The Syndicate

Timmer 2 wrote:I'm voting Long Con for trying to tell me what I can and can't talk about.

Wasn't it "JJJ"?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

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.

And? Is it set in stone that everyone who bad before (real Lipsticklacey) or mostly bad before (real TGG) must have been drawn as a baddie?

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:

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.

Nope.

It was a pointed question, and it received a generic response that suggests Synonym did not understand why I was asking. Anyone who has a civilian role should know what answer I was looking for; or at least some form of it. If they do not, they could fix that by reading the role message again.

As a result, it is my view that Synonym is either mafia or one of those not a civilian roles that (I think?) change on a game-to-game basis.

Synonym 2 wrote:

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

My thoughts are that it's...

civvie.

Synonym 2 wrote:Where is the real Cobalt? Scum Con is at it again and he ain't even jumping on.

Unless that's JJJ.

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.

For some reason these posts just don't feel right to me. None of it seems genuine or helpful. I'm probably looking into it a bit much for day one, but my vote has to go somewhere.

I am voting for Syn now because I have to leave.

Golden 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

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.

And? Is it set in stone that everyone who bad before (real Lipsticklacey) or mostly bad before (real TGG) must have been drawn as a baddie?

My sock-account is Lipsticklacey 2, I was answering that one out of her character, since the answer wasn't to hard to puzzle out.

I think it's a silly reason, because as we all know, Metalmarsh89 is bad in almost every game; a fact he talked about in our BTSC at the start of Angry Birds. If we're going to lunch people for meta how often-they're bad vs. good, MM would be the more obvious place to start. But, as I said, I think it's a silly reason, because, A) It would make puzzling out the baddies a good deal easier, and B) I know Lacey has only played Angry Birds, I know she was bad in it, and I know I am civilian in this game. If the meta actually held up, then yes, I would expect the role based around her to be mafia. But it is not, so clearly, I know that the meta does not hold up in at least 1 case. Since it does not hold up in 1 case, I have no reason to operate under the belief that it will hold up in other cases.

Golden 2 wrote:

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.

I would argue that I have given more reason to vote for someone today than most. Your harping on my "mishandling" of the sock is an accusation I can do nothing about. Who are you to judge my sock play? That's MovingPicture's schtick anyway.

You said in your next post that MM is posting as normal MM would post, which is far from solid voting reasoning. I don't see you blowing up at him for his antics. Are you just trying to protect your scum buddy, Golden?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:

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.

Nope.

It was a pointed question, and it received a generic response that suggests Synonym did not understand why I was asking. Anyone who has a civilian role should know what answer I was looking for; or at least some form of it. If they do not, they could fix that by reading the role message again.

As a result, it is my view that Synonym is either mafia or one of those not a civilian roles that (I think?) change on a game-to-game basis.

If this is the case that you believe in, I suppose we can use this at least one more time. I think there's a chance Synonym only gave a generic answer to avoid info leak. This will lose relevance as soon as someone publicly gives a clear cut answer. We should have Sig answer this question as well. No one other than Sig should answer this question.

I don't agree. By asking the question, getting a poor response, and basing a vote on it, I think the leak has already occurred. But yes; it is worth a shot, even if I don't think the answer will be particularly valuable at this point.

I didn't want to ask the question, but it was just so present and clear, and no one else seemed interested in using what was essentially a freebie, since, A) either two civilians get confirmed; the asker and the responder, or B) the responder fails to deliver and in so doing essentially makes it clear they are not a civilian.

If Synonym 2 is a civilian, and gave a generic answer to avoid the leak, then that was a massive blunder.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:I don't agree. By asking the question, getting a poor response, and basing a vote on it, I think the leak has already occurred. But yes; it is worth a shot, even if I don't think the answer will be particularly valuable at this point.

I didn't want to ask the question, but it was just so present and clear, and no one else seemed interested in using what was essentially a freebie, since, A) either two civilians get confirmed; the asker and the responder, or B) the responder fails to deliver and in so doing essentially makes it clear they are not a civilian.

If Synonym 2 is a civilian, and gave a generic answer to avoid the leak, then that was a massive blunder.

Let's just have Sig say it word for word then.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

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.

And? Is it set in stone that everyone who bad before (real Lipsticklacey) or mostly bad before (real TGG) must have been drawn as a baddie?

My sock-account is Lipsticklacey 2, I was answering that one out of her character, since the answer wasn't to hard to puzzle out.

I think it's a silly reason, because as we all know, Metalmarsh89 is bad in almost every game; a fact he talked about in our BTSC at the start of Angry Birds. If we're going to lunch people for meta how often-they're bad vs. good, MM would be the more obvious place to start. But, as I said, I think it's a silly reason, because, A) It would make puzzling out the baddies a good deal easier, and B) I know Lacey has only played Angry Birds, I know she was bad in it, and I know I am civilian in this game. If the meta actually held up, then yes, I would expect the role based around her to be mafia. But it is not, so clearly, I know that the meta does not hold up in at least 1 case. Since it does not hold up in 1 case, I have no reason to operate under the belief that it will hold up in other cases.

Ah, so you were just explaining "Syn" reason for calling you mafia, hence "Syn" is pushing this meta angle. Got it. I agree with your take on it.

MM (the real one) has had a few baddie wins this year under his belt, but I think he got varied alignments overall. What was that about talking in BTSC in Angry Birds? Were you referencing the real Lipsticklacey? If not, how would you (sock-Lipsticklacey) receive info on what the real MM talking in Angry Birds?

Llama 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

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.

I would argue that I have given more reason to vote for someone today than most. Your harping on my "mishandling" of the sock is an accusation I can do nothing about. Who are you to judge my sock play? That's MovingPicture's schtick anyway.

You said in your next post that MM is posting as normal MM would post, which is far from solid voting reasoning. I don't see you blowing up at him for his antics. Are you just trying to protect your scum buddy, Golden?

I have made it clear what forcing I see in your sock play and how your "more reasons to vote for someone" came at the second or third time of asking.

What I said about "MM" is that it replicates heavily MM's own shticks and that those shticks are so frequent, they're never confirmed indicative of being a baddie shtick. I didn't blow up at either of your antics, really. I found that you are forcing yours and, by comparison, "MM" is just acting it heavily.

Correct.

I may have been; but there were also more than 2 people in the Angry Birds BTSC. Or I could even be Metalmarsh89. Or Lacey.

Those are good questions!

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Correct.

I may have been; but there were also more than 2 people in the Angry Birds BTSC. Or I could even be Metalmarsh89. Or Lacey.

Those are good questions!

Well, nice identity fail, if so.

Sorry guys, busy with lots of things and popping in while I can! I don't want to vote for Synonym 2 or LC 2, so I won't. I think Synonym was being satirical and his frustration with people taking it too seriously seems genuine. I think LC's suspicion is wrong, but genuine. And this:

Cookie 2 wrote:
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.

The only thing is, I don't agree with voting sig either. I think he's made good points about civs needing to call out BS, and about looking at people jumping on Synonym's case. I don't really want to vote for anyone who's received votes so far either. I think I'll vote MM 2 today - it seems he's playing the MM meta, but his reason for voting Synonym is nonexistent when the "case" itself already looks bad enough to me. Now if you'll excuse me, I have hungry mouths to feed

15 minutes to go and, in addition to "rey", "DrWilgy" and "LC" not having voted yet, I think several other players haven't even posted on this Day!

I'm particularly intrigued where "boo" vanished.

linki - ph, "Elo" just showed up!

That's oh, not ph*

Current baddie list:
Sig, Synonym, Elohcin

I could care less about everyone else.

I have not caught up in full, but it is time for me to vote and I want to save myself obviously. Alas, I shall try.

No time to catch up. Randomized and got Epignosis 2.

So ties result in no lynch, it seems.

Wilgy pops in, aware that he has missed the vote. "Damn these diverse time zones!" he cries!

I went with the 2013 Tournament of Champions, since it was the only option the civilians won.

Hi, I pardoned my lynch. That was only a one shot ability. Thanks for making me use it day one. I'm a civ y'all.

Btw, my meta reason on Lipsticklacey - she asked me what I thought about my win condition.

I explicitly replied in a way that I believe a fellow civilian would have understood, given certain circumstances.

That's all I'll say.

Synonym 2 wrote:Hi, I pardoned my lynch. That was only a one shot ability. Thanks for making me use it day one. I'm a civ y'all.

Btw, my meta reason on Lipsticklacey - she asked me what I thought about my win condition.

I explicitly replied in a way that I believe a fellow civilian would have understood, given certain circumstances.

That's all I'll say.

While still failing to actually confirm that you know the correct answer. Liar.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Hi, I pardoned my lynch. That was only a one shot ability. Thanks for making me use it day one. I'm a civ y'all.

Btw, my meta reason on Lipsticklacey - she asked me what I thought about my win condition.

I explicitly replied in a way that I believe a fellow civilian would have understood, given certain circumstances.

That's all I'll say.

While still failing to actually confirm that you know the correct answer. Liar.

Lol. I don't get what you're asking. You asked me what I thought about my win condition. I gave you an answer. You voted me afterwards, which makes me believe you do not have a matching condition and are not on the civilian team.

But get yourself rekt if you want to keep coming at me.

What answer am I not providing to what question?

I am also not sure you know what meta means, because my asking you a question that only a civilian could know to ask should mean you would not be suspicious of me if you did indeed know the answer.

What a shoddy cover-up.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Hi, I pardoned my lynch. That was only a one shot ability. Thanks for making me use it day one. I'm a civ y'all.

Btw, my meta reason on Lipsticklacey - she asked me what I thought about my win condition.

I explicitly replied in a way that I believe a fellow civilian would have understood, given certain circumstances.

That's all I'll say.

While still failing to actually confirm that you know the correct answer. Liar.

Lol. I don't get what you're asking. You asked me what I thought about my win condition. I gave you an answer. You voted me afterwards, which makes me believe you do not have a matching condition and are not on the civilian team.

But get yourself rekt if you want to keep coming at me.

What answer am I not providing to what question?

And here you are not even managing to keep your story straight.

You claim you gave an answer that a civilian would think is right, given the circumstances, but then say you don't actually get what I am asking.

That doesn't fit.

I thought you were referencing something else.

I gave the correct answer. You voted me. Thus, you don't think it's the same as mine. Scum.

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.

I keep looking at the poll, and seeing what "Real Me 2" voted for and keep thinking, "Wait just a minute there Babalouie, that's not who I voted for", and then I remember.

lulz

Synonym, you are acting like a wounded animal in a corner. I think it's only fair to give you another chance. When Sig posts a word for word version of his win condition, I want you to either vote for him or declare that you won't. Other players shouldn't respond until after this has happened.

Synonym 2 wrote:I thought you were referencing something else.

I gave the correct answer. You voted me. Thus, you don't think it's the same as mine. Scum.

Really? What did you think I as referencing?

No, you did not. You gave a generic, and therefore incorrect answer. And now you're doing a spectacularly bad job of covering yourself.

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:Synonym, you are acting like a wounded animal in a corner. I think it's only fair to give you another chance. When Sig posts a word for word version of his win condition, I want you to either vote for him or declare that you won't. Other players shouldn't respond until after this has happened.

This better not happen. No more pushing to out win con's. They are secret for a reason.

Nothing word for word should ever be put into the thread it is like asking them to copy/paste a host PM and could result in a heinous Mod Kill.

It is also a site rule.

Scum Con didn't die what the fuck.

I didn't play any of these but Death Note looks like it was cool.

Hey Lipsticklacey, did you miss the part where nobody got lynched because I used the civilian oriented lynch pardoning ability?

Pay attention.

Synonym 2 wrote:Hey Lipsticklacey, did you miss the part where nobody got lynched because I used the civilian oriented lynch pardoning ability?

Pay attention.

Nobody got lynched because it was a tie.

Taking your word on anything when you're a liar who can't keep a story straight would be silly.

Roxy wrote:

Gamer Guy 2 wrote:Synonym, you are acting like a wounded animal in a corner. I think it's only fair to give you another chance. When Sig posts a word for word version of his win condition, I want you to either vote for him or declare that you won't. Other players shouldn't respond until after this has happened.

This better not happen. No more pushing to out win con's. They are secret for a reason.

Nothing word for word should ever be put into the thread it is like asking them to copy/paste a host PM and could result in a heinous Mod Kill.

It is also a site rule.

Sorry, I will refrain from doing this again.

Either Lacey is scum or a civilian with horrible horrible tunnel reads.

Well well well.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Hey Lipsticklacey, did you miss the part where nobody got lynched because I used the civilian oriented lynch pardoning ability?

Pay attention.

Nobody got lynched because it was a tie.

Taking your word on anything when you're a liar who can't keep a story straight would be silly.

Then lynch me next phase just so I can prove your ass wrong when I flip civilian. Curb your fucking attitude, I don't wanna play with that shit.

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.

@fingersplints @Roxy

Can you confirm whether tie is no lynch? If ties result in no lynch, why was my ability used? The latter can be answered over PM.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:Hey Lipsticklacey, did you miss the part where nobody got lynched because I used the civilian oriented lynch pardoning ability?

Pay attention.

Nobody got lynched because it was a tie.

Taking your word on anything when you're a liar who can't keep a story straight would be silly.

Then lynch me next phase just so I can prove your ass wrong when I flip civilian. Curb your fucking attitude, I don't wanna play with that shit.

I very obviously want you lunched tomorrow.

Now you're just being an annoyed baddie who got caught for a reason they don't like, know they're going to get lunched for it, and being a fun-ruining jerk. So thanks for that.

Question for our lovely hosts

Is there a rule against infodumping in effect in this game?

Lol, the funny part is I have not said a dishonest thing for the entire game. Not sure if LC and Lacey are mafia or just fucking terrible.

Call me something else and watch what happens Lacey.