Re: Night 1 -The Syndicate Mafia
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:18 am

Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
let me clarifySynonym 2 wrote:Metalmarsh 2 wrote:also i think dom had something to do with the lynch stop
whyTurnip Head 2 wrote:Synonym is more than likely civilian at this point.
I feel like the lipstick/Syn confrontation was civ/civ. I don't see mafia causing a fight that could potentially end in a mod-kill.
nah i read the post. thanks 4 being condescending thoDom 2 wrote:I think Dom happens to be the only player who reads our lovely hosts' posts.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:i might vote svs next timeSVS 2 wrote:Question for our lovely hosts![]()
Is there a rule against infodumping in effect in this game?
also i think dom had something to do with the lynch stop
I really like your avatar Metalmarsh 2, it sure is snazzy mcsnazzballs.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:let me clarifySynonym 2 wrote:Metalmarsh 2 wrote:also i think dom had something to do with the lynch stop
the real dom
whyTurnip Head 2 wrote:Synonym is more than likely civilian at this point.
I feel like the lipstick/Syn confrontation was civ/civ. I don't see mafia causing a fight that could potentially end in a mod-kill.
That's not what I meant in that post. "Lipsticklacey" (win-con-reply reasons), "MM" (reasons still unclear to me...something about WIFOM?) and "TH" (no post D1 = no reasoning) did not vote "Syn" for the "number of Mafia pegging" reason. *Those* are the votes I said I do not understand. By contrast, at that time of that post, the players who did make observations or had suspicions about "Syn's number of Mafia pegging" had not pulled the trigger on "Syn" for those reasons.SVS 2 wrote:You seemed to make the same observation LC did about the number of mafia Synonym had pegged with a tone of suspicion. How did you not understand other people's votes despite some of them being for that reason?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 can only point to you my case on "Llama" and what I've replied to him regarding his statement above. I did not put an equal sign between "Llama"'s and "MM"'s roleplaying (nor their "antics", as "Llama" put it) and did not pardon "MM" whilst blowing up at "Llama".Dom 2 wrote:I agree with this statement.Llama 2 wrote: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.Golden 2 wrote: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.Llama 2 wrote:I stand by my decision.Golden 2 wrote:You've voted already. You suspect "TGG" of being mafia, but would be satisfied with a lynch in which he voted?Llama 2 wrote:I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.
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 also think Golden is behaving very get-along this game. His subtle defense of Metalmarsh is disconcerting to me.
But she comes back for a turtle pic. Looool.Synonym 2 wrote:And cue Lipsticklacey vanishing off the face of the earth once GM evidence supports my claim.
No, but I like the way his play has progressed since that time.Golden 2 wrote:You say you agree with "Llama"'s statement here, but do you agree with the way he made his case on "TGG" the previous Day?
It isn't true. I don't believe Llama would ever vote a person for being misplaced on an alphabetical poll and/or for that person having been frequently bad before meaning he must be again now. "Llama" did do that, however. What part of this isn't clear from what I've written about "Llama"?Dom 2 wrote:No, but I like the way his play has progressed since that time.Golden 2 wrote:You say you agree with "Llama"'s statement here, but do you agree with the way he made his case on "TGG" the previous Day?
But it is true that you accepted MM for behaving like MM while you rebuked llama for behaving like llama. This looks like a double-standard to me.
No, I think that llama would do such a thing. It's not the first time he's done such a thing.Golden 2 wrote:It isn't true. I don't believe Llama would ever vote a person for being misplaced on an alphabetical poll and/or for that person having been frequently bad before meaning he must be again now. "Llama" did do that, however. What part of this isn't clear from what I've written about "Llama"?Dom 2 wrote:No, but I like the way his play has progressed since that time.Golden 2 wrote:You say you agree with "Llama"'s statement here, but do you agree with the way he made his case on "TGG" the previous Day?
But it is true that you accepted MM for behaving like MM while you rebuked llama for behaving like llama. This looks like a double-standard to me.
Synonym is not a host.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:nah i read the post. thanks 4 being condescending thoDom 2 wrote:I think Dom happens to be the only player who reads our lovely hosts' posts.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:i might vote svs next timeSVS 2 wrote:Question for our lovely hosts![]()
Is there a rule against infodumping in effect in this game?
also i think dom had something to do with the lynch stop
is synonym a host now?
Nice context twisting there. Your first reference is a game in which Llama voted a completely absent player, to "piss off" anyone reluctant to vote completely absent players. While it is a nice coincidence that TH happened to be misplaced in the poll in that game, on that Day, that is still not why Llama voted TH. And he still did not vote, straight off the bat, for a player with not even a hint of reasoning whatsoever, the way "Llama" did here.Dom 2 wrote:No, I think that llama would do such a thing. It's not the first time he's done such a thing.Golden 2 wrote:It isn't true. I don't believe Llama would ever vote a person for being misplaced on an alphabetical poll and/or for that person having been frequently bad before meaning he must be again now. "Llama" did do that, however. What part of this isn't clear from what I've written about "Llama"?Dom 2 wrote:No, but I like the way his play has progressed since that time.Golden 2 wrote:You say you agree with "Llama"'s statement here, but do you agree with the way he made his case on "TGG" the previous Day?
But it is true that you accepted MM for behaving like MM while you rebuked llama for behaving like llama. This looks like a double-standard to me.
I disagree with it. It is still not helpful. But there is a difference between having fun with role-playing and hiding behind the role-playing. Llama has more recently shown his supatown self, and proven to be more productive. Not only this, but I agree with what he has to say.
How do you feel about MM accusing the real Dom (and not the fake Dom) of being involved in the lynch stop? Do you think this information is even helpful at all or distracting? How do you feel about MM behaving like MM without being helpful?
maybeDom 2 wrote:Synonym is not a host.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:nah i read the post. thanks 4 being condescending thoDom 2 wrote:I think Dom happens to be the only player who reads our lovely hosts' posts.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:i might vote svs next timeSVS 2 wrote:Question for our lovely hosts![]()
Is there a rule against infodumping in effect in this game?
also i think dom had something to do with the lynch stop
is synonym a host now?
Do you believe that Synonym had something to do with this "lynch stop" or not?
These are still two instances of llama voting for players and offering a reason that isn't coherent. We would also be hard-pressed to find a game in which there was a single player not listed in alphabetical order with the rest of the players to compare this one to. Llama would do such a thing.Golden 2 wrote:Nice context twisting there. Your first reference is a game in which Llama voted a completely absent player, to "piss off" anyone reluctant to vote completely absent players. While it is a nice coincidence that TH happened to be misplaced in the poll in that game, on that Day, that is still not why Llama voted TH. And he still did not vote, straight off the bat, for a player with not even a hint of reasoning whatsoever, the way "Llama" did here.
Your second reference is also bendy, because Llama's train of thought is very clear in that exact post. There was no Night Kill, which he associated with an absent player missing to send his action, hence likely being the killer. Furthermore, suspecting a player over several consecutive games is not the same thing with stipulating that bad before must mean bad again.
I am not imagining a difference.Golden 2 wrote:Are you referencing the real Llama's or this game's "Llama"'s "supatown self"? I'm confused.
Going after who is behind each sock is a distraction from baddie-hunting. Not only this, but why would MM call out "the real Dom"? If this is like any sock game, the Sockmaster behind each sock puppet is not important, so pointing fingers at these people behind the curtains is useless and distracting. 1) It wastes the time and effort of sniffing out real baddies. 2) Why would MM know that the real Dom is the man behind this (if this is even true).Golden 2 wrote:To me, "MM"'s Dom statement read as a sock guess. It doesn't have any substance. What can it distract from, regarding "Syn"'s actions?
I feel "MM" behaving like MM without being helpful should be under scrutiny, much like MM being unhelpful should in general be under scrutiny.
Llama is thellama73, yet "Llama" has been placed alphabetically under L.Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:You do all know that Gamer Guy 2 is listed alphabetically, when you take into account that the 'the' in his name was simply dropped, right?
This seems like a weird sticking-point. It was someone playing as llama trying to be llama-y, and whether or not they succeeded being open to interpretation.
"In my experience, vote manipulation is more often a baddie ability."Jagged Jimmy Jay 2 wrote:Interesting Day 1 lynch result. So Synonym had more votes, which means there's some vote manipulation going on. I have none, and my vote is worth merely 1. In my experience, vote manipulation is more often a baddie ability, because it messes with the town's ability to decipher a lynch. So that makes me think that Long Con or a baddie teammate wanted to make sure that the "tie" wasn't so risky.
In addition, Syn2 survived the lynch, and instantly tried to push the civilian angle on that... however, that don't impress me much. The most likely player in any reasonably regular game to have a lynch protection is the baddie leader.
I also found his interaction with the hosts strange. I think he asked why he was forced to use his power if the lynch was a tie and no one should have been lynched. (Note that this was before the clarification from Rox about how the lynch-tie rules work). A lynch pardon isn't something I would think would be automatically used by a host, especially when the player wouldn't know if it was needed or not. Automatic use sounds way more like "you have one automatic lynch protect" than "you may pardon one lynch".
I disagree with Llama not being coherent in those two instances. Coherency isn't the issue, anyway. "Llama"'s "TGG" vote didn't lack coherency. It was downright absurd. Furthermore, it seemed to force the image that Llama would make such absurd votes, hence that "Llama" would be equally playful with such a vote being the same stuff. It's not the same stuff.Dom 2 wrote:These are still two instances of llama voting for players and offering a reason that isn't coherent. We would also be hard-pressed to find a game in which there was a single player not listed in alphabetical order with the rest of the players to compare this one to. Llama would do such a thing.Golden 2 wrote:Nice context twisting there. Your first reference is a game in which Llama voted a completely absent player, to "piss off" anyone reluctant to vote completely absent players. While it is a nice coincidence that TH happened to be misplaced in the poll in that game, on that Day, that is still not why Llama voted TH. And he still did not vote, straight off the bat, for a player with not even a hint of reasoning whatsoever, the way "Llama" did here.
Your second reference is also bendy, because Llama's train of thought is very clear in that exact post. There was no Night Kill, which he associated with an absent player missing to send his action, hence likely being the killer. Furthermore, suspecting a player over several consecutive games is not the same thing with stipulating that bad before must mean bad again.
Then I don't know what it means and what relevance it has. I don't have any issue with "Llama" roleplaying that he's supatowning. I'm not seeing any supatowning from "Llama", but you apparently do.Dom 2 wrote:I am not imagining a difference.Golden 2 wrote:Are you referencing the real Llama's or this game's "Llama"'s "supatown self"? I'm confused.
I don't have a strong stance on this, as of now. Excessive sock guessing would probably hurt the flow of the gameplay - meaning, at its essence, baddie-hunting - indeed. "MM" was as wasteful with this post as with several other posts he made, sure, but to distract with this from hunting would mean to influence the perspective on "Syn" or get people tangled up in this guess and lose focus on relevant issues. It didn't do that for me, because, as I've said, I wrote it off as an unsubstantiated guess. I don't believe MM would know, hence considering it to be a guess.Dom 2 wrote:Going after who is behind each sock is a distraction from baddie-hunting. Not only this, but why would MM call out "the real Dom"? If this is like any sock game, the Sockmaster behind each sock puppet is not important, so pointing fingers at these people behind the curtains is useless and distracting. 1) It wastes the time and effort of sniffing out real baddies. 2) Why would MM know that the real Dom is the man behind this (if this is even true).Golden 2 wrote:To me, "MM"'s Dom statement read as a sock guess. It doesn't have any substance. What can it distract from, regarding "Syn"'s actions?
I feel "MM" behaving like MM without being helpful should be under scrutiny, much like MM being unhelpful should in general be under scrutiny.
I agree that MM should be under scrutiny. You, Jay, and MM are on my shortlist tomorrow. Oh, and Synonym as well.
Your logic is slightly faulty my good sir. Because even so, my name was still in correct order on the poll. But good try!Golden 2 wrote:Llama is thellama73, yet "Llama" has been placed alphabetically under L.Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:You do all know that Gamer Guy 2 is listed alphabetically, when you take into account that the 'the' in his name was simply dropped, right?
This seems like a weird sticking-point. It was someone playing as llama trying to be llama-y, and whether or not they succeeded being open to interpretation.
I guess "Llama" should now vote himself.
It was meant to disprove to Lipsticklacey that the "the" lacking "TGG" and your sock name has any bearing on the alphabetical ordering. You are placed correctly, "TGG" isn't (he still isn't lol). Thank you for applauding my spot on logic, kind gent.Llama 2 wrote:Your logic is slightly faulty my good sir. Because even so, my name was still in correct order on the poll. But good try!Golden 2 wrote:Llama is thellama73, yet "Llama" has been placed alphabetically under L.Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:You do all know that Gamer Guy 2 is listed alphabetically, when you take into account that the 'the' in his name was simply dropped, right?
This seems like a weird sticking-point. It was someone playing as llama trying to be llama-y, and whether or not they succeeded being open to interpretation.
I guess "Llama" should now vote himself.
Also, voting Gamer Guy again. I just want to point out that lipsticklacey came right out after the failed lynch to put attention back on me.
I think gamer guy and Lacey are baddie mcbaddersons.
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:I voted.
Thanks Golden 2, I hadn't considered that. You are right, llama 2 should have voted for himself.
Someone wrote:"I like-a da sauce. I also think Long Con is bad."
Distraction from baddie-hunting.fingersplints wrote:Think you figured out the real identity behind some of the socks?
Submit your guess at who each sock is via PM to both of your hostesses if you would like your chance to win one of two amazing prizes. Guessing in the thread will result in disqualification from the contest.
I'm at the point were I think we should just ignore Llama. I wasn't going to respond to this nonsense, but we are at the point where some are considering wasting a lynch on him.Llama 2 wrote:Your logic is slightly faulty my good sir. Because even so, my name was still in correct order on the poll. But good try!Golden 2 wrote:Llama is thellama73, yet "Llama" has been placed alphabetically under L.Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:You do all know that Gamer Guy 2 is listed alphabetically, when you take into account that the 'the' in his name was simply dropped, right?
This seems like a weird sticking-point. It was someone playing as llama trying to be llama-y, and whether or not they succeeded being open to interpretation.
I guess "Llama" should now vote himself.
Also, voting Gamer Guy again. I just want to point out that lipsticklacey came right out after the failed lynch to put attention back on me.
I think gamer guy and Lacey are baddie mcbaddersons.
Yup, every one! It'll be worth guessing even the ones you are less sure of, because the two with the most correct will be the winners.Golden 2 wrote:Distraction from baddie-hunting.fingersplints wrote:Think you figured out the real identity behind some of the socks?
Submit your guess at who each sock is via PM to both of your hostesses if you would like your chance to win one of two amazing prizes. Guessing in the thread will result in disqualification from the contest.
![]()
Also, each and every sock?