The Syndicate

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

I'm not familiar with those games, so I just voted the thing of them that I actually know, which is the Rolling Stones. (Yes, I've never seen Monty Python. They don't have this shit in Nauru.)

My mom Roxy told me I had to clean my room before I could vote on mafia. Sorry I haven't really been around until now. My room is clean.

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

I'm not familiar with those games, so I just voted the thing of them that I actually know, which is the Rolling Stones. (Yes, I've never seen Monty Python. They don't have this shit in Nauru.)

I did the same.

I find it veewy interesting that Gamer Guy has posted but hasn't voted. Does anyone else?

It's been about twenty-four hours since Gamer Guy checked in. It may be possible that he forgot to vote or maybe he is one of the players with information on the poll and he knew better than to vote at all.

On that note, I would like to call attention to the fact that Black Rock, Wilgy, and Epignosis have yet to check in at all.

But we appear to have plenty of time still. So I will entertain myself while I wait for those 3 to appear

You guys are lazy and I'm way better at this game.

boo 2 wrote:On that note, I would like to call attention to the fact that Black Rock, Wilgy, and Epignosis have yet to check in at all.

But we appear to have plenty of time still. So I will entertain myself while I wait for those 3 to appear

Black Rock did make one post, but I don't think she voted. And Wilgy 2 & Epig 2 seem to be missing the point of role playing. Both of those people have pretty distinctive styles. They are socks that could be a lot of fun.

Question for Roxy & Fingersplints: How long will you wait for Epig & Wilgy?

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Shame I forgot to sign up for this one.

it is a shame! Your presence is sorely missed!

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

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

Bass 2 wrote:

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

I'm not familiar with those games, so I just voted the thing of them that I actually know, which is the Rolling Stones. (Yes, I've never seen Monty Python. They don't have this shit in Nauru.)

I did the same.

Did what the same? Didn't know about the info? You voted something else than "Rico" did.

This is all very entertaining.

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

Roxy wrote:Poor Rolling Stones game


jk I just feel sorry for it. No meaning to this post.

It ain't no capital crime.

Golden wrote:I would never use a double negative!

We must be very much alike, neither would I!

Who are you, though? Is your name in red because you're dead in real life?

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

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

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

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

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

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

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

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

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

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

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

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

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

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

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

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

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

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golden 2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carry on.

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

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

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

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

Long Con 2 wrote:

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

Timmer 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

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

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

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

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

Why DID you specifically ask me, Long Con?

MY SALT IS STILL AMPLIFIED.

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

EBWOP: the fact that*

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

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

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

Jagged Jimmy Jay 2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timmer 2 wrote:This is all very entertaining.

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

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

i will not be voting for epignosis
why might you

Timmer 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:

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

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

Trying to stifle discussion?

how

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

i will not be voting cookie

i will likely voting long con or synonym

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

Jagged Jimmy Jay 2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dom 2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

I dislike how Long Con is focusing on that.

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

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

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

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

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

Llama 2 wrote:

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

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

Yeah, that's a good point.

Synonym 2 wrote:

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

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

Gg everyone.

Satire.

My eyes are rolling so hard right now.

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

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

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