The Syndicate

Golden 2 wrote:I disagree, however, with your approach regarding baddies potentially role playing more than the rest of the players.

No, I didn't mean that. I mean that its harder to see if someone is thinking about the game when everyone is role playing. If I go after llama 2, am I trying to solve the game or trying to roleplay rico? I think it creates a possible hiding place. Is that more clear?

Llama 2 wrote:

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?

I am so tempted to give you the whole salami and some booze to wash it all down with! <3

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

Timmer 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

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

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

Yeah, that's a good point.

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

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

Timmer 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

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

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

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

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

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:I disagree, however, with your approach regarding baddies potentially role playing more than the rest of the players.

No, I didn't mean that. I mean that its harder to see if someone is thinking about the game when everyone is role playing. If I go after llama 2, am I trying to solve the game or trying to roleplay rico? I think it creates a possible hiding place. Is that more clear?

It is, thanks. Your example is precisely why I think content would matter more. If your launch at "Llama" would feel forced, for the sake of sockin' and meta, with no solid case behind it, I would challenge your action.

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

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

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

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

I agree with this sentiment. Here's the post again for others to view:

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

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

Gg everyone.

There isn't any implication that there must be a five-person baddie team. Synonym just threw five names into a post. Long Con 2, I don't think you can draw the inference that he must have inside knowledge of the number of baddies based only on this post without reaching. Please explain your thought process, because it looks like you're working an agenda.

Ricochet 2 wrote: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.

Isn't it a little counterproductive to broadcast your baddie hunting strategy like this before you've suspected anyone with it?

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.

I'll talk about it if you go first. Why is Gamer Guy a member of the mafia?

Hey folks, I'm here. Sorry to be late.

I won't be online tomorrow because I work all day and I need to vote now. There is nothing I feel comfortable basing my vote on yet so I will need to vote randomly. I'm gonna go for Cobalt.

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.

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

Can you recall an example of a baddie calling out names like that? I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'm assuming you must remember something to make that statement.

Cookie 2 wrote:

Timmer 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

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

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

Yeah, that's a good point.

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

I rarely forget things of such importance. I wasn't being sarcastic, I was being sardonic, and I don't know the color for sardonic posts.

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

Linki: Welcome Dr Wilgy. Good to have you Sir.

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

SVS 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

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

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

I'll talk about it if you go first. Why is Gamer Guy a member of the mafia?

Call it premonition. Call it a Llamadic enterprise.

Tell me SVS: what was your first choice for your character that you sent in? Did you describe yourself as you are, or how you wish to be perceived?

There are people here that I would expect to send in their biography with a realistic tint. From what I hear and have read, Gamer Guy is a realistic dood, and is usually mafia. Whether or not he is proud of that, or attempting break out of the mold, I can't say.

What I can say is I think he is bad.

Any other questions?

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

For fuck's sake.

Satire.

I didn't THINK those people were mafia.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Synonym 2 wrote:

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.

no pick the wine in front of MEEEEEEEE

Dom 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

Linki: Welcome Dr Wilgy. Good to have you Sir.

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

I will not be voting for Dom.


I will be voting for Synonym.

I am aware that it's WIFOM, Metalmarsh.

That was the point.

Sig, make a comment about what I said.

Dom 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

Linki: Welcome Dr Wilgy. Good to have you Sir.

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

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

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

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

VOTES FOR SIG

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

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

I hope he answers you, too.

Llama 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

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

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

I'll talk about it if you go first. Why is Gamer Guy a member of the mafia?

Call it premonition. Call it a Llamadic enterprise.

Tell me SVS: what was your first choice for your character that you sent in? Did you describe yourself as you are, or how you wish to be perceived?

There are people here that I would expect to send in their biography with a realistic tint. From what I hear and have read, Gamer Guy is a realistic dood, and is usually mafia. Whether or not he is proud of that, or attempting break out of the mold, I can't say.

What I can say is I think he is bad.

Any other questions?

As far as I understand, you seem to suggest that the questionnaire might have played a part in the role distribution. If so, each of our answers might have been a statement of preference, which the Hostesses then took into account into making the teams. Is it safe to make that assumption? I think it's true that TGG drew mostly baddie, at least here on this site, but are we to hunt solely based on meta at this stage?

Also, my lingering feeling is that you keep expanding reasons for suspecting TGG after planting that early vote without any solid reason whatsoever. It doesn't feel to come naturally out of that vote, because you offered nothing back then. Why didn't you?

I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

For fuck's sake.

Satire.

I didn't THINK those people were mafia.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Whether or not you think those five players are mafia or not, my point still stands. SVS-I have no specific example at the moment as I need to hurry off and prepare some sandwiches. However, I can say off the top of my head that I have seen mafia throw names out in the beginning of a game in order to gauge reaction from the civilians. I guess this allows them to see who it is best to "find suspicious".

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.

I completely disagree! If a case smells like bullshit, it's a player's job to call it out as such, because often, the bullshit cases come from the mafia. This is what civs do. Ignoring the shiftiness of a case because it doesn't involve you is what an indie or a baddie does.

Vote me if you need to, but I stand by what I said. And I'm unable to post much right now due to work hours, it's unavoidable.

And I'm voting Long Con II. His weird tunnelling of Synonym's post is not civvie play, to me.

I'm with Sig 2 and Cobalt 2. Long Con 2 has to go.

I'm voting Synonym now, because I won't be able to later. I like Long Con's case on Synonym better than anything else I've seen today.

I also don't like JaggedJimmyJay's vote at all, and will be looking at him tomorrow.

Thanks Sig. I feel most comfortable lynching you.

Sig 2 wrote:

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.

I completely disagree! If a case smells like bullshit, it's a player's job to call it out as such, because often, the bullshit cases come from the mafia. This is what civs do. Ignoring the shiftiness of a case because it doesn't involve you is what an indie or a baddie does.

Vote me

if you need to, but I stand by what I said. And I'm unable to post much right now due to work hours, it's unavoidable.

You didn't answer my question reffering to scaring the other players, or at least generating some form of threat. What Synonym posted was bound to draw the eye of some, and you passivly defended him. Was this so that you can claim the credit of not lynching a civ without committing very much? Or was it to help a teammate without throwing your neck out? Regardless, if you were trying to prevent a civ lynch, as a civ, I am pretty sure a non-passive non-threatening type of defence would have been used.

I agree about "JJJ", his post was a complete 180. I might point to there being something about these two vote trains, but I'm not yet sure which way to look at.

I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.

Llama 2 wrote:I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.

You've voted already. You suspect "TGG" of being mafia, but would be satisfied with a lynch in which he voted?

Sig 2 wrote:And I'm voting Long Con II. His weird tunnelling of Synonym's post is not civvie play, to me.

I'm not necessarily tunneling on Synonym. I only keep getting asked to reiterate my initial thoughts of his post. I will not explain my thoughts another time. Obviously I will be holding my vote in order to save myself.

Where is the real Cobalt? Scum Con is at it again and he ain't even jumping on.

Unless that's JJJ.

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

I think Lipsticklacey is mafia for a meta reason.

Golden 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.

You've voted already. You suspect "TGG" of being mafia, but would be satisfied with a lynch in which he voted?

I stand by my decision.

This will be my only chance to vote tonight, I'm slammed. LC2.

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

MM's vote is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about. It's what MM would do (other than self voting). That makes it easy to hide behind.

Topics:

LC - When I first read LC's thing, I thought 'yeah, I can see the point'. It's a minor suspicion, but it merited discussion. I don't find LC suspicious for it. I've seen people take suspicion before because they are asked about something they said, keep explaining it, and then get told they are tunneling on it - Epi, Golden, real LC even.

Synonym - Reading back, I am more suspicious of this the second time around. I was expecting to say I didn't have any suspicion of Synonym (because it felt genuine to me reading it in real time) but in hindsight I don't think Synonym handled the suspicion that well. His responses remind me of a baddie cornered for reasons that he doesn't think are fair or correct reasons - being called out correctly for incorrect reasons can be frustrating, and I've certainly seen frustrated in Synonyms posts. It could also be roleplay, which is how it read to me the first time.

JJJ - Started with a 'background fail' which seems legitimate enough but also can create an 'i have no team' vibe, and his vote for LC stands out as the only one without explanation, but on read back I don't find him particularly suspect.

Llama - The vote for TGG didn't seem like real llama, nor did it seem like a good choice to do. But the sense I get from recent posts is the vote might be a role play fail, all the 'I'm happy with my vote' sounds more like someone trying to be llama, the 'I'm happy with a sig vote' sounds like the real person shining through. I'm willing to excuse a role play fail for now, but I find that vote the fishiest today.

MM - I haven't seen much of value. Strong roleplaying. Reading back on MM, I'd be really comfortable putting my vote this way, it's time for MM to contribute properly beyond being MM.

Sig - I agree with those who felt sig was trying to stifle discussion, saying he would eye anyone who saw Synonym's thing as a slip. He also is the one to call LC's approach tunnelling, which it didn't feel like to me.

End result, I'm voting sig.

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

Then you should re-read your role message from our Hostesses again; and re-read my exchange with Synonym. If you still do not understand my reason, then you are no good.

Long Con 2 wrote:When I read Synonym's post in which he listed the five names, my thoughts were "five mafia? Did I miss something?" I then looked on page 1 where Roxy said the roles would be listed eventually and still saw no such roles. I thought, "how did he come up with this number of five? Maybe he knows there are five and so he listed five people subconsciously." I then put my theory out there for discussion. I believe it is a common mafia strategy to call out names in the beginning of the game to gauge reactions. These two things put together cause me pause. Also, please note that Synonym has yet to give reason for calling out the five players that he did even though I have asked him to explain why he thought those five players specifically were mafia.

Linki: Welcome Dr Wilgy. Good to have you Sir.

I still don't think this is a very good reason; and it's not why I voted for Synonym. I am curious if you have any thoughts about my reason for voting him.

I'm voting Long Con for trying to tell me what I can and can't talk about.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

I think Lipsticklacey is mafia for a meta reason.

I'm not familiar with what that meta reason might be.

Llama 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.

You've voted already. You suspect "TGG" of being mafia, but would be satisfied with a lynch in which he voted?

I stand by my decision.

Then I suppose I can stand by my suspicion. I believe that you've given both your suspects-of-the-day without any real case, then built the case post-factum re: "TGG" and that approach was rather pure meta (and speculation on role distribution). Furthermore, I can add the extra sin that you're mishandling Llama's sock (or, worse, relying on people to write this off as "oh, that's so llama") in making such loose cases. For these reasons, I'm voting you today.

Lacey wrote:I still don't think this is a very good reason; and it's not why I voted for Synonym. I am curious if you have any thoughts about my reason for voting him.

I'm not sure if you are right in your judgement there Lacey. Did Syn not give you enough?

If this is the kind of game we are going to play, I'd like to know how Sig feels about his win condition.

Ricochet 2 wrote:
MM - I haven't seen much of value. Strong roleplaying. Reading back on MM, I'd be really comfortable putting my vote this way, it's time for MM to contribute properly beyond being MM.

This is a good description of how much "MM" has relied on roleplaying, but MM tends to do such actions as well, without always getting burned at the stake for it (was Biblical the last time he did get lynched for this sort of thing on Day 1, I wonder?). He might stick with the shtick. I'm willing to see how this develops further.

Golden 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

I think Lipsticklacey is mafia for a meta reason.

I'm not familiar with what that meta reason might be.

She's played a single game, and was bad in it.