Game Over -The Syndicate Mafia

[Phoebe Buffay]

omg wait, JJJ 2 was Long Con? He was actually on my side I think lmao.

Gonna consider my vengeance extracted on his sock then. We good, my man.

[S~V~S]

I seem to think you are the first person to say I show actual good sense!

[Perd Hapley]

omg wait, JJJ 2 was Long Con? He was actually on my side I think lmao.

Gonna consider my vengeance extracted on his sock then. We good, my man.

[Ben Linus]

I got my eye on Elohcin 2 for subtly defending LC2 on Day 2 and then throwing her under the bus when the Day 3 lynch was inevitable. Anybody seeing what I'm seeing there?

[2 Stupid Dogs]

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

[Lunatella]

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

I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?

[Prisoner 509378]

NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

[Jack Shephard]

"The Silly Person" eh? Is that a reference to a past game perhaps? Or possibly something else?

I was expecting mafia to double down on killing Golden 2 since the medic is already dead. After all Golden has already been outed as the Tracker, which can be a bad time for mafia. He is also a confirmed civ now. Gonna have to think about that one for awhile.

But more importantly, why did the Tracker have a resurrection ability? Those two normally are not in tandem. Something about this has bugged me since I first read it, and the feeling is only getting worse.

I wonder if mafia have some kind of "fake night kill" ability. It certainly wouldnt be the first time I have witnessed such a thing.

I think the more likely scenario is that the rezzer is a civ and saw that Golden is a good role to have around.

But why he didn't get killed is beyond me. Unless...Gamer Guy 2 really was a seemer and the doc is still out there. The mafia would know this of course...

Since standard rules apply, then I assume the Mafia cannot target me a second Night in a row.

Also, I don't have a rezz, somebody else rezzed me. If you meant something like an auto rezz, that is a rare as hell power and I definitely don't have it.

Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.

[Jack Shephard]

What is a "Seemer"? That is not a role I am familiar with.

A seemer is a member of the mafia who seems to be civilian (for example, when lynched or when checked by a cop)

Interesting. Thank you.

Spoiler: show

Kawanishi-Noseguchi
Kinunobebashi
Takiyama
Uguisunomori
Tsuzumigataki,
Tada
Hirano
Ichinotorii
Uneno
Yamashita
Sasabe
Kofudai
Tokiwadai
Myoukenguchi

Spoiler: show

That reminds me, I saw Gubayama the other day in Shibomnigee. He said to give you his best.

[Jack Shephard]

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

I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?

I don't think I understand any part of this.

"LC" bussed "Syn"? What events indicate this?

Also, "Syn" would be bad despite a (possible?) bussing?

[Kent Brockman]

No we don't know that, although the way the night went makes me think there might only be one. Unless ther are two and the second is trying to lull us into a sense of complacency.

Eyes on boo & Llama for their mad target painting skills.

I would like to hear from Golden as well on why HE thinks he was NKed. If he said during the picture posts I missed it, it is hard to follow those on phone, and I am on phone more often than not these days, life has been busy.

[Phoebe Buffay]

NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

Don't know but if there is one I'm not on it.

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

I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?

BITCH WHET?

[Paul Stevens]

Hostessmisseses! How many mafia teams are there?

Also, any chance we could learn who DrWilgy 2's identity was, even if we don't get to learn the role?

[Ben Linus]

Can we talk about what I want to talk about?

I got my eye on Elohcin 2 for subtly defending LC2 on Day 2 and then throwing her under the bus when the Day 3 lynch was inevitable. Anybody seeing what I'm seeing there?

[Paul Stevens]

I'm doing some ISO's rey, but I'll look into Elohcin next. I'm on Cookie now.

[Prisoner 509378]

NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

Don't know but if there is one I'm not on it.

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

I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?

BITCH WHET?

how do you know ther's only one team?

[Roxy]

Hostessmisseses! How many mafia teams are there?

Also, any chance we could learn who DrWilgy 2's identity was, even if we don't get to learn the role? NO!

[Larry David]

Elochin:

First couple of posts were joking in sock mode.

Third post says she doesn't want to vote for LC or Synonym. Then quotes Cookie on Cookie's sig 2 suspicion, but goes on to say she won't vote for sig 2 either but will vote for MM for a non-existent reason for voting Synonym. I'll have to go back and look at that but my memory of reading early in the game is that MM 2 was acting very much like MM 1 and not having a good reason to vote sounds very MM 1. MM seems to be hiding behind the sock i think so maybe Elochin's vote here isn't bad.

Fourth and fifth posts - turtle bread and night vote for Super Meat Boy.

Sixth post - says there is not enough on Scotty and TH to draw a conclusion as to whether they are suspicious. Says it looks like Dom 2 is baddie hunting. Believes people jumped on Long Con for his case which isn't any good. Says she agrees with Cookie in her vote post but i don't see a vote post. Only Cookie interaction seems to be the sig 2 info which she said she disagreed with. Thinks Synonym's reactions are frustrated civ behavior. Says she doesn't know why her previous vote should be a problem - she doesnt vote for people she thinks are civ and she doesnt vote for people simply because of bandwagons. For me, this sounds reasonable. It may not have been right but I don't think she's the only one who felt this way about either LC or Synonym.

Seventh post - RIP post and votes for Biblical.

Eight post - Says she can see why Long Con is getting so many votes. First, comments on the lynch surviving power being more likely baddie than civ. Second, his evasion of questioning (barring info dumping). Third, weird reply to Cobalt 2's questioning (it depends). Says her mind has changed from what it was before and she now will vote for LC. Did she change her mind? I can't think of a good reason to suspect she didn't except she voted for LC second to last and so may have decided to join in for civ cred. I need to think this through a little more before I can give a definitive opinion. Her reasons for changing her mind are good ones but that late vote is definitely a ping.

Ninth post - Congrats to people who voted LC from the beginning. Votes American Gods.

I will be interested in others opinions are in whether she really changed her mind or voted LC for the civ credit.

[Paul Stevens]

Cookie

Votes

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

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

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

Spoiler: show

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler: show

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

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

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

Why is the forum on boring skin in the sock accounts?

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

Why DID you specifically ask me, Long Con?

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

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

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

Spoiler: show

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

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

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

Yeah, that's a good point.

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

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

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

I hope he answers you, too.

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

Spoiler: show

I voted for fight club.

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

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

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

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

Spoiler: show

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler: show

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

I kind of feel the hostility is one sided, and not really personal.

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

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

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

SEE? GM SAYS TIES ARE RANDOMIZED.

fucking THANK YOU.

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

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

I'll post @ Cookie when I get home.

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

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

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

Spoiler: show

Cookie 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?

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:

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.

Can we please lynch Sig tomorrow? Synonym, will you help me?

Why?

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

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

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

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

True story, it happens all the time.

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

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

Spoiler: show

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

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

So once again, VOTING FOR SIG

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

Spoiler: show

You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

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

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

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

Can we please lynch Sig tomorrow? Synonym, will you help me?

Why?

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

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

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

In any case, back later.

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

Spoiler: show

I know I have been flogging the "civ/civ" horse pretty hard, but even i am having a hard time thinking either of you are civ at this point, LC & Syn. Especially you, Syn, since you & Sig both seem to know something about the Day One lynch that the rest of us don't.

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

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

Spoiler: show

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

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

BR2 slipping into my scum reads.

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler: show

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

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

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

Spoiler: show

Yay! Good job LC voters

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

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

[Paul Stevens]

Elochin:

First couple of posts were joking in sock mode.

Third post says she doesn't want to vote for LC or Synonym. Then quotes Cookie on Cookie's sig 2 suspicion, but goes on to say she won't vote for sig 2 either but will vote for MM for a non-existent reason for voting Synonym. I'll have to go back and look at that but my memory of reading early in the game is that MM 2 was acting very much like MM 1 and not having a good reason to vote sounds very MM 1. MM seems to be hiding behind the sock i think so maybe Elochin's vote here isn't bad.

Fourth and fifth posts - turtle bread and night vote for Super Meat Boy.

Sixth post - says there is not enough on Scotty and TH to draw a conclusion as to whether they are suspicious. Says it looks like Dom 2 is baddie hunting. Believes people jumped on Long Con for his case which isn't any good. Says she agrees with Cookie in her vote post but i don't see a vote post. Only Cookie interaction seems to be the sig 2 info which she said she disagreed with. Thinks Synonym's reactions are frustrated civ behavior. Says she doesn't know why her previous vote should be a problem - she doesnt vote for people she thinks are civ and she doesnt vote for people simply because of bandwagons. For me, this sounds reasonable. It may not have been right but I don't think she's the only one who felt this way about either LC or Synonym.

Seventh post - RIP post and votes for Biblical.

Eight post - Says she can see why Long Con is getting so many votes. First, comments on the lynch surviving power being more likely baddie than civ. Second, his evasion of questioning (barring info dumping). Third, weird reply to Cobalt 2's questioning (it depends). Says her mind has changed from what it was before and she now will vote for LC. Did she change her mind? I can't think of a good reason to suspect she didn't except she voted for LC second to last and so may have decided to join in for civ cred. I need to think this through a little more before I can give a definitive opinion. Her reasons for changing her mind are good ones but that late vote is definitely a ping.

Ninth post - Congrats to people who voted LC from the beginning. Votes American Gods.

I will be interested in others opinions are in whether she really changed her mind or voted LC for the civ credit.

In regards to Long Con voters on Day 2. If his baddie teammates knew that he could switch the lynch, wouldn't they jump on his lynch for credibility?

On the other hand, Elohcin voted early enough, that if she was a baddie, she could have been trying to direct attention somewhere else (as I think Cookie was trying to do). I don't know if MM was ever really a strong lynch possibility, but it's something to keep in mind. Long Con had 3 votes and led the lynch when Elohcin voted MM to bring his total to 2.

[Ben Linus]

I would be shocked if Cookie 2 flipped bad.

[Ben Linus]

The thing with Elohcin 2 that's interesting to me is that on Day 2 when the lynch result was in question she says the reasons people were suspecting LC 2 were bad reasons. Her Day 3 post about LC2 is all hindsight. She sees LC2 has 10 votes and catches up on the thread, and then summarizes all the reasons people are voting LC2. Now these reasons are good to Elohcin 2. None of those reasons were her own BR2, she's just paraphrasing others. I think talking about others' reasons for suspecting a teammate, saying those reasons are either bad or good, is a neat trick for a baddie.

[Paul Stevens]

I would be shocked if Cookie 2 flipped bad.

Why is that?

The thing with Elohcin 2 that's interesting to me is that on Day 2 when the lynch result was in question she says the reasons people were suspecting LC 2 were bad reasons. Her Day 3 post about LC2 is all hindsight. She sees LC2 has 10 votes and catches up on the thread, and then summarizes all the reasons people are voting LC2. Now these reasons are good to Elohcin 2. None of those reasons were her own BR2, she's just paraphrasing others. I think talking about others' reasons for suspecting a teammate, saying those reasons are either bad or good, is a neat trick for a baddie.

I do agree that a baddie would do such a thing. But when there is a landslide lynch, late votes are difficult to read, no matter the accompanying reason.

[Ben Linus]

I would be shocked if Cookie 2 flipped bad.

Why is that?

The thing with Elohcin 2 that's interesting to me is that on Day 2 when the lynch result was in question she says the reasons people were suspecting LC 2 were bad reasons. Her Day 3 post about LC2 is all hindsight. She sees LC2 has 10 votes and catches up on the thread, and then summarizes all the reasons people are voting LC2. Now these reasons are good to Elohcin 2. None of those reasons were her own BR2, she's just paraphrasing others. I think talking about others' reasons for suspecting a teammate, saying those reasons are either bad or good, is a neat trick for a baddie.

I do agree that a baddie would do such a thing. But when there is a landslide lynch, late votes are difficult to read, no matter the accompanying reason.

I think I know who she is underneath the sock. Her posts feel genuine to me.

[Young Lady]

NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"

[Young Lady]

I agree with the Elo2 suspicion. There was still time for someone else to be lynched on Day 2 when she voted for MM2 (who to be fair is also suspicious to me), and the baddies could have wanted to try to make that happen before deciding to use the switch ability. I also thought TGG2 picked up on something before he died that I pointed out earlier.

[Paul Stevens]

I agree with the Elo2 suspicion. There was still time for someone else to be lynched on Day 2 when she voted for MM2 (who to be fair is also suspicious to me), and the baddies could have wanted to try to make that happen before deciding to use the switch ability. I also thought TGG2 picked up on something before he died that I pointed out earlier.

That's a good point. With the lynch getting switched to Gamer Guy, this might have something to do with it.

[Paul Stevens]

I would be shocked if Cookie 2 flipped bad.

Why is that?

The thing with Elohcin 2 that's interesting to me is that on Day 2 when the lynch result was in question she says the reasons people were suspecting LC 2 were bad reasons. Her Day 3 post about LC2 is all hindsight. She sees LC2 has 10 votes and catches up on the thread, and then summarizes all the reasons people are voting LC2. Now these reasons are good to Elohcin 2. None of those reasons were her own BR2, she's just paraphrasing others. I think talking about others' reasons for suspecting a teammate, saying those reasons are either bad or good, is a neat trick for a baddie.

I do agree that a baddie would do such a thing. But when there is a landslide lynch, late votes are difficult to read, no matter the accompanying reason.

I think I know who she is underneath the sock. Her posts feel genuine to me.

I am certain I know who it is too, and I feel differently.

[Young Lady]

With Long Con 2 flipping mafia I find it more likely that Synonym 2 is clean.

Cobalt 2 on the other hand I'm unsure of, I would like to see some posts know that long con is dead they can no longer follow the Cobalt Long con hunt sock game.

One thing I find interesting is that Llama 2 voted for gamer guy 2 day 1, I really don't see his reasoning for that, he is also targeting low posters at the moment I will be watching him.

MetalMarsh 2 is another player of interest to me he defended Long Con 2, voted for Synonym 2 on day 1 then for Cobalt 2 on day 2. So Day 1 he voted to protect Long Con but left that on day 2 and voted solo. His general posting style seems off as well he is leaning mafia to me.

The Gamer Guy vote is understandable for garnering suspicion, dear Epi. But what to you is suspicious about eyeing low posters?

What about your TGG2 vote makes you call it an understandable reason for suspicion?

[Prisoner 509378]

NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"

Yes, it is.

Synonym quietly exonerating themself from any further suspicion by subtly putting this forward is very different than a slip that I thought might have merit on Day 1.


Start actually reading my posts, please.

[Young Lady]

I have no idea who Cookie is, but I hadn't really suspected her to this point just based on tone. I also get a slightly positive feeling from LC2's random question only to Cookie (Dom referenced it above), it was a weird way for LC2 to focus his question and I don't know if he does that with a team mate. That's not that substantial though I grant. I'll let Cookie respond to Dom's points and allow my feelings to develop from that.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I tried posting this earlier, but things went screwy and my post got eaten, so I have to do it again. Anyways: @Bass 2, yes, I still want to lynch Synonym 2, for not knowing the civilian win condition, not keeping his story straight, and being rude to anyone who bothers directing a statement at him to the point that having him the game is extremely unpleasant.

But, there is someone else I want to look at.

Black Rock 2 was replaced early on. The original BR2 was the one in the role Night 1, which fits the theory that the kill was not protected or blocked, but just not sent in.

Once the current BR2 came in on Day 2, got caught up over Night 2, and became involved in the game on Day 3, things started to become sketchy.

She was one of the first people to question whether the resurrected Golden 2 was still a civilian here. In her next post, after being challenged on the statement, she refers back to the seemer discussion, and some vague statements about past games. I don't trust these two posts, because immediately making a challenge to a confirmed civilian that gets resurrected at this point, because there may be a seemer in the game, does not seem well thought out. If there is a seemer in the game, and the seemer is Golden 2, then that means there is a tracker in the game that Golden 2 used the identity of. Since we learn the role of anyone who is killed, with the exception of mod-kills, it would make sense to me that this is an issue we can wait and see on, since either the real tracker will be killed, and we'll need to decide if we think that person or Golden 2 is a seemer, or the real tracker will eventually speak up and make a real attempt at getting Golden 2 killed.

Then there's the bigger issue I have with BR2, her Day 3 talking about her vote and then the actual vote. She talks about it in this post:

Spoiler: show

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.

She says she is very torn about LC2, but that it seems definite that LC2 can save himself from more than one lynch. Now, there were some of us who discussed the possibilities for how LC2 would survive multiple lynches based on the claims he made, but I don't think most people tried to spin it in a way where LC2 was telling us an actual fact in the way that BR2 did in this post.

She also discusses Synonym 2 and Blooper 2 in this post, I think to lay out the groundwork for voting for one of them if at all possible.

Just under 2 hours later, when the lynch is firmly going in the direction of LC2, she comes back, and is no longer torn, voting for LC2. She also no longer seems to think it is 'definite' that LC2 can survive multiple lynches, and instead refers to it as just an insinuation he made, and that she wants to find out if it is true. I do not think this post rings true, and it does not fit with what she had previously said. This makes me think she is only voting for LC2 at this point, because she is trying to avoid future attention. She was the 8th LC2 voter, of 12, and at the time, Synonym 2, the next closest, had 4 votes, with it being a reasonable assumption that LC2 would bring that up to 5. She could have made it 7-5, but then would have looked bad for the save play. Or she could have waited a little longer, to see where other votes were going to fall, but would have risked looking like a last-minute band-wagoner. So all-in-all, this seems like a very calculated vote, with some timing that is just to perfect to seem genuine.

The rest of her posts going into night 3 and day 4 were her trying to go onto the offensive, mostly asking questions and joining other peoples suspicions. It still all feels like some very sanitary plays though, where she is getting involved but not risking anything.

I think the biggest concern for me on her post-Day 3 is this post:

No because there is no behavior from me that is baddie-like. Like I said, I don't know for sure why my predecessor didn't vote but my guess since he didn't talk at all day 1 is that s/he quit playing and that's why s/he never posted day 1 or night 1.

If feel you need to tell people that there is no behavior from you that is baddie-like, then you're being baddie-like.

[Young Lady]

NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME

BYE

oh do we know there's only one baddie team?

anything?????

This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"

Yes, it is.

Synonym quietly exonerating themself from any further suspicion by subtly putting this forward is very different than a slip that I thought might have merit on Day 1.


Start actually reading my posts, please.

How was Synonym "quietly exonerating himself"? He shouted at everyone in caps lock. I think you have to fish in this Syn post to arrive at the point you made, and I felt the same way about LC2's accusation of Syn on day 1. Hence the comparison.

What do you mean by the last sentence? What suggests to you that I'm not reading your posts?

[Larry David]

I tried posting this earlier, but things went screwy and my post got eaten, so I have to do it again. Anyways: @Bass 2, yes, I still want to lynch Synonym 2, for not knowing the civilian win condition, not keeping his story straight, and being rude to anyone who bothers directing a statement at him to the point that having him the game is extremely unpleasant.

But, there is someone else I want to look at.

Black Rock 2 was replaced early on. The original BR2 was the one in the role Night 1, which fits the theory that the kill was not protected or blocked, but just not sent in. You are ignoring the theory that the team can send in the actions for everyone on the team whether that team member is present or not.
Once the current BR2 came in on Day 2, got caught up over Night 2, and became involved in the game on Day 3, things started to become sketchy.

She was one of the first people to question whether the resurrected Golden 2 was still a civilian here. I questioned whether the resurrected Golden 2 had ever been civ, not whether he was still civilian upon resurrection. That is how a seemer works. In her next post, after being challenged on the statement, she refers back to the seemer discussion, and some vague statements about past games. I don't trust these two posts, because immediately making a challenge to a confirmed civilian that gets resurrected at this point, because there may be a seemer in the game, does not seem well thought out. If there is a seemer in the game, and the seemer is Golden 2, then that means there is a tracker in the game that Golden 2 used the identity of. Since we learn the role of anyone who is killed, with the exception of mod-kills, it would make sense to me that this is an issue we can wait and see on, since either the real tracker will be killed, and we'll need to decide if we think that person or Golden 2 is a seemer, or the real tracker will eventually speak up and make a real attempt at getting Golden 2 killed. We can wait and see on this subject. I never suggested we couldn't. There is no other way to prove there is a seemer. I doubt seriously the real tracker would speak up though as it would put a target on their head.
Then there's the bigger issue I have with BR2, her Day 3 talking about her vote and then the actual vote. She talks about it in this post:

Spoiler: show

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.

She says she is very torn about LC2, but that it seems definite that LC2 can save himself from more than one lynch. Now, there were some of us who discussed the possibilities for how LC2 would survive multiple lynches based on the claims he made, but I don't think most people tried to spin it in a way where LC2 was telling us an actual fact in the way that BR2 did in this post.

She also discusses Synonym 2 and Blooper 2 in this post, I think to lay out the groundwork for voting for one of them if at all possible.

Just under 2 hours later, when the lynch is firmly going in the direction of LC2, she comes back, and is no longer torn, voting for LC2. I never said I was no longer torn.She also no longer seems to think it is 'definite' that LC2 can survive multiple lynches, and instead refers to it as just an insinuation he made, and that she wants to find out if it is true. I do not think this post rings true, and it does not fit with what she had previously said. This makes me think she is only voting for LC2 at this point, because she is trying to avoid future attention. She was the 8th LC2 voter, of 12, and at the time, Synonym 2, the next closest, had 4 votes, with it being a reasonable assumption that LC2 would bring that up to 5. She could have made it 7-5, but then would have looked bad for the save play. Or she could have waited a little longer, to see where other votes were going to fall, but would have risked looking like a last-minute band-wagoner. So all-in-all, this seems like a very calculated vote, with some timing that is just to perfect to seem genuine. I'm sorry you believe it's too perfect to be genuine but I voted when I became more convinced LC 2 was a baddie. I still had doubts but don't most people when they vote?

The rest of her posts going into night 3 and day 4 were her trying to go onto the offensive, mostly asking questions and joining other peoples suspicions. It still all feels like some very sanitary plays though, where she is getting involved but not risking anything. I don't know what you mean by not risking anything. I asked questions where I felt appropriate. What type of behavior are you looking for when you want me to involve myself in risk? This is all your opinion based on what you think that I think.

I think the biggest concern for me on her post-Day 3 is this post:

No because there is no behavior from me that is baddie-like. Like I said, I don't know for sure why my predecessor didn't vote but my guess since he didn't talk at all day 1 is that s/he quit playing and that's why s/he never posted day 1 or night 1.

If feel you need to tell people that there is no behavior from you that is baddie-like, then you're being baddie-like. This is a baddie true-ism you just made up on the spot because it fits. That post was an answer to a direct question regarding me agreeing that I could be bad.

I think you made this case because you find it convenient. You forget perhaps that I've only been in this game a few hours on Day 2 and all of Day 3. Things you had 3 days to think through I only had 1 day and had to reach some conclusions fast. You can vote for me if you think I am bad but you would be mistaken in your opinion.

[Larry David]

I agree with the Elo2 suspicion. There was still time for someone else to be lynched on Day 2 when she voted for MM2 (who to be fair is also suspicious to me), and the baddies could have wanted to try to make that happen before deciding to use the switch ability. I also thought TGG2 picked up on something before he died that I pointed out earlier.

That's a good point. With the lynch getting switched to Gamer Guy, this might have something to do with it.

Yes SVS 2. Thanks for pointing this out. It didn't come out in my ISO because I was reading Elo only but it certainly does amp up my suspicion level.

[Lunatella]

I'm going out of town for the weekend, and my participation will be minimal until roughly Monday afternoon again. I'll reread your argument and BR2's counter later Lacey 2, but aside from BR2 do you have any other suspicions? Having one suspect is equivalent to betting on one specific number in slightly-more-informed roulette.

Apologies for the confusion, I thought Long Con 2 has used his lynch switch ability to turn the lynch to Synonym 2, but I think that was Gamer Guy 2 (real Wilgy) that was the victim of that particular ability. If that is the case then Long Con 2 never "bussed" Synonym 2 like I said, I was mistaken on the target.

[Sockys2023]

Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.

It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.

That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"

[Jack Shephard]

Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.

It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.

That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"

You do know the villain says that, right?

[Jack Shephard]

I've been out of commission today (RL stuff), sorry about that, I'll catch up later or tomorrow.

[Sockys2023]

Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.

It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.

That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"

You do know the villain says that, right?

Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.

[Jack Shephard]

Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.

It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.

That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"

You do know the villain says that, right?

Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.

Good thing paraphrasing that line doesn't also make you a villain trying to kill me.

[Sockys2023]

Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.

It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.

That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"

You do know the villain says that, right?

Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.

Good thing paraphrasing that line doesn't also make you a villain trying to kill me.

Well I mean I've never actually seen the movie. I've just seen that scene a bunch of times in youtube videos, or referenced in other media. Good guy in a tux strapped to a table, death laser heading for his junk etc, etc.

Besides, if I were a villain trying to kill you, this conversation wouldnt be happening. I just wouldve killed you last night. I like to keep my games clean cut and simple.

I wonder who else caught on to that thing I'm doing.

[Jack Shephard]

I'll just answer this for now

No we don't know that, although the way the night went makes me think there might only be one. Unless ther are two and the second is trying to lull us into a sense of complacency.

Eyes on boo & Llama for their mad target painting skills.

I would like to hear from Golden as well on why HE thinks he was NKed. If he said during the picture posts I missed it, it is hard to follow those on phone, and I am on phone more often than not these days, life has been busy.

First of all, you may have noticed that I was quite the targeters' favorite on Night 2 (of course, if I would have remained dead, all the other things and gimmicks would have been void) from both civ and mafia sides; no idea what I did to earn those, but oh well. As for me being killed, I can project only a couple of motivations, such as being an active, popular, high profile etc. player (or even sock) that they regarded as a dangerous civilian (already or potentially, as the game evolves) or my death, at such an early stage, not leading to that many links of interpretation or WIFOMs (except maybe, I suppose, "Llama" or "MM"?).

I have to ask, however, is this line of inquiry, in which victims should project the reasoning of their killers, something regular? Or is it just because I was brought back into the game? Usually we have to interpret the killing targets or attempts of the mafia, not ask civs to explain mafia's actions.

[Kent Brockman]

I usually know who killed me when i get killed. Not for a fact, but i have a good idea. One of the best things about coming back from the dead is that you bring your hindsight back with you.

I don't know how many times I had a facepalm moment after I had been NKed or otherwise done to death, "Of course, that's who killed me".

I was looking for that kind of insight. It was not nefearious or intended to entrap you, Scouts Honor

[Celeste]

You outright defended Long Con. Why did you do that.

[Kent Brockman]

I outright defended you, too. I said I didn't think either of you were bad. Repeatedly.

I thought the baddies were setting you up for a one two punch.

[Celeste]

I know I have been flogging the "civ/civ" horse pretty hard, but even i am having a hard time thinking either of you are civ at this point, LC & Syn. Especially you, Syn, since you & Sig both seem to know something about the Day One lynch that the rest of us don't.

This looks like you BACKED OFF in a big way when it looked like Scum Con was going down, but then you made Synonym your prime target while tossing sig into the mix.

I don't even know how to make a scum name for cookie because I like cookies. But you are a Scum Cookie.

[Phoebe Buffay]

I tried posting this earlier, but things went screwy and my post got eaten, so I have to do it again. Anyways: @Bass 2, yes, I still want to lynch Synonym 2, for not knowing the civilian win condition, not keeping his story straight, and being rude to anyone who bothers directing a statement at him to the point that having him the game is extremely unpleasant.

But, there is someone else I want to look at.

Black Rock 2 was replaced early on. The original BR2 was the one in the role Night 1, which fits the theory that the kill was not protected or blocked, but just not sent in.

Once the current BR2 came in on Day 2, got caught up over Night 2, and became involved in the game on Day 3, things started to become sketchy.

She was one of the first people to question whether the resurrected Golden 2 was still a civilian here. In her next post, after being challenged on the statement, she refers back to the seemer discussion, and some vague statements about past games. I don't trust these two posts, because immediately making a challenge to a confirmed civilian that gets resurrected at this point, because there may be a seemer in the game, does not seem well thought out. If there is a seemer in the game, and the seemer is Golden 2, then that means there is a tracker in the game that Golden 2 used the identity of. Since we learn the role of anyone who is killed, with the exception of mod-kills, it would make sense to me that this is an issue we can wait and see on, since either the real tracker will be killed, and we'll need to decide if we think that person or Golden 2 is a seemer, or the real tracker will eventually speak up and make a real attempt at getting Golden 2 killed.

Then there's the bigger issue I have with BR2, her Day 3 talking about her vote and then the actual vote. She talks about it in this post:

Spoiler: show

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.

She says she is very torn about LC2, but that it seems definite that LC2 can save himself from more than one lynch. Now, there were some of us who discussed the possibilities for how LC2 would survive multiple lynches based on the claims he made, but I don't think most people tried to spin it in a way where LC2 was telling us an actual fact in the way that BR2 did in this post.

She also discusses Synonym 2 and Blooper 2 in this post, I think to lay out the groundwork for voting for one of them if at all possible.

Just under 2 hours later, when the lynch is firmly going in the direction of LC2, she comes back, and is no longer torn, voting for LC2. She also no longer seems to think it is 'definite' that LC2 can survive multiple lynches, and instead refers to it as just an insinuation he made, and that she wants to find out if it is true. I do not think this post rings true, and it does not fit with what she had previously said. This makes me think she is only voting for LC2 at this point, because she is trying to avoid future attention. She was the 8th LC2 voter, of 12, and at the time, Synonym 2, the next closest, had 4 votes, with it being a reasonable assumption that LC2 would bring that up to 5. She could have made it 7-5, but then would have looked bad for the save play. Or she could have waited a little longer, to see where other votes were going to fall, but would have risked looking like a last-minute band-wagoner. So all-in-all, this seems like a very calculated vote, with some timing that is just to perfect to seem genuine.

The rest of her posts going into night 3 and day 4 were her trying to go onto the offensive, mostly asking questions and joining other peoples suspicions. It still all feels like some very sanitary plays though, where she is getting involved but not risking anything.

I think the biggest concern for me on her post-Day 3 is this post:

No because there is no behavior from me that is baddie-like. Like I said, I don't know for sure why my predecessor didn't vote but my guess since he didn't talk at all day 1 is that s/he quit playing and that's why s/he never posted day 1 or night 1.

If feel you need to tell people that there is no behavior from you that is baddie-like, then you're being baddie-like.

Oh good, Black Rock 2 is definitely town if Lipsticklacey 2 is making a case on her. Great to know. Let me add that to my world

[Phoebe Buffay]

I know I have been flogging the "civ/civ" horse pretty hard, but even i am having a hard time thinking either of you are civ at this point, LC & Syn. Especially you, Syn, since you & Sig both seem to know something about the Day One lynch that the rest of us don't.

This looks like you BACKED OFF in a big way when it looked like Scum Con was going down, but then you made Synonym your prime target while tossing sig into the mix.

I don't even know how to make a scum name for cookie because I like cookies. But you are a Scum Cookie.

Nabisco just outsourced like a shit ton of jobs to Mexico or something which is pretty scummy so you can just call him Oreo or s/t

[Phoebe Buffay]

Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.

It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.

That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"

You do know the villain says that, right?

Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.

Good thing paraphrasing that line doesn't also make you a villain trying to kill me.

Well I mean I've never actually seen the movie. I've just seen that scene a bunch of times in youtube videos, or referenced in other media. Good guy in a tux strapped to a table, death laser heading for his junk etc, etc.

Besides, if I were a villain trying to kill you, this conversation wouldnt be happening. I just wouldve killed you last night. I like to keep my games clean cut and simple.

I wonder who else caught on to that thing I'm doing.

I don't like this exchange, rainbow of scum!boo, weeeee.