Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Synonym 2 wrote:omg wait, JJJ 2 was Long Con? He was actually on my side I think lmao.
Gonna consider my vengeance extracted on his sock then. We good, my man.
I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:@Bass 2, that wasn't what I had in mind when I asked, no. But sure.
anything?????Metalmarsh 2 wrote:oh do we know there's only one baddie team?Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME
BYE
boo 2 wrote:"The Silly Person" eh? Is that a reference to a past game perhaps? Or possibly something else?
I was expecting mafia to double down on killing Golden 2 since the medic is already dead. After all Golden has already been outed as the Tracker, which can be a bad time for mafia. He is also a confirmed civ now. Gonna have to think about that one for awhile.
But more importantly, why did the Tracker have a resurrection ability? Those two normally are not in tandem. Something about this has bugged me since I first read it, and the feeling is only getting worse.
I wonder if mafia have some kind of "fake night kill" ability. It certainly wouldnt be the first time I have witnessed such a thing.
Since standard rules apply, then I assume the Mafia cannot target me a second Night in a row.Llama 2 wrote: I think the more likely scenario is that the rezzer is a civ and saw that Golden is a good role to have around.
But why he didn't get killed is beyond me. Unless...Gamer Guy 2 really was a seemer and the doc is still out there. The mafia would know this of course...
If you meant something like an auto rezz, that is a rare as hell power and I definitely don't have it. 
Bass 2 wrote:I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:@Bass 2, that wasn't what I had in mind when I asked, no. But sure.
Don't know but if there is one I'm not on it.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:anything?????Metalmarsh 2 wrote:oh do we know there's only one baddie team?Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME
BYE
BITCH WHET?Bass 2 wrote:I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:@Bass 2, that wasn't what I had in mind when I asked, no. But sure.
Reywas 2 wrote:I got my eye on Elohcin 2 for subtly defending LC2 on Day 2 and then throwing her under the bus when the Day 3 lynch was inevitable. Anybody seeing what I'm seeing there?
how do you know ther's only one team?Synonym 2 wrote:Don't know but if there is one I'm not on it.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:anything?????Metalmarsh 2 wrote:oh do we know there's only one baddie team?Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME
BYE
BITCH WHET?Bass 2 wrote:I'm glad I made a new friend! Are you going to pursue Synonym 2 even though events seem to indicate he was bussed by Long Con 2?Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:@Bass 2, that wasn't what I had in mind when I asked, no. But sure.
Dom 2 wrote:Hostessmisseses! How many mafia teams are there?
Also, any chance we could learn who DrWilgy 2's identity was, even if we don't get to learn the role? NO!
In regards to Long Con voters on Day 2. If his baddie teammates knew that he could switch the lynch, wouldn't they jump on his lynch for credibility?Black Rock 2 wrote:Elochin:
First couple of posts were joking in sock mode.
Third post says she doesn't want to vote for LC or Synonym. Then quotes Cookie on Cookie's sig 2 suspicion, but goes on to say she won't vote for sig 2 either but will vote for MM for a non-existent reason for voting Synonym. I'll have to go back and look at that but my memory of reading early in the game is that MM 2 was acting very much like MM 1 and not having a good reason to vote sounds very MM 1. MM seems to be hiding behind the sock i think so maybe Elochin's vote here isn't bad.
Fourth and fifth posts - turtle bread and night vote for Super Meat Boy.
Sixth post - says there is not enough on Scotty and TH to draw a conclusion as to whether they are suspicious. Says it looks like Dom 2 is baddie hunting. Believes people jumped on Long Con for his case which isn't any good. Says she agrees with Cookie in her vote post but i don't see a vote post. Only Cookie interaction seems to be the sig 2 info which she said she disagreed with. Thinks Synonym's reactions are frustrated civ behavior. Says she doesn't know why her previous vote should be a problem - she doesnt vote for people she thinks are civ and she doesnt vote for people simply because of bandwagons. For me, this sounds reasonable. It may not have been right but I don't think she's the only one who felt this way about either LC or Synonym.
Seventh post - RIP post and votes for Biblical.
Eight post - Says she can see why Long Con is getting so many votes. First, comments on the lynch surviving power being more likely baddie than civ. Second, his evasion of questioning (barring info dumping). Third, weird reply to Cobalt 2's questioning (it depends). Says her mind has changed from what it was before and she now will vote for LC. Did she change her mind? I can't think of a good reason to suspect she didn't except she voted for LC second to last and so may have decided to join in for civ cred. I need to think this through a little more before I can give a definitive opinion. Her reasons for changing her mind are good ones but that late vote is definitely a ping.
Ninth post - Congrats to people who voted LC from the beginning. Votes American Gods.
I will be interested in others opinions are in whether she really changed her mind or voted LC for the civ credit.
Why is that?Reywas 2 wrote:I would be shocked if Cookie 2 flipped bad.
I do agree that a baddie would do such a thing. But when there is a landslide lynch, late votes are difficult to read, no matter the accompanying reason.Reywas 2 wrote:The thing with Elohcin 2 that's interesting to me is that on Day 2 when the lynch result was in question she says the reasons people were suspecting LC 2 were bad reasons. Her Day 3 post about LC2 is all hindsight. She sees LC2 has 10 votes and catches up on the thread, and then summarizes all the reasons people are voting LC2. Now these reasons are good to Elohcin 2. None of those reasons were her own BR2, she's just paraphrasing others. I think talking about others' reasons for suspecting a teammate, saying those reasons are either bad or good, is a neat trick for a baddie.
I think I know who she is underneath the sock. Her posts feel genuine to me.Dom 2 wrote:Why is that?Reywas 2 wrote:I would be shocked if Cookie 2 flipped bad.
I do agree that a baddie would do such a thing. But when there is a landslide lynch, late votes are difficult to read, no matter the accompanying reason.Reywas 2 wrote:The thing with Elohcin 2 that's interesting to me is that on Day 2 when the lynch result was in question she says the reasons people were suspecting LC 2 were bad reasons. Her Day 3 post about LC2 is all hindsight. She sees LC2 has 10 votes and catches up on the thread, and then summarizes all the reasons people are voting LC2. Now these reasons are good to Elohcin 2. None of those reasons were her own BR2, she's just paraphrasing others. I think talking about others' reasons for suspecting a teammate, saying those reasons are either bad or good, is a neat trick for a baddie.
This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"Metalmarsh 2 wrote:anything?????Metalmarsh 2 wrote:oh do we know there's only one baddie team?Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME
BYE
That's a good point. With the lynch getting switched to Gamer Guy, this might have something to do with it.SVS 2 wrote:I agree with the Elo2 suspicion. There was still time for someone else to be lynched on Day 2 when she voted for MM2 (who to be fair is also suspicious to me), and the baddies could have wanted to try to make that happen before deciding to use the switch ability. I also thought TGG2 picked up on something before he died that I pointed out earlier.
I am certain I know who it is too, and I feel differently.Reywas 2 wrote:I think I know who she is underneath the sock. Her posts feel genuine to me.Dom 2 wrote:Why is that?Reywas 2 wrote:I would be shocked if Cookie 2 flipped bad.
I do agree that a baddie would do such a thing. But when there is a landslide lynch, late votes are difficult to read, no matter the accompanying reason.Reywas 2 wrote:The thing with Elohcin 2 that's interesting to me is that on Day 2 when the lynch result was in question she says the reasons people were suspecting LC 2 were bad reasons. Her Day 3 post about LC2 is all hindsight. She sees LC2 has 10 votes and catches up on the thread, and then summarizes all the reasons people are voting LC2. Now these reasons are good to Elohcin 2. None of those reasons were her own BR2, she's just paraphrasing others. I think talking about others' reasons for suspecting a teammate, saying those reasons are either bad or good, is a neat trick for a baddie.
What about your TGG2 vote makes you call it an understandable reason for suspicion?Llama 2 wrote:The Gamer Guy vote is understandable for garnering suspicion, dear Epi. But what to you is suspicious about eyeing low posters?Epignosis 2 wrote:With Long Con 2 flipping mafia I find it more likely that Synonym 2 is clean.
Cobalt 2 on the other hand I'm unsure of, I would like to see some posts know that long con is dead they can no longer follow the Cobalt Long con hunt sock game.
One thing I find interesting is that Llama 2 voted for gamer guy 2 day 1, I really don't see his reasoning for that, he is also targeting low posters at the moment I will be watching him.
MetalMarsh 2 is another player of interest to me he defended Long Con 2, voted for Synonym 2 on day 1 then for Cobalt 2 on day 2. So Day 1 he voted to protect Long Con but left that on day 2 and voted solo. His general posting style seems off as well he is leaning mafia to me.
Yes, it is.SVS 2 wrote:This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"Metalmarsh 2 wrote:anything?????Metalmarsh 2 wrote:oh do we know there's only one baddie team?Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME
BYE
If feel you need to tell people that there is no behavior from you that is baddie-like, then you're being baddie-like.Black Rock 2 wrote:No because there is no behavior from me that is baddie-like. Like I said, I don't know for sure why my predecessor didn't vote but my guess since he didn't talk at all day 1 is that s/he quit playing and that's why s/he never posted day 1 or night 1.
How was Synonym "quietly exonerating himself"? He shouted at everyone in caps lock. I think you have to fish in this Syn post to arrive at the point you made, and I felt the same way about LC2's accusation of Syn on day 1. Hence the comparison.Metalmarsh 2 wrote:Yes, it is.SVS 2 wrote:This interpretation isn't far removed from "how does Synonym know there are five baddies?"Metalmarsh 2 wrote:anything?????Metalmarsh 2 wrote:oh do we know there's only one baddie team?Synonym 2 wrote:NO UR RIGHT IM TOTALLY SCUM AFTER BEING RIGHT ABOUT LONG CON FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GAME
BYE
Synonym quietly exonerating themself from any further suspicion by subtly putting this forward is very different than a slip that I thought might have merit on Day 1.
Start actually reading my posts, please.
Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:I tried posting this earlier, but things went screwy and my post got eaten, so I have to do it again. Anyways: @Bass 2, yes, I still want to lynch Synonym 2, for not knowing the civilian win condition, not keeping his story straight, and being rude to anyone who bothers directing a statement at him to the point that having him the game is extremely unpleasant.
But, there is someone else I want to look at.
Black Rock 2 was replaced early on. The original BR2 was the one in the role Night 1, which fits the theory that the kill was not protected or blocked, but just not sent in. You are ignoring the theory that the team can send in the actions for everyone on the team whether that team member is present or not.
Once the current BR2 came in on Day 2, got caught up over Night 2, and became involved in the game on Day 3, things started to become sketchy.
She was one of the first people to question whether the resurrected Golden 2 was still a civilian here. I questioned whether the resurrected Golden 2 had ever been civ, not whether he was still civilian upon resurrection. That is how a seemer works. In her next post, after being challenged on the statement, she refers back to the seemer discussion, and some vague statements about past games. I don't trust these two posts, because immediately making a challenge to a confirmed civilian that gets resurrected at this point, because there may be a seemer in the game, does not seem well thought out. If there is a seemer in the game, and the seemer is Golden 2, then that means there is a tracker in the game that Golden 2 used the identity of. Since we learn the role of anyone who is killed, with the exception of mod-kills, it would make sense to me that this is an issue we can wait and see on, since either the real tracker will be killed, and we'll need to decide if we think that person or Golden 2 is a seemer, or the real tracker will eventually speak up and make a real attempt at getting Golden 2 killed. We can wait and see on this subject. I never suggested we couldn't. There is no other way to prove there is a seemer. I doubt seriously the real tracker would speak up though as it would put a target on their head.
Then there's the bigger issue I have with BR2, her Day 3 talking about her vote and then the actual vote. She talks about it in this post:
She says she is very torn about LC2, but that it seems definite that LC2 can save himself from more than one lynch. Now, there were some of us who discussed the possibilities for how LC2 would survive multiple lynches based on the claims he made, but I don't think most people tried to spin it in a way where LC2 was telling us an actual fact in the way that BR2 did in this post.Spoiler: show
She also discusses Synonym 2 and Blooper 2 in this post, I think to lay out the groundwork for voting for one of them if at all possible.
Just under 2 hours later, when the lynch is firmly going in the direction of LC2, she comes back, and is no longer torn, voting for LC2. I never said I was no longer torn.She also no longer seems to think it is 'definite' that LC2 can survive multiple lynches, and instead refers to it as just an insinuation he made, and that she wants to find out if it is true. I do not think this post rings true, and it does not fit with what she had previously said. This makes me think she is only voting for LC2 at this point, because she is trying to avoid future attention. She was the 8th LC2 voter, of 12, and at the time, Synonym 2, the next closest, had 4 votes, with it being a reasonable assumption that LC2 would bring that up to 5. She could have made it 7-5, but then would have looked bad for the save play. Or she could have waited a little longer, to see where other votes were going to fall, but would have risked looking like a last-minute band-wagoner. So all-in-all, this seems like a very calculated vote, with some timing that is just to perfect to seem genuine. I'm sorry you believe it's too perfect to be genuine but I voted when I became more convinced LC 2 was a baddie. I still had doubts but don't most people when they vote?
The rest of her posts going into night 3 and day 4 were her trying to go onto the offensive, mostly asking questions and joining other peoples suspicions. It still all feels like some very sanitary plays though, where she is getting involved but not risking anything. I don't know what you mean by not risking anything. I asked questions where I felt appropriate. What type of behavior are you looking for when you want me to involve myself in risk? This is all your opinion based on what you think that I think.
I think the biggest concern for me on her post-Day 3 is this post:
If feel you need to tell people that there is no behavior from you that is baddie-like, then you're being baddie-like. This is a baddie true-ism you just made up on the spot because it fits. That post was an answer to a direct question regarding me agreeing that I could be bad.Black Rock 2 wrote:No because there is no behavior from me that is baddie-like. Like I said, I don't know for sure why my predecessor didn't vote but my guess since he didn't talk at all day 1 is that s/he quit playing and that's why s/he never posted day 1 or night 1.
I think you made this case because you find it convenient. You forget perhaps that I've only been in this game a few hours on Day 2 and all of Day 3. Things you had 3 days to think through I only had 1 day and had to reach some conclusions fast. You can vote for me if you think I am bad but you would be mistaken in your opinion.
Yes SVS 2. Thanks for pointing this out. It didn't come out in my ISO because I was reading Elo only but it certainly does amp up my suspicion level.Dom 2 wrote:That's a good point. With the lynch getting switched to Gamer Guy, this might have something to do with it.SVS 2 wrote:I agree with the Elo2 suspicion. There was still time for someone else to be lynched on Day 2 when she voted for MM2 (who to be fair is also suspicious to me), and the baddies could have wanted to try to make that happen before deciding to use the switch ability. I also thought TGG2 picked up on something before he died that I pointed out earlier.
It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.Golden 2 wrote:
Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.
You do know the villain says that, right?boo 2 wrote:It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.Golden 2 wrote:
Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.
That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"
Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.Golden 2 wrote:You do know the villain says that, right?boo 2 wrote:It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.Golden 2 wrote:
Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.
That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"
Good thing paraphrasing that line doesn't also make you a villain trying to kill me.boo 2 wrote:Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.Golden 2 wrote:You do know the villain says that, right?boo 2 wrote:It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.Golden 2 wrote:
Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.
That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"
Well I mean I've never actually seen the movie. I've just seen that scene a bunch of times in youtube videos, or referenced in other media. Good guy in a tux strapped to a table, death laser heading for his junk etc, etc.Golden 2 wrote:Good thing paraphrasing that line doesn't also make you a villain trying to kill me.boo 2 wrote:Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.Golden 2 wrote:You do know the villain says that, right?boo 2 wrote:It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.Golden 2 wrote:
Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.
That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"
First of all, you may have noticed that I was quite the targeters' favorite on Night 2 (of course, if I would have remained dead, all the other things and gimmicks would have been void) from both civ and mafia sides; no idea what I did to earn those, but oh well. As for me being killed, I can project only a couple of motivations, such as being an active, popular, high profile etc. player (or even sock) that they regarded as a dangerous civilian (already or potentially, as the game evolves) or my death, at such an early stage, not leading to that many links of interpretation or WIFOMs (except maybe, I suppose, "Llama" or "MM"?).Cookie 2 wrote:No we don't know that, although the way the night went makes me think there might only be one. Unless ther are two and the second is trying to lull us into a sense of complacency.
Eyes on boo & Llama for their mad target painting skills.
I would like to hear from Golden as well on why HE thinks he was NKed. If he said during the picture posts I missed it, it is hard to follow those on phone, and I am on phone more often than not these days, life has been busy.
This looks like you BACKED OFF in a big way when it looked like Scum Con was going down, but then you made Synonym your prime target while tossing sig into the mix.Cookie 2 wrote:I know I have been flogging the "civ/civ" horse pretty hard, but even i am having a hard time thinking either of you are civ at this point, LC & Syn. Especially you, Syn, since you & Sig both seem to know something about the Day One lynch that the rest of us don't.
Oh good, Black Rock 2 is definitely town if Lipsticklacey 2 is making a case on her. Great to know. Let me add that to my worldLipsticklacey 2 wrote:I tried posting this earlier, but things went screwy and my post got eaten, so I have to do it again. Anyways: @Bass 2, yes, I still want to lynch Synonym 2, for not knowing the civilian win condition, not keeping his story straight, and being rude to anyone who bothers directing a statement at him to the point that having him the game is extremely unpleasant.
But, there is someone else I want to look at.
Black Rock 2 was replaced early on. The original BR2 was the one in the role Night 1, which fits the theory that the kill was not protected or blocked, but just not sent in.
Once the current BR2 came in on Day 2, got caught up over Night 2, and became involved in the game on Day 3, things started to become sketchy.
She was one of the first people to question whether the resurrected Golden 2 was still a civilian here. In her next post, after being challenged on the statement, she refers back to the seemer discussion, and some vague statements about past games. I don't trust these two posts, because immediately making a challenge to a confirmed civilian that gets resurrected at this point, because there may be a seemer in the game, does not seem well thought out. If there is a seemer in the game, and the seemer is Golden 2, then that means there is a tracker in the game that Golden 2 used the identity of. Since we learn the role of anyone who is killed, with the exception of mod-kills, it would make sense to me that this is an issue we can wait and see on, since either the real tracker will be killed, and we'll need to decide if we think that person or Golden 2 is a seemer, or the real tracker will eventually speak up and make a real attempt at getting Golden 2 killed.
Then there's the bigger issue I have with BR2, her Day 3 talking about her vote and then the actual vote. She talks about it in this post:
She says she is very torn about LC2, but that it seems definite that LC2 can save himself from more than one lynch. Now, there were some of us who discussed the possibilities for how LC2 would survive multiple lynches based on the claims he made, but I don't think most people tried to spin it in a way where LC2 was telling us an actual fact in the way that BR2 did in this post.Spoiler: show
She also discusses Synonym 2 and Blooper 2 in this post, I think to lay out the groundwork for voting for one of them if at all possible.
Just under 2 hours later, when the lynch is firmly going in the direction of LC2, she comes back, and is no longer torn, voting for LC2. She also no longer seems to think it is 'definite' that LC2 can survive multiple lynches, and instead refers to it as just an insinuation he made, and that she wants to find out if it is true. I do not think this post rings true, and it does not fit with what she had previously said. This makes me think she is only voting for LC2 at this point, because she is trying to avoid future attention. She was the 8th LC2 voter, of 12, and at the time, Synonym 2, the next closest, had 4 votes, with it being a reasonable assumption that LC2 would bring that up to 5. She could have made it 7-5, but then would have looked bad for the save play. Or she could have waited a little longer, to see where other votes were going to fall, but would have risked looking like a last-minute band-wagoner. So all-in-all, this seems like a very calculated vote, with some timing that is just to perfect to seem genuine.
The rest of her posts going into night 3 and day 4 were her trying to go onto the offensive, mostly asking questions and joining other peoples suspicions. It still all feels like some very sanitary plays though, where she is getting involved but not risking anything.
I think the biggest concern for me on her post-Day 3 is this post:
If feel you need to tell people that there is no behavior from you that is baddie-like, then you're being baddie-like.Black Rock 2 wrote:No because there is no behavior from me that is baddie-like. Like I said, I don't know for sure why my predecessor didn't vote but my guess since he didn't talk at all day 1 is that s/he quit playing and that's why s/he never posted day 1 or night 1.
Nabisco just outsourced like a shit ton of jobs to Mexico or something which is pretty scummy so you can just call him Oreo or s/tCobalt 2 wrote:This looks like you BACKED OFF in a big way when it looked like Scum Con was going down, but then you made Synonym your prime target while tossing sig into the mix.Cookie 2 wrote:I know I have been flogging the "civ/civ" horse pretty hard, but even i am having a hard time thinking either of you are civ at this point, LC & Syn. Especially you, Syn, since you & Sig both seem to know something about the Day One lynch that the rest of us don't.
I don't even know how to make a scum name for cookie because I like cookies. But you are a Scum Cookie.
I don't like this exchange, rainbow of scum!boo, weeeee.boo 2 wrote:Well I mean I've never actually seen the movie. I've just seen that scene a bunch of times in youtube videos, or referenced in other media. Good guy in a tux strapped to a table, death laser heading for his junk etc, etc.Golden 2 wrote:Good thing paraphrasing that line doesn't also make you a villain trying to kill me.boo 2 wrote:Yeah I totally forgot that it was a VILLAIN trying to kill Bond in a 007 movie.Golden 2 wrote:You do know the villain says that, right?boo 2 wrote:It's not that I want you to die. It's that I was expecting you to die.Golden 2 wrote:
Nice to see that you both would like me to die again.
That line kinda reminds me of 007 movies. "You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr.Bond. I expect you to die!"
Besides, if I were a villain trying to kill you, this conversation wouldnt be happening. I just wouldve killed you last night. I like to keep my games clean cut and simple.
I wonder who else caught on to that thing I'm doing.
. 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". 
