The Syndicate

I was extremely bummed that I didn't have much of a chance to be on this scum team. But I definitely deserved to be lynched.

Some other quick thoughts I have:
I have expressed vague support of G-man, but I don't necessarily have him as a town read. That said, I don't support any of the cases I have seen made against him thus far. That does not mean he should not be looked at further.

I do not wish to OMGUS thellama, but I find his case against me to be a bit weak and that is something that could become suspicious down the line, depending on how it progresses, but for now it's too early to make a judgment.

I am now 10 minutes late for work, woohoo

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I have also decided to combine gun-to-head reads with the Rainbow Lists to create my own Smiley-Infused list. I wrote each players name down, put them into a hat, shook it up, and began selecting names. As I drew names, I would gun-to-head assign a different smiley to each player. Here is my outcome.

Bass_the_Clever
Cookie
DharmaHelper
Dragon D. Luffy
Elohcin
espers
G-Man
Golden
Long Con
LoRab
Metalmarsh89
MovingPictures07
nijuukyugou
Ricochet
Russtifinko
Scotty
Sloonei
thellama73
timmer

am i canadian? :o
I see now that i am, hot damn

I have to go to work in a moment, and at this point the two strongest "pings" I've got have been frok Elo and Ninja.
Elo for how quickly she stated and abandoned a suspicion against me. She first listed me and G-man as her two early suspects. I very simply asked her to explain her suspicion of me and her response was essentially "never mind, i'm not suspicious of you." I can see this as a player (Elo) who wanted to cast suspicion on a vocal player (me) for the sake of having a suspect, but when I pressed her on it she was not prepared to back it up.

Ninja for that one big post of hers. I am not happy that the two people I've narrowed my vote down to have a combined 7 posts between them. But in ninja's posts she provided a wishy-washy fence-sitting read on G-man and also gave a suggested some pretty empty support of llama and the "adverb/smiley" theory without offering more of her own opinion beyond "I don't like Day 1s." I would like to hear a lot more from ninja on some reads and I know she is a capable player, but for now I think she's the player I feel most comfortable voting for, so I'm voting Ninjajuju.

This has been a pretty solid Day 1 but it still feels like there's a lot of people who have yet to weigh in. I hope to get some more voices in this discussion before he day's end, but I will not be able to take part in it. If anyone is having trouble coming up with things to say, just post the first thoughts that come to mind when you look at the thread. Literally anything is better than not posting.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't suspect Sloonei for the adverbs, but there's something off about him I can't quite put my finger on, though it's possible I am way off the mark here. He's playing to his meta, but he has made a couple of statements that have struck me as him trying too hard to meet his own meta.

I know that allegation sucks, since I've been hit with it before, and it's what sunk Golden in economics because the baddies wanted him gone, but I have pointed out a couple of posts previously, and for now I'm going to take a backseat and let the Day develop while I get some stuff done, so I'm officially pushing Sloonei back to my no read section.

I missed this before. Although you've expressed a slight change of mind since (or right here in the same post), I'd still like to know where this suspicion comes from. Which particular posts/statements gave you these vibes about me?

I need to pull myself away from this thread for an hour or so. I don't want my entire pre-work day to be consumed by mafia. I'll be back later, and in the meantime I hope everyone continues to ask and answer a thousand questions. I like the amount of content that's been generated in here today and hope to have at least a decent vote before I leave. Keep talkin'.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't know what it is but you seem kinda off this game.

Me? I encourage you to please try to figure out what it is.

What is your gun to the head read on me?

Town. I like that you are asking me this question. It's bold and suggests you're being aggressive. Your posts feel more like BoB Bass than Economics Bass so far, and I hope you can continue to build on this.
I did feel like this post was a bit odd, though, since you've played with me a fee times now, and I tought you'd know that asking everyone a million questions was my bag, so you asking why I'm asking questions seemed a bit insincere.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't know what it is but you seem kinda off this game.

Me? I encourage you to please try to figure out what it is.

@llama, what do you think of everything in my post history that is not an adverb or a smiley face?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Yeah, sorry, was posting as catching up. I see you had already let it be known by that point

What do you think of the adverb/smiley line of reasoning, both generally and as it pertains to me this game? What is your read on me right now?

Why do you care what people think about you right now? You asked Llama this same question.

Because I am a player in the game and I'd like to know what people think about every player in the game. I'm particularly interested in myself because I know my alignment and am a huge narcissist. I'll ask anyone to share their read of me if they acknowledge my existence.
What do you think of me, Bass?

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Yeah, sorry, was posting as catching up. I see you had already let it be known by that point

What do you think of the adverb/smiley line of reasoning, both generally and as it pertains to me this game? What is your read on me right now?

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:So did anyone get anything from the day zero poll?

I did not.

Me neither.

Same here

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

"Does not pose a threat to the civies" does seem like the sort of thing a baddie would say, yes. Especially if they don't have a power that doesn't have a direct, negative impact on others.

And, at this point, no one else is standing out to me. I'm often a 1 suspect at a time kind of gal. Also, day 1, so not much to go on.

Does this mean your mind and vote are set on G-man today?

I wouldn't say set, but if nothing else comes up and he doesn't say something to convince me, that is likely where I will vote, yes.

Also, as to another post you made (that I forgot to quote), if he was trying to attract the lie detector, then why do so with what is potentially an undetectable statement (a threat to civs can be a matter of opinion as to what that means)...unless you were trying to make sure that a teammate wasn't LD-ed?

At this point we are getting into hypothetics and semantics with regards to the lie detector, and I do not feel that's a totally productive or worthwhile area of discussion right now. However, I would interpret "not a threat to civvies" to mean "not working against the town's interests." But i'm not epi and his is the only judgment that matters here.
Your assertion that he's potentially trying to protect a teammate from being lie detected is a bold one. What makes you think that?

Golden wrote:ping on ninja's long post...

Her finding llama's adverb idea 'interesting' and suggesting she might be willing to vote sloonei, that whole latter part of her post felt quite bandwaggony to me and not quite sincere.

I shared this sentiment when I first read her post, but wanted to take a step back because I feel like i'm still using tunnel vision on her after BoB. But yes, this is a point I really want to see addressed.

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellamae73 wrote:My read on Sloonei honestly has to do with the use of smilies and adverbs. I know it seems silly, but there is some truth to it, particularly the smiley part, and the fact that he was self-conscious about it makes it worse.

We have not played together before, but you have hosted both of the Syndicate games I have played prior to this one. How much attention did you pay to those games? Are you familiar at all with my playstyle, or in this case, my writing style? What do you know about me as a player?
Also, what is the rationale behind this adverb/smiley theory?

I know enough. The rationale is primarily observation based, but it also makes sense in that baddies have to walk a line, and it's easier to equivocate with emoticons and adverbs. Where a civvie might say "You are bad! I'm sure of it!" a baddie might say "You are bad, in my opinion." The softener gives them more cover if things don't go their way.

Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Okay, but if you look at the context of my adverbified post and my smilies, does it seem like I am walking a line of being cautious? A lot of the content in question is unrelated to this game.
Also, what is "enough"? Could you describe your assessment of my playstyle?

It's not a conscious thing, just a tell of a guilty conscience. I think you realized you were using too many smilies, which is why you pointed it out in a joking fashion.

I don't want to describe my assessment of your play style, so I won't. :P

I was conscious of the smilies because I used the same one in two consecutive posts. I would never consider a person's use of emojis as it relates to their alignment, because I would never consider such a thing to be an indicator of alignment. I use adverbs because I use adverbs. Sometimes they're a natural part of a sentence.
No offense, but this is one of the silliest cases I've ever had to respond to. But it's Day 1, and I do not object to it. How do you feel about my other posts, and particularly these replies to your case?

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also, Llama, can you elaborate on Russ? I have him as a null read.

This post:

Russtifinko wrote:Sooooo the game started, and I worked all day.....

You guys do realize you averaged over a post per minute between 9:30am and 10am, right? And I haven't read the last 3 pages yet, but it's gotta be close to that for most of the evening.

MP has already demanded no less than 7 answers to questions from EVERY SINGLE PLAYER....and that was 3 pages ago.

Sheesh.


I'd have not voted Rorschach's journal. If he's all he made out to be, he'd write a shorthand or code known only to him in case it fell into the wrong hands.

Also, I have a policy of supporting policy lynches. Let it be known that I will bandwagon onto all policy lynches forthwith, henceforth.

Welcome new players! And new players who used to be old players before I was around. And regular players.

Baddies who haven't said anything yet don't need to read the thread closely. They are thereofre less likely to be frustrated by a lot of posts. Also, just tone. He sounds like a less scemey, more carefree Russ.

I can just as easily red that post by Russ as a player saying "Hey guys look at me, I've read the thread and am hip to what's going on. Don't accuse me of lurking because I'm not lurking." If anything, this post makes me mildly suspicious of Russ.

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

"Does not pose a threat to the civies" does seem like the sort of thing a baddie would say, yes. Especially if they don't have a power that doesn't have a direct, negative impact on others.

And, at this point, no one else is standing out to me. I'm often a 1 suspect at a time kind of gal. Also, day 1, so not much to go on.

Does this mean your mind and vote are set on G-man today?

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellamae73 wrote:My read on Sloonei honestly has to do with the use of smilies and adverbs. I know it seems silly, but there is some truth to it, particularly the smiley part, and the fact that he was self-conscious about it makes it worse.

We have not played together before, but you have hosted both of the Syndicate games I have played prior to this one. How much attention did you pay to those games? Are you familiar at all with my playstyle, or in this case, my writing style? What do you know about me as a player?
Also, what is the rationale behind this adverb/smiley theory?

I know enough. The rationale is primarily observation based, but it also makes sense in that baddies have to walk a line, and it's easier to equivocate with emoticons and adverbs. Where a civvie might say "You are bad! I'm sure of it!" a baddie might say "You are bad, in my opinion." The softener gives them more cover if things don't go their way.

Golden: Adverbs, smilies.

Okay, but if you look at the context of my adverbified post and my smilies, does it seem like I am walking a line of being cautious? A lot of the content in question is unrelated to this game.
Also, what is "enough"? Could you describe your assessment of my playstyle?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with lorab.

What parts do you agree with and why? Does this mean you are suspicious of G-man? Who else do you suspect?

I agree that he seemed to be trying to get around the LD with the way he worded it.
I think he has played enough to know that a lot of games people just come out say "I'm civ" and it's not consider info dumping or role claiming. I think there are two watchmen who we know can turn on the civves or need a civvie dead to win if I'm reading the roles right.

If anything, I feel like G-man's phrasing was an attempt to attract the lie detector (and this was my initial thought when I saw the post in question). I don't see how drawing obvious attention to oneself with a curiously-worded statement can be seen as dodging a potential lie detector. Does his phrasing, if we're gonna take it as honest, strike you as being one of ~2 nefarious Watchmen?
Also, who else are you looking at besides G-man?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with lorab.

What parts do you agree with and why? Does this mean you are suspicious of G-man? Who else do you suspect?

If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

Elohcin wrote:Sloonei, as I read all your posts together, I am failing to find anything that sticks out to me as scummy. I am not sure what gave me that vibe while reading the thread. I will table this gut feeling for now.

Reading through your posts did give me this though...

Sloonei wrote:The two games i've played with G-man were Economics (where he was town but posted entirely in pictures for the whole game) and Bullets over Broadway (where he was scum and replaced in after Day 2 or 3.......

I hosted G-Man in Guess Who and he tried a thing where he would begin each new post with the next letter of the alphabet.

I really don't have time atm to look at his posts in Bullets over Broadway or the other games he has played in but I am wondering what posting fun he tried to have in the other games he's played. I wonder if he even tries to do something funky with his posts if he is bad or if being on a team and having people to talk to BTS is enough for him to keep a game interesting. I don't see any themes running through his posts in this game, but I could be missing it. It's something to think about.

G-Man, do you do posting themes in each game despite your alighment? If so, can you tell us what you did in BoB when you were mafia?

G-man, you continue to be my hero.
In BoB it was hard to read into his posts at all. He subbed in on Day 2 or 3 for a scum player (gamerguy) who was one of the thread's most popular suspects before he had subbed out. So G-man was a dead man walking from the moment he showed up, and he knew it. I just noticed a marked change (he seems more engaged) this time around than in my previous games with him. I'll start digging through his content later, but for now I do not feel there's enough of it for me to get anywhere.

Who do you think you might vote for today now that i'm off the table?

LoRab wrote:I'm of 2 minds with the GMan stuff.

On the one hand, back in the day (when GMan was a regular) on LP/Piano, lie detector roles and statements became a thing and how people phrase statements and asking everyone to make "An LD Statement" became something of a controversy. In addition/as a result, in many games, "I am a civie" wasn't a detectable statement, so people would often not use it and got in the habit of not just saying that.

That being said, the way he phrased it doesn't sound like a way a civie would describe themselves, even with phrasing it differently. What he posted earlier sounds like something that is a baddie trying to describe themselves with a true statement on a technicality (like, if they don't have a power that can be used to harm a civie, they technically aren't a threat). And his explanation doesn't ring so true to me.

There are also roles with secrets, and we don't know how those statements might have an impact on an LD role. He could have been waiting for clarification on how a statement of "I am a civie" would show up. on G Man. Leaning towards a vote in that direction.

Do you think a scum player would voluntarily leave such an honest statement in the thread like that? It's incredibly easy for a baddie to simply say "I'm not bad", and I have a hars time believing that G-man's conscience would have gotten to him that much, if that is what you are saying in part.

Do you have your eye on anyone other than G-man?

I do not currently have you as a suspect G-man, which is actually saying something in your case because you're one of the few people who's posted enough to bave anything to go off of.
I did not have any bad feelings about your wording with regards to your role, and I feel like it's an odd thing to be suspicious of, but it's Day 1 and I do not object to its being brought up. I simply saw it as a player making the routine empty remarks about not being bad. Your phrasing changes very little. I am also not bad. So is everyone else.
We do have at least a 1-shot lie detector in this game, for what it's worth.

Oh never mind, bye. I'm gonna share your desire for a tearful emoji now, just ain't cutting it

Anyone else who's got thoughts to share right now can and should also. I'm lonely, and have only got four hours left until I need to cast a vote on this abbreviated day. I would prefer to have at least a moderately formed opinion on somebody.

linki: Hello G-man, it's wonderul to see you!

Sloonei wrote:I did not realize the day (and presumably all days) would be 24 hours long. I have not played anything shorter than 48 hour days in ages. I'm going to need to pick it up, but I don't think I'll have enough time to get anywhere near being comfortable wih my vote. I'll do my best though.

The "i don't think i'll have time to get comfortable" bit was with regards to this day phase only. Subsequent days will be better, though i've still got closing shifts every night this week.

Cookie wrote:

Spoiler: show

Cookie wrote:After catching up on the thread, I have a few small things to say:

1) I'm new to this site so don't think I am a good candidate for policy voting (please), for those of you who support it.
2) I've never heard policy voting but I think it's good to identify that problem within mafia games. I've always hated it and having to explain that, in terms of probability, we are more likely to lynch a townie. That being said, I do not support it in any way.
3) I don't think G-Man is suspicious. Having said that, I barely remember who posted what because everyone is new to me. It's easier if I knew people and can put a personality to the post, so when I get to know everyone a bit more, I will be able to scumhunt more efficiently.
4) How do I vote not to lynch someone? On the site I use, we vote "no lynch." Is there an alternative name for it here or do I just not vote?

Welcome, Cookie!

Why do you not think G-Man is suspicious? Can you elaborate?

Why would you want to vote a "no lynch"?

I don't think G-Man is suspicious because, at this point, I don't suspect anyone's posts to be suspicious. Also, I don't remember who's posted what in the thread because there are so many people to keep track of, therefore, anyone who might have been suspicious would have been more memorable (or their post would have been).

Has there been anything at all that caught your eye about anyone or anything in particular? Even the littlest thought can be substantial early in the game. Don't overthink things and just look at the thread. Who seems more sincere to you?

I had been mistaken last night. After I voted for what to investigate, the list of players became available to vote and I saw Epi said we had until midnight to vote so I was panicking that no one else was voting anyone else and so I wanted to vote no one. I didn't want to be responsible for casting the only vote, resulting in a lynch of that person who might have been civ.

the polls will change every day, that's how we vote rather than simply stating it in the thread. Makes it a lot easier to keep track of That said, it's still customary to state your vote in the thread once you've made it, just to let everyone know where and when (and preferably why) you voted. Also, votes are not changeable, so once you pick someone, it stays there the rest of the day. I prefer to hold onto mine as long as possible and everyone else should too.

@ ninnyjuju, you said you are "intrigued" by the theory about scums using more adverbs and smilies than others. That theory was brought up to be used against me. What do you think of me? As a player in this game, I mean.

Scotty, you have been active in the discussion and prodded a lot of people. Surely you must have quite a few things to say about players at this point. Who are your suspectd in this early phase? Why?

It appears I will be gone for work by the time you get back to answer this.

I did not realize the day (and presumably all days) would be 24 hours long. I have not played anything shorter than 48 hour days in ages. I'm going to need to pick it up, but I don't think I'll have enough time to get anywhere near being comfortable wih my vote. I'll do my best though.

@Elohcin, if you looked through my posts, would you be able to put your finger on what's scummy about me? I do not mind being called scummy, but only when there are reasons attached to the label.

thellamae73 wrote:My read on Sloonei honestly has to do with the use of smilies and adverbs. I know it seems silly, but there is some truth to it, particularly the smiley part, and the fact that he was self-conscious about it makes it worse.

We have not played together before, but you have hosted both of the Syndicate games I have played prior to this one. How much attention did you pay to those games? Are you familiar at all with my playstyle, or in this case, my writing style? What do you know about me as a player?
Also, what is the rationale behind this adverb/smiley theory?

With regards to Cookie, since I'm the only person here who's got any familiarity with her as a player, I feel like I should offer what insight I can.

She comes from a fairly young mafia community and the games there are still a little um primitive, if that's not a mean thing to say, and, like she said, people tend to rely heavily on power roles and night actions and crazy bandwagon hunches and stuff. I've never played any games there, but I'm the one who introduced mafia on the site and have modded/spectated a bunch of games, and in my opinion Cookie is one of the the strongest players in the community (and one of the only ones who I felt comfortable enough with to invite here). I'm hella excited to see how she handles the more intense gameplay here and have full confidence in her abilities, but in fairness to her and everyone else it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a "noob".

Hello Cookie, welcome. Give me a full list of reads on every player by noon tomorrow.

DharmaHelper wrote:Also, I ain't doing no rainbow list. Fuck that noise.

All your posts had been a breath of fresh air and a reminder of my mafia home, but you ruined that all with this post right here. DharmaHelper you broke my rainbow heart.

In response to MP's points toward me (my laptop is old and terrible and doing this thing where it takes a half hour just to start up, and I don't feel like waiting for that just so I can format a post more easily, so this is a messy phoned-in attempt at a post), I have so far only played with a G-man that is completely light and playful in all his posts (due to those reasons I mentioned earlier), so when I came in to the thread on Day 0 and saw him being perhaps the most active person in leading the discussion, regardless of how serious he says it was at the time, it was a very noticeable change in style for him. It is too minor a point to earn him a townie label just yet, but it was the strongest read I got in any direction after 3 pages of activity. "Sincere" was probably not the right word. "Active" or "aggressive"' would have been more accurate. I will hold off on commenting on the actual content of his posts until there's more of it.

Also I never expressed my suspicion of you while you were in BoB, I only mentioned it after Epi had subbed in for you. I can't find any of the posts (i made a lot of them in that game), but my point was essentially that I felt like your response to the fake truce banter on Day 0 felt a bit too preemptively defensive. Your behavior here reminded me vaguely of that.

With all this activity, I kinda forgot we're still in Day 0. I'm off to work for the next 7-8 hours, but please keep it up. The more I have to read when I get back, the happier I'll be.

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:@llama: I have heard of this theory and do not support it, whether it's being used against me or somebody else.

Okay. I'd rather vote for G-Man than you anyway.

How settled are you on that choice? I have been alarmed at how early people decide on suspects in games here, but I'm getting more used to it as I play more. It just seems to be the way y'all do it. That does not mean I agree with it though. If the Day 1 poll went up right now without changeable votes, what would be the likelihood of you casting a vote for G-man?

@llama: I have heard of this theory and do not support it, whether it's being used against me or somebody else.

thellama73 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:That's two straight posts with winky faces, for those scoring at home.

Not to meantion...

Sloonei wrote:The two games i've played with G-man were Economics (where he was town but posted entirely in pictures for the whole game) and Bullets over Broadway (where he was scum and replaced in after Day 2 or 3 and was roundly suspected before he even entered the game), so I can't say I am familiar with his usual style, but some of his early posts here had the appearance of being sincere to me when I looked at them. I will look further into this and re-analyze later tonight, after work when I'm on my laptop.

Also, MP's behavior around the policy lynch/"overreaction" stuff reminds me a lot of his Day 0 posts in BoB, which had me feeling mildly suspicious at the time. I still do not know his alingment in that game, can y'all lynch Epi 2.0? But this time I can at least understand where he's coming from and fully support what he said, whether he's town or not. A close-minded Day 1 (or Day anything) is a terrible way to approach the game, and policy lynches should be few and far between. MP is a player who I think will become easier to read later in games, but that doesn't mean I wish to give him a pass for any amount of time.

Adverbs are the utterances of the gods

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:That's two straight posts with winky faces, for those scoring at home.

But this is mafia, the game where everything made up and the points don't matter.

I thought we were playing scenes from a hat

@G-man: As someone who relies primarily on reads, I disagree wholeheartedly with your view of reads.

That's two straight posts with winky faces, for those scoring at home.

Golden wrote:

Sloonei wrote:I did not like being the thread's top poster in Bullets Over Broadway

Sloonei totally liked it.

I did. but it was a lot of work, i'm used to having JJJ do most of the work for me.

The two games i've played with G-man were Economics (where he was town but posted entirely in pictures for the whole game) and Bullets over Broadway (where he was scum and replaced in after Day 2 or 3 and was roundly suspected before he even entered the game), so I can't say I am familiar with his usual style, but some of his early posts here had the appearance of being sincere to me when I looked at them. I will look further into this and re-analyze later tonight, after work when I'm on my laptop.

Also, MP's behavior around the policy lynch/"overreaction" stuff reminds me a lot of his Day 0 posts in BoB, which had me feeling mildly suspicious at the time. I still do not know his alingment in that game, can y'all lynch Epi 2.0? But this time I can at least understand where he's coming from and fully support what he said, whether he's town or not. A close-minded Day 1 (or Day anything) is a terrible way to approach the game, and policy lynches should be few and far between. MP is a player who I think will become easier to read later in games, but that doesn't mean I wish to give him a pass for any amount of time.

G-Man wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

I think it is a bood and unexpected assertion by thellama to suggest that G-man is bad. Why does the llama think this?

He's probably just fishing. I refuse to believe anyone can spot a baddie with 100% certainty on 1, let alone a Day 0. I have yet to meet anyone that good, if they even exist.

There is no doubt he's fishing, and I don't think he or anyone else would suggest that this suspicion is being stated with 100% certainty. But there is probably a reason why he chose your name out of the pack, and I'd like to to know what that is.

Ebwop: bood = bold

Phone posts, man

thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

I think it is a bood and unexpected assertion by thellama to suggest that G-man is bad. Why does the llama think this?