Civilian: Fiddler on the Roof Mafia:
Heists	Civilian: MVP: RED vs BLUE
Burglaries	Independent: The Theme Is Literally a Burglary
Special Games	Civilian: Independent:

Full Games	Civilian: Mafia: Independent:
Speed Games	Civilian: Fiddler on the Roof Mafia:
Heists	Civilian: MVP: RED vs BLUE
Burglaries	Independent: The Theme Is Literally a Burglary
Special Games	Civilian: Independent:

2014 Sockys
2015 Sockys
Miscellaneous

2014 Sockys
2015 Sockys
Miscellaneous

Did you enjoy The Syndicate Mafia?