Game Over -The Syndicate Mafia

[Paul Stevens]

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.

Are you talking about Black Rock and Blooper? I left them alone for now because they will be modkilled if they miss the vote anyway. Blooper has 2 posts though, and nothing to look at. Black Rock has participated (and had a player sub in), but still has not voted yet, so I was just holding off on the effort in the event that it would be a waste of time.

Those were just the first 5 players alphabetically. I will get to doing ISO's of more players as time permits.

Linki: Well it likes I won't have to worry about BR missing the vote.

[Ben Linus]

I don't have time to elaborate further until later but I wanted to get something out there. I want to prove to my fellow civs that I can be trusted. Hopefully this will at least foster discussion and I will be back later to converse as well.

I know I have said that I would try to stop playing defense and pay offense instead. I am starting off my suspicions with SVS. I know it my sound as if I am only targeting her because she has been targeting me, but oh well. She is tunneling and I it makes her look bad.

My next suspicion is blooper. She has two posts in the whole game. There is a small number of players participating in the thread. Some of the mafia must be inactive and she seems like a perfect candidate in my opinion.

Lastly, full disclosure, I am still on the fence about Syn. My thoughts of him were that he could have slipped and really knows there are five mafia. I thought his initial reaction was genuine, but that his posts quickly turned sketchy.

Linki: I wish you would have waited. However, I would still like your input on my thoughts.

I think this is the scummiest post in the game. "I don't have time to elaborate until later," he says. I wonder how LC2 plans on elaborating on a "NO U" and a player with two posts.

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.

pls lynch me

You heard the man.

And this is the second scummiest post of the game. Asked about his own role power being more likely to be civ or bad, LC2 says "That depends, I don't know."

[Marmot]

Real MM, what have you done? :P

I'm helpless.

I'd not mind if one of the kindly mods would delete that post though.

[Young Lady]

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.

Are you talking about Black Rock and Blooper? I left them alone for now because they will be modkilled if they miss the vote anyway. Blooper has 2 posts though, and nothing to look at. Black Rock has participated (and had a player sub in), but still has not voted yet, so I was just holding off on the effort in the event that it would be a waste of time.

Those were just the first 5 players alphabetically. I will get to doing ISO's of more players as time permits.

Linki: Well it likes I won't have to worry about BR missing the vote.

I meant the higher posters you covered or the ones you had more to say about, Cobalt, boo, and Bass. I'm wondering what direction you lean on them after your reviews. You may have implied it in them and I just missed it. I don't think there's really any way to get a real read on the lower posters.

[Saito]

I can read Elochin quite well, however seeing how this isn't really my wife I'm leaning mafia on Elochin 2. I'm leaning mafia for two reasons one is the argument SVS 2 uses as well as Elochin's use of wording such as saying it makes perfect sense and not just makes sense, this imply that they are perfect or that what they are doing/saying is perfect and since being perfect is associated with being good they are trying to imply they are good.

I need to look over some things with Elochin but I will be back to them

We have Long Con 2 and Synonym 2 as our options today, a Long Con lynch might result in another day with no lynching, however, I don't like that he was able to avoid a lynch, lynching him may waste another phase, but looking at Synonym 2 and how he is playing I don't think he is a mafia member. For that reason I will be voting for Long Con 2 this phase.

[Paul Stevens]

I am surprised that Cobalt has not voted for Long Con yet.

[Jack Shephard]

[Prisoner 509378]

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?

It's not that I necessarily fnd him *unsuspicious* it's that I just never understood why people found him particularly suspicious.
I can get that, but I'm not sure I want to lynch him because I also find synonym suspicious.

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.

a m a z i n g

[Turnip Head]

Real MM, what have you done? :P

I'm helpless.

I'd not mind if one of the kindly mods would delete that post though.

If you post out of "character" - well, we have decided to let it go. We will not be deleting ANY posts not made in "character". So use your sock please - Bass this is mostly for you :P

Sorry bub, rules are rules :P

[Lunatella]

Something humorous to note: Two or three people have been accused of hiding behind their sock but none of them have been Synonym 2

[Marmot]

Real MM, what have you done? :P

I'm helpless.

I'd not mind if one of the kindly mods would delete that post though.

If you post out of "character" - well, we have decided to let it go. We will not be deleting ANY posts not made in "character". So use your sock please - Bass this is mostly for you :P

Sorry bub, rules are rules :P

That's fine, as I am the real Metalmarsh

Who is this fraudulent bastard anyway?

[Paul Stevens]

Something humorous to note: Two or three people have been accused of hiding behind their sock but none of them have been Synonym 2

Do you think that Synonym 2 is attempting to act like the real Synonym?

[Young Lady]

I think this is the scummiest post in the game. "I don't have time to elaborate until later," he says. I wonder how LC2 plans on elaborating on a "NO U" and a player with two posts.

I agree, this is the second time LC has evaded explaining something, after he shrugged off my request for examples of baddies throwing random suspects into the thread on day 1 with "I need to make sandwiches" . I don't understand why he'd need more time to elaborate if he had enough time to put up that post in the first place. And turning my suspicion back on me just for "tunneling" shows he doesn't actually have anything bad to say about me that doesn't involve him anyway. Pure No U.

[Young Lady]

I voted LC. Gonna head out for a little while, I might be back later but will probably not be around at the end of the day.

[Jack Shephard]

[Paul Stevens]

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.

Are you talking about Black Rock and Blooper? I left them alone for now because they will be modkilled if they miss the vote anyway. Blooper has 2 posts though, and nothing to look at. Black Rock has participated (and had a player sub in), but still has not voted yet, so I was just holding off on the effort in the event that it would be a waste of time.

Those were just the first 5 players alphabetically. I will get to doing ISO's of more players as time permits.

Linki: Well it likes I won't have to worry about BR missing the vote.

I meant the higher posters you covered or the ones you had more to say about, Cobalt, boo, and Bass. I'm wondering what direction you lean on them after your reviews. You may have implied it in them and I just missed it. I don't think there's really any way to get a real read on the lower posters.

I wanted players to discuss the ideas I brought up before I gave my read on them, but I guess I could go ahead and offer my thoughts.

I am neutral on Bass. His aggression looks sincere, but it is focused on a single player. We don't know if mafia consists of five players, but I could guarantee you there is more than one. I think he needs to look at other players too, and to offer his thoughts on them.

boo I have slight baddie read on. I don't like his initial case on Gamer Guy. I also don't like that he made the statement "I have thoughts but nothing concrete" and did not expound on them, but committed a vote to Synonym instead.

Cobalt, I am neutral on. His Long Con suspicion is warranted, but his initial suspicion was not game-related, and I feel like he piggy-backed on that. I realize this sounds like a baddie read, but I need to look into Long Con before I commit to a read on Cobalt since his focus is so one-dimensional. I haven't given Long Con much attention to this point, especially considering how much he has been at the center of attention.

[NurseWilgy]

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?

It's not that I necessarily fnd him *unsuspicious* it's that I just never understood why people found him particularly suspicious.
I can get that, but I'm not sure I want to lynch him because I also find synonym suspicious.

If Long Con flips bad, I do want to remember this post for the flagrant fragrance of defending.

[NurseWilgy]

I can read Elochin quite well, however seeing how this isn't really my wife I'm leaning mafia on Elochin 2. I'm leaning mafia for two reasons one is the argument SVS 2 uses as well as Elochin's use of wording such as saying it makes perfect sense and not just makes sense, this imply that they are perfect or that what they are doing/saying is perfect and since being perfect is associated with being good they are trying to imply they are good.

I need to look over some things with Elochin but I will be back to them

We have Long Con 2 and Synonym 2 as our options today, a Long Con lynch might result in another day with no lynching, however, I don't like that he was able to avoid a lynch, lynching him may waste another phase, but looking at Synonym 2 and how he is playing I don't think he is a mafia member. For that reason I will be voting for Long Con 2 this phase.

Long Con can't evade a lynch forever, surely!

[2 Stupid Dogs]

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

You make one important assumption with this last paragraph. You assume that I could clearly be contributing far more than I currently am. Do you know without me telling you when I'm not working and available to post? Do you know for a fact that I'm not saying every conclusion I come to? I appreciate the assumption that I'm perceptive and/or smart (and/or Mafia, as that's what you're getting at) but those aren't necessarily facts just because you think I'm not saying everything I know.

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

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

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

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

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

- no idea when you're working, it also isn't relevant
- completely certain you haven't shared all conclusions
- it isn't a compliment or opinion, it's a fact that you are more perceptive than you are letting on, because no one can have a presence in a game and maintain the limited views that you are talking about. There is more to you. This strikes me as an indicator you have Btsc.
- in terms of what you have actually discussed, this is essentially your only talking point. I do not believe you did not go back and look at the question to write the post asking about it. I think you are trying to come up with some sort of loaded question, and I do not believe that there is a civilian intent behind it.
- you haven't discussed having any other suspicions, you haven't discussed with anyone else their suspicions, you haven't discussed anything else at all, essentially. Asking the question and the subsequent follow up has been the only thing you have spoken about so far.
- my issue was with your seemingly poorly thought out vote, that you had no clear reason for. That there is so much manipulation in this game is pbvious, based on the results so far, and that you aren't carefully considering your vote when that is the case makes me think you really do not care about lynch results.
- then you are misreading me. And also ridicuoulosly easy to sway, apparently.

[Young Lady]

I wanted players to discuss the ideas I brought up before I gave my read on them, but I guess I could go ahead and offer my thoughts.

I am neutral on Bass. His aggression looks sincere, but it is focused on a single player. We don't know if mafia consists of five players, but I could guarantee you there is more than one. I think he needs to look at other players too, and to offer his thoughts on them.

boo I have slight baddie read on. I don't like his initial case on Gamer Guy. I also don't like that he made the statement "I have thoughts but nothing concrete" and did not expound on them, but committed a vote to Synonym instead.

Cobalt, I am neutral on. His Long Con suspicion is warranted, but his initial suspicion was not game-related, and I feel like he piggy-backed on that. I realize this sounds like a baddie read, but I need to look into Long Con before I commit to a read on Cobalt since his focus is so one-dimensional. I haven't given Long Con much attention to this point, especially considering how much he has been at the center of attention.

What I like about Bass is that he joined late and kinda just picked someone he didn't like and went after it. It's not much I admit, but I can see a civ getting into the game late and focusing on one person just because it's the easiest method to get involved and I don't think he has seemed insincere. Cobalt has done the same thing I guess, minus the late arrival and minus most of the explanation. We'll know more about him if LC is lynched I think, or at least be able to make some inferences. I've not really paid as much attention to boo yet (no offense boo! ), your thoughts are noted and appreciated. I'll see how I feel when I review.

[Golf]

I don't like shifty, lynch evady people, so I'm voting for LC again today. If he can in fact switch lynches indefinitely, maybe we should just keep voting for him and let him single-handedly decide who gets lynched every time. Maybe all of us are dumber than one of us.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

"I died with 2 what on me yesterday?"

My bad, I was listening to Lacey 2.

No, I don't like the idea of taking a single vote, seeing as Golden 2 got lynched with only 2 votes on him

And as for how I'm acting with regards to the sock, what do you people want from me? I don't say much, Lacey 2 calls it "hiding behind the sock", I talk more and you give me crap for not acting like Bass. Could you guys at least get on the same page before you tell me what to do?

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

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

[Larry David]

I have decided to vote for LC 2. I'm uncomfortable with his insinuation that other lynches can be avoided, even if he only affected one of the two lynches he was involved in prior to this point. Will this lynch be avoided too? I don't know but it's worth it to me to find out. With that said, I'm sorry sweetheart that I have to vote this way but you know as well as I that you would vote for me if the situation were reversed.

[Jack Shephard]

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.

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.

Something humorous to note: Two or three people have been accused of hiding behind their sock but none of them have been Synonym 2

[Ned Flanders]

I cast my vote.

[Ben Linus]

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

[Lunatella]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[Lunatella]

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

LC2 has 8 votes while Synonym 2 has 5 votes. Do you think LC2's prospective ability would protect him from that much of a deficit?

[Ben Linus]

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

LC2 has 8 votes while Synonym 2 has 5 votes. Do you think LC2's prospective ability would protect him from that much of a deficit?

It did last time.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Pretty much.

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

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

[Celeste]

3 letters in CON

3 days to lynch a con is too LONG

[Ned Flanders]

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

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

[Jack Shephard]

[Ben Linus]

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

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

Yeah that's it. Me no read good.

Here is what you posted:

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

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

[2 Stupid Dogs]

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

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

Yeah that's it. Me no read good.

Here is what you posted:

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

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

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

[Ben Linus]

You're just arguing semantics.

[Lunatella]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ben Linus]

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

So why do it?

[Gunther]

I didn't understand where rey was coming from before, but now I do. It's actually a decent theory for LC's survival and why he might say 'I have a chance of dying' - if he started off with negative votes or each vote counted half etc. It also fits with synonym's lynch survival being consumed.

I still don't agree that LC is bad, because I'm sure Synonym is, and I don't think bussing is going on. As for 'why doesn't he just ask for a replacement' - and this leaning towards people thinking he is civ, this is exactly why to play the way synonym has. Everyone goes, 'oh he can't be bad, his team would just ask him to replace instead of asking to be lynched'. But we all know that in reality, if we ask to be lynched and get really upset that's when people start going 'oh, you sound civ' and don't vote for you. Just ask MovingPictures in Roger Rabbit.

I'm absolutely convinced Synonym is bad. I can see he won't be lynched today, but I will be re-upping and going again tomorrow and, like Lacey, every day until he is lynched. HE IS BAD. I don't understand why so many people are willing to continually give him a pass just because he gets aggro.

I wanted to do one of those things where you use quotes and show why someone is bad. Synonym has been all over the place, and he has said a lot of things which has my alarms ringing. It's what Rico would do. But I find the idea quite daunting, and I don't have time before the lynch (and I see it won't matter anyway). Maybe this weekend I will feel like I can face it.

[Gunther]

I don't see why lacey would be bad, and I don't see why bass would be bad. I'm on board with the suspicions of llama and MM though.

[Paul Stevens]

Something humorous to note: Two or three people have been accused of hiding behind their sock but none of them have been Synonym 2

Do you think that Synonym 2 is attempting to act like the real Synonym?

Bass, someone asked you some question and you haven't answered it.

[Julinook]

I intended a much more substantial and earlier post, and have intended to be more active in recent days, but real life (like, real real behind the sock life) has been kicking my ass in busyness and general stress lately, and it's starting to make me sick today. My apologies for not being around as much as I should, and for the pile of excuses.

This will be brief, because I feel like butt and need to lay back down. So, 10 votes for LC. I was a bit surprised to see that before catching up, but reading back, I can see why - comments on the lynch surviving power being more likely baddie than civ from other players, his evasion of questioning (barring info-dumping evasion), and his weird response to Cobalt's questioning of his bad vs. civ role: "it depends" etc. etc. I know I said before he wasn't on my list, but my mind has changed. I don't even know if any of that made sense, but I'm gonna vote LC.

Now gimme all the sleep and chicken soup.

[Sockys2023]

boo I have slight baddie read on. I don't like his initial case on Gamer Guy. I also don't like that he made the statement "I have thoughts but nothing concrete" and did not expound on them, but committed a vote to Synonym instead.

Oh you mean the case that I really didnt even pursue? I wasn't trying to convince people to vote for him. Yet. I was just following my own gut feeling on him at that point in time. So make no mistake. I was not making a "case" with which the rest of you could have reasonably formed a vote with. I was merely playing my own game. Much like I still am now.

If only people knew who I actually was. I wouldnt need to explain myself.

And when I say I dont have anything concrete, it usually means that I am watching for certain things, but what I have at the moment isnt worth sharing. When I do have something I feel is worth sharing, you will know. Much like when I expressed opinions on Gamer Guy 2.

[Kent Brockman]

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.

[Spooky Ghost]

I voted for Long Con 2.

[fingersplints]

I intended a much more substantial and earlier post, and have intended to be more active in recent days, but real life (like, real real behind the sock life) has been kicking my ass in busyness and general stress lately, and it's starting to make me sick today. My apologies for not being around as much as I should, and for the pile of excuses.

This will be brief, because I feel like butt and need to lay back down. So, 10 votes for LC. I was a bit surprised to see that before catching up, but reading back, I can see why - comments on the lynch surviving power being more likely baddie than civ from other players, his evasion of questioning (barring info-dumping evasion), and his weird response to Cobalt's questioning of his bad vs. civ role: "it depends" etc. etc. I know I said before he wasn't on my list, but my mind has changed. I don't even know if any of that made sense, but I'm gonna vote LC.

Now gimme all the sleep and chicken soup.

I've been very sick too. It got so bad I thought I might have to go to the hospital. I'm starting to feel better, although I think my husband has it now. Hope you feel better soon too.

[Lunatella]

I did answer at the bottom of a large post, so that's why you didn't see it.

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

[2 Stupid Dogs]

You're just arguing semantics.

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

That isn't semantics.

[Jack Shephard]

[Jack Shephard]