Moderator: Community Team
How do you think a genuine Synonym would have looked? I don't know about you but I've seen plenty of civs behave like that. I've seen baddies carry on and make a scene, but rarely if ever is it quite so abrasive.Ricochet 2 wrote:I don't really understand why people are reading Synonym as genuine. He sounded like a cornered baddie to me, and the explanation he gave was tenuous. Now we've even had clarification from the hosts that they might agree something conditional:
Two of those reasons don't work for me. I doubt the hosts handed out roles based only on bios and I also don't think you have the power to peer directly into Gamer Guy's soul. Plus the hosts literally stated that the alphabetical order thing is not a thing.Llama 2 wrote:His presumed bio is a big reason, yes.SVS 2 wrote:You still haven't answered me. Do you think he's bad because of your assumptions about his bio, or because of something he has posted?Llama 2 wrote:I wish votes were changeable so I would be able to vote Gamer Guy.
Acknowledging my vote for him by labeling me as a fool is just icing on the cake.
Also his name is still not in alphabetical order
Not blurting out a pile of names, but bringing up a person or persons begin mafia when there is nothing to go on yet just to see how they and the thread reacts to those specific names. It a way to know their next move, who they should seriously consider making a "case" for. In all honesty I don't know how to give you a specific example without going back and reading Day 1 of the games I have been in before and I don't have to time to do that as I have played several games over the years. Please forgive me but mafia doesn't mean THAT much to me that I would spend hours searching for those examples. I am shocked that you have never seen such a thing happen. I have even had a fellow mafia player tell me (outside of mafia) that he/she does this on a regular basis at the beginning of his/her game.SVS 2 wrote:This may have some merit. I read back for context and you did raise the issue when prompted aside from the first time. I'm still bothered by it though because you maintained it as a real cause for suspicion and I really don't think it is, even on day 1. Synonym could have named any number of people and this logic could apply the same way, suspecting him for naming five people instead of four or six or whatever seems forced. Also there's this:Long Con 2 wrote:I agree with this. SVS says that I pushed too hard on the Syn and mafia issue but I really didn't. I kept getting asked to clarify my initial reaction to Syn's post. I think the fact that I reiterated my initial thoughts three times, or so, made everyone go after me as if my theory was a huge deal. Have I pushed for a Syn lynch? No, not at all. I voted for him in order to save myself, that is all. My original reaction/theory to Syn's post was blown out of proportion and everyone who is still on it needs to move on.
I'm assuming there's no need to make any sandwiches now, so I hope you can address this point. I asked you for an example of a mafia member blurting out a pile of names on day 1 because you said you think baddies do that. I don't see how baddies would gain anything by "gauging reactions" about random names at the very beginning of the game.Long Con 2 wrote: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".
I've seen baddies make an abrasive scene, and every time people go 'oh, they must be civ' and then are surprised when they are not. I don't think how upset you get is relevant, baddies can fake that. MovingPictures is someone I can think of, Long Con another. But I don't think its the tone that caught him. It's what he said. I think he said things that don't ring true, read his posts and forget the tone just think about if what he said is believable. I think people should read back Synonym and JaggedJimmyJay and see how much sense their posts and votes make together if they are a team (especially one who knew outright that Synonym had an extra vote on him somehow, because I don't believe his conditional lynch stop was a thing.)SVS 2 wrote:How do you think a genuine Synonym would have looked? I don't know about you but I've seen plenty of civs behave like that. I've seen baddies carry on and make a scene, but rarely if ever is it quite so abrasive.Ricochet 2 wrote:I don't really understand why people are reading Synonym as genuine. He sounded like a cornered baddie to me, and the explanation he gave was tenuous. Now we've even had clarification from the hosts that they might agree something conditional:
nahboo 2 wrote:By the way, have we addressed the fact that this game has an ODD number of players? We assume that everybody is switched, but think about this like a paired assignment in school.
There are 25 students in the classroom, much like this game has 25 players. Mrs. Roxy and Mrs. Fingersplints tell us to get a partner for a class assingment. We do so. But there is a problem. The odd one out. The outlier. In order for everybody to be able to play as somebody else, there needs to be an even number of players. But we have that one extra person. I feel I can say with almost 100% certainty that one of those among us, is in fact playing as themself.
This might prove fruitless to be looking at teammates if we don't have any confirmed allegiances in Day 2.Ricochet 2 wrote:I've seen baddies make an abrasive scene, and every time people go 'oh, they must be civ' and then are surprised when they are not. I don't think how upset you get is relevant, baddies can fake that. MovingPictures is someone I can think of, Long Con another. But I don't think its the tone that caught him. It's what he said. I think he said things that don't ring true, read his posts and forget the tone just think about if what he said is believable. I think people should read back Synonym and JaggedJimmyJay and see how much sense their posts and votes make together if they are a team (especially one who knew outright that Synonym had an extra vote on him somehow, because I don't believe his conditional lynch stop was a thing.)SVS 2 wrote:How do you think a genuine Synonym would have looked? I don't know about you but I've seen plenty of civs behave like that. I've seen baddies carry on and make a scene, but rarely if ever is it quite so abrasive.Ricochet 2 wrote:I don't really understand why people are reading Synonym as genuine. He sounded like a cornered baddie to me, and the explanation he gave was tenuous. Now we've even had clarification from the hosts that they might agree something conditional:
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice?Metalmarsh 2 wrote:tbh timmer could be up for a timmer lynch or a timmer lynch
Thank you for explaining this after 2 people have done so already.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:nahboo 2 wrote:By the way, have we addressed the fact that this game has an ODD number of players? We assume that everybody is switched, but think about this like a paired assignment in school.
There are 25 students in the classroom, much like this game has 25 players. Mrs. Roxy and Mrs. Fingersplints tell us to get a partner for a class assingment. We do so. But there is a problem. The odd one out. The outlier. In order for everybody to be able to play as somebody else, there needs to be an even number of players. But we have that one extra person. I feel I can say with almost 100% certainty that one of those among us, is in fact playing as themself.
1->2
2->3
3->4
etc
For fuck's sake.Ricochet 2 wrote:I've seen baddies make an abrasive scene, and every time people go 'oh, they must be civ' and then are surprised when they are not. I don't think how upset you get is relevant, baddies can fake that. MovingPictures is someone I can think of, Long Con another. But I don't think its the tone that caught him. It's what he said. I think he said things that don't ring true, read his posts and forget the tone just think about if what he said is believable. I think people should read back Synonym and JaggedJimmyJay and see how much sense their posts and votes make together if they are a team (especially one who knew outright that Synonym had an extra vote on him somehow, because I don't believe his conditional lynch stop was a thing.)SVS 2 wrote:How do you think a genuine Synonym would have looked? I don't know about you but I've seen plenty of civs behave like that. I've seen baddies carry on and make a scene, but rarely if ever is it quite so abrasive.Ricochet 2 wrote:I don't really understand why people are reading Synonym as genuine. He sounded like a cornered baddie to me, and the explanation he gave was tenuous. Now we've even had clarification from the hosts that they might agree something conditional:
Wow.Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:It's really awesome people can make posts they pretend are genuine, and then immediately revert to using a lazy stand-in name to say a person should be lynched. That makes the whole thing seem really sincere, and not forced on top of forced.
FOR FUCKS SAKE I WAS TROLLING.Long Con 2 wrote:Not blurting out a pile of names, but bringing up a person or persons begin mafia when there is nothing to go on yet just to see how they and the thread reacts to those specific names. It a way to know their next move, who they should seriously consider making a "case" for. In all honesty I don't know how to give you a specific example without going back and reading Day 1 of the games I have been in before and I don't have to time to do that as I have played several games over the years. Please forgive me but mafia doesn't mean THAT much to me that I would spend hours searching for those examples. I am shocked that you have never seen such a thing happen. I have even had a fellow mafia player tell me (outside of mafia) that he/she does this on a regular basis at the beginning of his/her game.SVS 2 wrote:This may have some merit. I read back for context and you did raise the issue when prompted aside from the first time. I'm still bothered by it though because you maintained it as a real cause for suspicion and I really don't think it is, even on day 1. Synonym could have named any number of people and this logic could apply the same way, suspecting him for naming five people instead of four or six or whatever seems forced. Also there's this:Long Con 2 wrote:I agree with this. SVS says that I pushed too hard on the Syn and mafia issue but I really didn't. I kept getting asked to clarify my initial reaction to Syn's post. I think the fact that I reiterated my initial thoughts three times, or so, made everyone go after me as if my theory was a huge deal. Have I pushed for a Syn lynch? No, not at all. I voted for him in order to save myself, that is all. My original reaction/theory to Syn's post was blown out of proportion and everyone who is still on it needs to move on.
I'm assuming there's no need to make any sandwiches now, so I hope you can address this point. I asked you for an example of a mafia member blurting out a pile of names on day 1 because you said you think baddies do that. I don't see how baddies would gain anything by "gauging reactions" about random names at the very beginning of the game.Long Con 2 wrote: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".
Bye Coba- er, I mean Synonym 2.Synonym 2 wrote:FOR FUCKS SAKE I WAS TROLLING.Long Con 2 wrote:Not blurting out a pile of names, but bringing up a person or persons begin mafia when there is nothing to go on yet just to see how they and the thread reacts to those specific names. It a way to know their next move, who they should seriously consider making a "case" for. In all honesty I don't know how to give you a specific example without going back and reading Day 1 of the games I have been in before and I don't have to time to do that as I have played several games over the years. Please forgive me but mafia doesn't mean THAT much to me that I would spend hours searching for those examples. I am shocked that you have never seen such a thing happen. I have even had a fellow mafia player tell me (outside of mafia) that he/she does this on a regular basis at the beginning of his/her game.SVS 2 wrote:This may have some merit. I read back for context and you did raise the issue when prompted aside from the first time. I'm still bothered by it though because you maintained it as a real cause for suspicion and I really don't think it is, even on day 1. Synonym could have named any number of people and this logic could apply the same way, suspecting him for naming five people instead of four or six or whatever seems forced. Also there's this:Long Con 2 wrote:I agree with this. SVS says that I pushed too hard on the Syn and mafia issue but I really didn't. I kept getting asked to clarify my initial reaction to Syn's post. I think the fact that I reiterated my initial thoughts three times, or so, made everyone go after me as if my theory was a huge deal. Have I pushed for a Syn lynch? No, not at all. I voted for him in order to save myself, that is all. My original reaction/theory to Syn's post was blown out of proportion and everyone who is still on it needs to move on.
I'm assuming there's no need to make any sandwiches now, so I hope you can address this point. I asked you for an example of a mafia member blurting out a pile of names on day 1 because you said you think baddies do that. I don't see how baddies would gain anything by "gauging reactions" about random names at the very beginning of the game.Long Con 2 wrote: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".
Lynch me. I'm playing four games right now and this one is clearly not going to be enjoyable for me. And then you can apologize after I flip civilian. Bye.
I've been away all weekend with no reception so playing catch-up now.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.
And for reference,this is the post that has me feeling most town about Long Con. Had it been me in this position, as a Mafia, at this point I would have agreed with Cookie (me) and latched onto her reasons for thinking Syn might be bad, and make my own secondary, thus being able to blame her for the eventual lynch of Synonym. Instead he blew off my thoughts, and reiterated his own. I don't see a baddie doing that, at least not an experienced one, and from his posts I think LC has been around the Mafia block.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.
While I disagree with his conclusion (for me, anyone coming out and saying "I will vote/suspect anyone who votes/suspects *X* because of the stoopid ideas of *Y*", as sig did, ESPECIALLY on Day One when we ALL have stoopid ideas to be almost ALWAYS have been said by a Mafia) I can't imagine an actual Mafia Syn saying this about LC. He is coming out and saying that, in his opinion, LCs ideas are actually bullshit, not true. If he knew that Long Con was actually right, and Syn was bad, I don't know that he would have said this so baldly. Like i said, tone. But it reads sincere to me, even If I disagree with him here.Synonym 2 wrote:Why?Gamer Guy 2 wrote:Can we please lynch Sig tomorrow? Synonym, will you help me?
iirc he was one of the earliest to call Scum Con on his bullshit.
And I have done that as a Civ as well. I agree, the practice of throwing out a name or names just for early-game reactions is a common enough thing, but it's not a baddie tactic in my experience. You are trying to pin it down as only something a baddie would do to make it into a suspicion instead of an observation, and that pings me.Long Con 2 wrote:Not blurting out a pile of names, but bringing up a person or persons begin mafia when there is nothing to go on yet just to see how they and the thread reacts to those specific names. It a way to know their next move, who they should seriously consider making a "case" for. In all honesty I don't know how to give you a specific example without going back and reading Day 1 of the games I have been in before and I don't have to time to do that as I have played several games over the years. Please forgive me but mafia doesn't mean THAT much to me that I would spend hours searching for those examples. I am shocked that you have never seen such a thing happen. I have even had a fellow mafia player tell me (outside of mafia) that he/she does this on a regular basis at the beginning of his/her game.SVS 2 wrote:This may have some merit. I read back for context and you did raise the issue when prompted aside from the first time. I'm still bothered by it though because you maintained it as a real cause for suspicion and I really don't think it is, even on day 1. Synonym could have named any number of people and this logic could apply the same way, suspecting him for naming five people instead of four or six or whatever seems forced. Also there's this:Long Con 2 wrote:I agree with this. SVS says that I pushed too hard on the Syn and mafia issue but I really didn't. I kept getting asked to clarify my initial reaction to Syn's post. I think the fact that I reiterated my initial thoughts three times, or so, made everyone go after me as if my theory was a huge deal. Have I pushed for a Syn lynch? No, not at all. I voted for him in order to save myself, that is all. My original reaction/theory to Syn's post was blown out of proportion and everyone who is still on it needs to move on.
I'm assuming there's no need to make any sandwiches now, so I hope you can address this point. I asked you for an example of a mafia member blurting out a pile of names on day 1 because you said you think baddies do that. I don't see how baddies would gain anything by "gauging reactions" about random names at the very beginning of the game.Long Con 2 wrote: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".
*votes Long Con*
timmer, this is ridiculous tbqh.Dom 2 wrote:I voted MM. That guy really has got to go.
Elohcin 2 wrote:Caught up and popping in! Interesting turn of events with the no-lynch, and some hostility, I see. I have to go work out and eat, but I do plan to be back later to discuss what's happened in more detail and respond to some things.
Scotty has 3 posts. His vote for Synonym was a drive-by. Too little to go on.Gamer Guy 2 wrote: Elohcin, I would like to hear more from you. How do you feel about Dom, Scotty and Turnip Head? Did either the Long Con argument or the Synonym argument have more sway in your head? What made Synonym's case bad? was Long Con's also bad?
It worries me that Elohcin left the vote a tie based on Synonym's case being bad. It shows non-commitment and a willingness to allow either player to die, even though previously stating "civs needing to call out BS". A win-win situation on the chance that they are both civilian.
Elohcin 2 wrote:I don't understand why my previous vote would worry you - it makes perfect sense to me why I would not vote for someone because I thought the case on them was bad. And if I recall correctly, when I voted, it was not a tie, but I'll give you that is was certainly close. It doesn't show non-commitment: it shows that I don't vote for who I think is civilian, and that I don't vote for people simply because they have a large number of votes. That's called bandwagoning, and that's not good civ behavior in my book.
), but as far as RL goes, it's completely stressful and mafia is the last thing I can do today. I'd never normally do this, but with less than an hour and a half to go, catching up is out of the question and I hate even more committing to a vote without adequate reasoning, so I'm voting myself.It's not even about baddies faking it. I do not really understand where the idea that only a civilian can get genuinely upset about being suspected comes from.Ricochet 2 wrote:I've seen baddies make an abrasive scene, and every time people go 'oh, they must be civ' and then are surprised when they are not. I don't think how upset you get is relevant, baddies can fake that. MovingPictures is someone I can think of, Long Con another. But I don't think its the tone that caught him. It's what he said. I think he said things that don't ring true, read his posts and forget the tone just think about if what he said is believable. I think people should read back Synonym and JaggedJimmyJay and see how much sense their posts and votes make together if they are a team (especially one who knew outright that Synonym had an extra vote on him somehow, because I don't believe his conditional lynch stop was a thing.)SVS 2 wrote:How do you think a genuine Synonym would have looked? I don't know about you but I've seen plenty of civs behave like that. I've seen baddies carry on and make a scene, but rarely if ever is it quite so abrasive.Ricochet 2 wrote:I don't really understand why people are reading Synonym as genuine. He sounded like a cornered baddie to me, and the explanation he gave was tenuous. Now we've even had clarification from the hosts that they might agree something conditional:
SVS must think I am the only one playing this game with her. Tunneling much?SVS 2 wrote:I'm pressed for time again. Register a vote for Long Con.
DrWilgy wrote:How was my Goofy Clown impersonation?
Long Con - The Unlynchable!Cobalt 2 wrote:What the fuck is this bullshit? Long Con lives again?
Or maybe this is just more like it.Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:RIP DrWilgy. I guess that's a lynch switch, or Long Con 2 has a role that does fit the meta, and makes him difficult to lunch.
I'm just trying to be honest.Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:I doubt this will convince anyone who voted for you to not try it again, since they were not exactly starting from a rational place anyways.
You are also actually probably doing more damage then good for yourself right now, because those were some very cavalier statements from someone who survived at the cost of the civilian protector.
