The Syndicate

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:So, Wilgy and Epi still haven't checked in. If they don't show up soon, I'd be willing to vote for one of them.

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

I wonder if anyone is actually the player they're pretending to be. That would be a supabluff.

I'm pretty sure that would negate the purlose of this game.

Why? Wouldn't their teammates tell them to come and play if they were bad, making it more likely they aren't? That's what people were saying usually happens in Angry Birds.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:So, Wilgy and Epi still haven't checked in. If they don't show up soon, I'd be willing to vote for one of them.

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

I wonder if anyone is actually the player they're pretending to be. That would be a supabluff.

I'm pretty sure that would negate the purlose of this game.

Why? Wouldn't their teammates tell them to come and play if they were bad, making it more likely they aren't? That's what people were saying usually happens in Angry Birds.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:So, Wilgy and Epi still haven't checked in. If they don't show up soon, I'd be willing to vote for one of them.

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

I wonder if anyone is actually the player they're pretending to be. That would be a supabluff.

I'm pretty sure that would negate the purlose of this game.

Why? Wouldn't their teammates tell them to come and play if they were bad, making it more likely they aren't? That's what people were saying usually happens in Angry Birds.

I think the negate thing referred more to someone being their own sock; that really would defeat the purpose of the game.

This is how I feel as well regarding no shows; since the host is going to modkill anyhow, i would rather give them a chance to show up. Although I guess whether the baddie BTS is sock only BTS or not matters. Like if the baddies can't tell each other who they really are, or if the host does not tell them, if they do not log into their socks, they may not know they are being pushed to post by baddie teammates..

So if something actually suspicious comes up, I would prefer to vote for that. But I would vote for a no show before random, I guess.

It would defeat the purpose of the game if everyone was their own sock, but if only one person was their own sock, now that would be interesting.

I'm not sure whether I am tripping on LSD or if Roxy's host post just made me think I am.

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.

Golden 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:I didn't read people had info on the poll before voting. Probably should have paid attention.

That's pretty sloppy for a Rico, "Rico". Rico would pay more attention.

I apologise for not acting quite like myself. I was feeling upset that everyone wanted to kill me in recruitment at once. Don't they know I have a win percentage to protect? Excuse me while I go off and create a spreadsheet. If everyone could please just tell me every game they ever played, their actions on each night, and what their roles and affiliations are, that would be helpful. Thanks.

(I can't pull rico off. But I'll try!)

No suspicions yet. The role playing is lots of fun, but I could see some baddies hiding behind it.

Cookie 2 wrote:This is how I feel as well regarding no shows; since the host is going to modkill anyhow, i would rather give them a chance to show up. Although I guess whether the baddie BTS is sock only BTS or not matters. Like if the baddies can't tell each other who they really are, or if the host does not tell them, if they do not log into their socks, they may not know they are being pushed to post by baddie teammates.

I agree. The hosts said they'd modkill mercilessly, so I think it'd be wasteful to specifically target low posters for lynches. They can still be prodded into talking though by whatever means necessary.

Voted Gamer Guy. His name is the only one not in alphabetical order on the poll.

Carry on.

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

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

Ricochet 2 wrote:
No suspicions yet. The role playing is lots of fun, but I could see some baddies hiding behind it.

Could you offer a bit more clarification as to what you mean by baddies hiding behind their role playing? Do you think you are seeing this happen already? If so, by whom?

Long Con 2 wrote:

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

Timmer 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

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

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

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

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

Why DID you specifically ask me, Long Con?

MY SALT IS STILL AMPLIFIED.

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.

EBWOP: the fact that*

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

I agree, that does seem like a slip to me.

I'm not too concerned right now about who has what sock account. Beyond it being fun to try and figure out, it's just not that relevant to baddie-finding. Timmer 2, are you trying to steer discussion toward irrelevant topics in order to prevent real detective work from happening?

Jagged Jimmy Jay 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

I agree, that does seem like a slip to me.

I'm not too concerned right now about who has what sock account. Beyond it being fun to try and figure out, it's just not that relevant to baddie-finding. Timmer 2, are you trying to steer discussion toward irrelevant topics in order to prevent real detective work from happening?

I agree with this. We're here to find out who the baddies are, not who the real Dom is.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

He didn't say that there are five baddies. He did list five players and call them baddies.

There is a slight difference, but not enough to overlook it.

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:So, Wilgy and Epi still haven't checked in. If they don't show up soon, I'd be willing to vote for one of them.

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

I wonder if anyone is actually the player they're pretending to be. That would be a supabluff.

I'm pretty sure that would negate the purlose of this game.

i will not be voting for epignosis
why might you

Timmer 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

how

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

i will not be voting cookie

i will likely voting long con or synonym

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.

Jagged Jimmy Jay 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

I agree, that does seem like a slip to me.

I'm not too concerned right now about who has what sock account. Beyond it being fun to try and figure out, it's just not that relevant to baddie-finding. Timmer 2, are you trying to steer discussion toward irrelevant topics in order to prevent real detective work from happening?

Are you trying to decide for the whole thread which topics are relevant and which aren't? Everyone has their own style of baddie hunting. Are you saying only yours is legitimate?

I'm suspicious of people who say "don't look over there, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Look over here instead." Classic misdirection.

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

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

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

Dom 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

He didn't say that there are five baddies. He did list five players and call them baddies.

There is a slight difference, but not enough to overlook it.

I fail to see how an attempt at a joke based on a player's history is being taken into consideration as a scum slip. Of course I don't actually know how many baddies there are. Seriously?

I dislike how Long Con is focusing on that.

Synonym 2 wrote:[insert game solving supertown post here]

Mafia is Golden, Long Con, Metalmarsh, Cobalt, and Rico.

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

Also, what does the skin of my sock account have to do with anything? I asked a question because the forum looked drastically different and much more boring when I originally logged into this account. You say it doesn't bother you "as much" as me listing five names, but why does that even bother you at all?

Llama 2 wrote:

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

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

Yeah, that's a good point.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:[insert game solving supertown post here]

Mafia is Golden, Long Con, Metalmarsh, Cobalt, and Rico.

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

Also, what does the skin of my sock account have to do with anything? I asked a question because the forum looked drastically different and much more boring when I originally logged into this account. You say it doesn't bother you "as much" as me listing five names, but why does that even bother you at all?

You are right. The skin thing doesn't bother me at all actually. In fact, I assume that the person who last used your sock account had just left it that way. Naming five names right out of the bat like that does bother me a bit. Specifically naming five names could mean that you know there are five mafia members. That is all I meant to imply with my post. That said, can you tell us why you chose to name the five players that you did? And can you tell us why you stopped at five?

To clarify, when I say "stopped at five", I mean, you could have named more, you could have named fewer. Why five? Also, I don't mean for this to sound like an interrogation, just conversation.

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

Why, because listing 5 while saying "Mafia is" is not the same? Sig, are you trying to scare people into not looking into something that may end up as revealing?

No civ should have any reason to defend Syn for saying something like that.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:[insert game solving supertown post here]

Mafia is Golden, Long Con, Metalmarsh, Cobalt, and Rico.

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

Also, what does the skin of my sock account have to do with anything? I asked a question because the forum looked drastically different and much more boring when I originally logged into this account. You say it doesn't bother you "as much" as me listing five names, but why does that even bother you at all?

I am starting to think that it is possible that you are using your satire specifically so that you don't need to play as civ Synonym, because of how strong Synonym's civ game is. Synonym does a good job of hunting baddies, setting up your character as a satire of Synonym so that you don't need to baddie hunt, would really serve a baddie well. On the chance that you are trying to play as mafia Synonym, you would need to care a lot less, and act apathetic.

Long Con 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:
No suspicions yet. The role playing is lots of fun, but I could see some baddies hiding behind it.

Could you offer a bit more clarification as to what you mean by baddies hiding behind their role playing? Do you think you are seeing this happen already? If so, by whom?

No, at least I would need to read everything again. But I will be keeping an on those who might look like they are contributing, but its really role playing without much substance.

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

Long Con 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:[insert game solving supertown post here]

Mafia is Golden, Long Con, Metalmarsh, Cobalt, and Rico.

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

Also, what does the skin of my sock account have to do with anything? I asked a question because the forum looked drastically different and much more boring when I originally logged into this account. You say it doesn't bother you "as much" as me listing five names, but why does that even bother you at all?

You are right. The skin thing doesn't bother me at all actually. In fact, I assume that the person who last used your sock account had just left it that way. Naming five names right out of the bat like that does bother me a bit. Specifically naming five names could mean that you know there are five mafia members. That is all I meant to imply with my post. That said, can you tell us why you chose to name the five players that you did? And can you tell us why you stopped at five?

Long Con 2 wrote:To clarify, when I say "stopped at five", I mean, you could have named more, you could have named fewer. Why five? Also, I don't mean for this to sound like an interrogation, just conversation.

I won't go into detail but one of my own (not Synonym's) best townplays nailed down five baddies in one post. Five is a common number for scum where I'm used to playing. So that's what I defaulted to.

Actually, the fact that you've focused in so hard on whether or not I know five is the actual number of scum makes ME think that YOU know that five is the actual number of scum and that's why you're trying to use it against me.

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:

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

Why, because listing 5 while saying "Mafia is" is not the same? Sig, are you trying to scare people into not looking into something that may end up as revealing?

No civ should have any reason to defend Syn for saying something like that.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:[insert game solving supertown post here]

Mafia is Golden, Long Con, Metalmarsh, Cobalt, and Rico.

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

Long Con 2 wrote:You are correct, cookie. I was trying to begin discussion, not stifle it. The act that Synonym talked about the skin of his sock account doesn't bother me as much as him saying that there are five baddies among us. How would he know that unless he was one of them.

Also, what does the skin of my sock account have to do with anything? I asked a question because the forum looked drastically different and much more boring when I originally logged into this account. You say it doesn't bother you "as much" as me listing five names, but why does that even bother you at all?

I am starting to think that it is possible that you are using your satire specifically so that you don't need to play as civ Synonym, because of how strong Synonym's civ game is. Synonym does a good job of hunting baddies, setting up your character as a satire of Synonym so that you don't need to baddie hunt, would really serve a baddie well. On the chance that you are trying to play as mafia Synonym, you would need to care a lot less, and act apathetic.

That... actually makes a lot of sense. Just know that the post was only intended to be a joke at the time when others were making jokes about their socks - there was no actual strategic element to it like you claim there could be.

That's actually a really towny post though. I like you.

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

My thoughts are that it's...

civvie.

Ok, then I am voting for you. Thanks!

Your Host Post story was a thing of beauty, Roxy. Took me down the memory lane a bit, back to my father reading me Grimm tales every evening, before bedtime. Although, I have to say, that's a pretty anticlimactic ending. Perhaps the calm before the storm?

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Ricochet 2 wrote:I didn't read people had info on the poll before voting. Probably should have paid attention.

That's pretty sloppy for a Rico, "Rico". Rico would pay more attention.

I apologise for not acting quite like myself. I was feeling upset that everyone wanted to kill me in recruitment at once. Don't they know I have a win percentage to protect? Excuse me while I go off and create a spreadsheet. If everyone could please just tell me every game they ever played, their actions on each night, and what their roles and affiliations are, that would be helpful. Thanks.

(I can't pull rico off. But I'll try!)

No suspicions yet. The role playing is lots of fun, but I could see some baddies hiding behind it.

That's more like it haha. (I don't envy you, but give it your best shot.)

I disagree, however, with your approach regarding baddies potentially role playing more than the rest of the players. We were told to embrace our characters as much as possible. Unlike regular games, role playing here isn't just the equivalent of the theme of a game - which beyond Day 0 formalities, banter and jokes, you are expected to put aside and start playing "seriously" or else be suspected of being non-committal. I think this game goes slightly beyond normal sock playing as well, where you can goof around in character for a bit, but then focus mostly on normal mafia gameplay.

Meanwhile, we are all role playing in this case, we should all be in the skin of another member (but I'll elaborate on this in the next post, seeing as timmer and TGG touched down upon this), we could all potentially try to use that to our advantage, so I don't see any clear implication of alignment in this. Content is still more important than style.

I enjoy the activity so far, a lot of knife sharpening and eyeballing going around. I can't say I imagine each real player, in normal games, doing this so early and in such a way, but maybe this game brings some extra leeway in trying out a different approach and being more determined?

Some further thoughts on what has been brought up:

1) I wouldn't put it completely past a host like Roxy to keep one or more players in their original skin, but I also don't see the reason for such a twist, overall. As I've said earlier, role playing is meant to be embraced by everyone, it's the particularity of this game. Why would some players (or any) be relieved of this task? Because of the challenge being too intimidating? Because of the Hosts doing the match-ups, then realizing some will not live up to the expectations? Nah, I think we all signed up for this mechanic and got assigned to play accordingly. So I'm leaning on believing that everyone was assigned a sock.

2) Suspicion or willingness to vote low posters is a recurrent approach early on in games. If this would be any regular game, I would not have, in principle, anything against suspecting them. I've seen baddies win simply because they didn't bother to post so no one had any reason to suspect them. On the other hand, I agree that the higher probability of modkilling, in this game, makes it slightly less significant to focus, in time, on players whose inactivity might be their own undoing.

"Lipsticklacey"'s idea about low poster baddies being told by teammates to step it up is interesting, but my logic is that, in case a baddie is a low poster and the mafia team is faced itself with having a lurker, if they didn't manage to mobilize him from Day 0, the whole thing becomes after an attempt to *correct* that low poster baddie's behaviour, to save appearences within the game. So whilst I agree low posters can be individual players who choose or stick to their usual pace, for various reasons, I think baddies can equally push that angle and stick with it.

For the moment, I don't have any views stronger than that on this matter. The real Wilgy and especially Epig are not low posters, so this would not be expected of their socks, but maybe they can't or don't want to achieve that effect. "Epig" also seems to be on "medical time out", according to the Host, so it's just "Wilgy" who is truly AWOL right now.

I'm also wondering if "TGG"'s willingness to vote those two isn't just an act stemming from his sock's own culture (from different mafia sites), where low posters or inactives are rather viewed as useless to the entire cause of the game. I agree with "Cookie", finding someone suspicious is preferable to fixating on a low poster, but leaving low posters be is not desirable either.

3) I wouldn't call it satire, nevertheless I found "Synonym"'s post about the mafia players to be nothing but preliminary banter and I myself in my reply simply bantered back. If he has serious reasons to suspect me, I'm curious to hear them; then again, if he was serious in that post (which he denies to have been), then his clairvoyance mode wouldn't be so kosher anymore. His post about the forum skin is really nothing, I wonder why "Cookie" fixated on that.

4) If there's something getting my eye right now, it's what I'd call double sins, in which something you did is both questionable considering your sock and questionable in general. And this brings me to "Llama". Firstly, I wonder if he's aware that votes are not changeable and that he basically put an early vote on "TGG", for a reason that can't be called reasonable in any way, that is permanent. Then, I think he's forcing quite a bit Llama's ways of voting for what could be called silly reasons, but missing out the part where Llama still does that based on some logic or some concrete suspicion, at least. Furhtermore, voting a player for such a reason is, in general, quite the waste of a vote. Hence, a double sin.

5) "rey" went from siesta to fiesta, that's nice.

Golden 2 wrote:Meanwhile, we are all role playing in this case, we should all be in the skin of another member (but I'll elaborate on this in the next post, seeing as timmer and TGG touched down upon this), we could all potentially try to use that to our advantage, so I don't see any clear implication of alignment in this. Content is still more important than style.

How do you plan on utilizing role-playing to your advantage?

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:Meanwhile, we are all role playing in this case, we should all be in the skin of another member (but I'll elaborate on this in the next post, seeing as timmer and TGG touched down upon this), we could all potentially try to use that to our advantage, so I don't see any clear implication of alignment in this. Content is still more important than style.

How do you plan on utilizing role-playing to your advantage?

Well, Golden's style partly suits me and I can augment my civvie game by picking up his depth and eloquence in looking into things and discussing.

Golden 2 wrote:Your Host Post story was a thing of beauty, Roxy. Took me down the memory lane a bit, back to my father reading me Grimm tales every evening, before bedtime. Although, I have to say, that's a pretty anticlimactic ending. Perhaps the calm before the storm?

Who is ready for some impossible trivia for a fantastic choice of prizes?

Roxy wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:Your Host Post story was a thing of beauty, Roxy. Took me down the memory lane a bit, back to my father reading me Grimm tales every evening, before bedtime. Although, I have to say, that's a pretty anticlimactic ending. Perhaps the calm before the storm?

Who is ready for some impossible trivia for a fantastic choice of prizes?

this llama is

No trivia is too impossible for me, except if has to do with the Beatles, oops.

Roxy wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:Your Host Post story was a thing of beauty, Roxy. Took me down the memory lane a bit, back to my father reading me Grimm tales every evening, before bedtime. Although, I have to say, that's a pretty anticlimactic ending. Perhaps the calm before the storm?

Who is ready for some impossible trivia for a fantastic choice of prizes?

If time is not a factor in this triva contest, then I was born ready.

Why the fuck are we talking about playing trivia when we should be lynching Long Con? After that shit he pulled last game, and the game before that, this should be a no brainer. Lynch Scum Con, then join me in the champagne room to celebrate.

The site was broken this morning, so I have not read anything since last night. I need to read and catch up.

Golden 2 wrote:No trivia is too impossible for me, except if has to do with the Beatles, oops.

You are so fucked this game

Roxy wrote:Impossible Trivia!!

Every player in the game has responded to the questionnaire including both Hostesses.

Knowing that, answer me these questions three:

How many player(s) chose Curser as their favorite type of role?
How many player(s) chose Blocker as their favorite type of role?
How many player(s) chose Seemer as their favorite type of role?

Be the first to respond with the correct numbers and win a choice of fabulous showcase prizes!!

If you do not include BOTH hostesses in your PM it will be considered null.

The answer is "One After 909".

Do I win the whole salami?