Watchmen [ENDGAME]

[Scotty]

Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

Things that start with G:
Guilty-Man
Greedy-Man
Ghastly-Man
Gestapo-Man
Glib-Man
Good-Man


I'd wager one of those is right.

Also, he hasn't posted many pictures this game. Like 1 or so. Isn't he known for pictures? Or am I just getting bad info?

[G-Man]

Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

Nope. I'm just getting my talking in now, because I'm going to be AWOL pretty much all day tomorrow. I was hoping we'd jump right into Day 1 but no. Alack, alack, alack!

Guys, I think G-Man is bad.

Discuss.

Things that start with G:
Guilty-Man
Greedy-Man
Ghastly-Man
Gestapo-Man
Glib-Man
Good-Man


I'd wager one of those is right.

Also, he hasn't posted many pictures this game. Like 1 or so. Isn't he known for pictures? Or am I just getting bad info?

I fixed your list for you. Also, you've been getting some bad information. I posted in nothing but pictures, memes, videos, and links during Economics Mafia to shake things up a bit. That is not a behavior that I plan to repeat for a full game any time soon.

[Sloonei]

9 townies, 3 mafiosos. Chance of lynching a townie is three timer higher than a mafioso (75-25).

The indies are excluded because they can be either pro-town, anti-town, or neutral, we can't possible measure that. So I just assume they all average as neutral and that we are still more likely to lynch pro-town.

I think you can add Silk Spectre and The Comedian to the civvie side of the equation. Neither of their win conditions suggest any harm to the civvies. Regardless, we're always more likely to lynch civvie than a baddie whether we use randomization or our best effort to deduce the identity of a baddie. Using strict probability, the odds are always stacked against us.

Which is exactly why we're not supposed to use probablity. Town's greatest strength is always in numbers. Working together is the best strategy. I'll say this in every game I play.

[Sloonei]

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?

[Sloonei]

Ebwop: bood = bold

Phone posts, man

[G-Man]

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.

[Golden]

and overanalyzing the Day 0 poll clearly was pointless in Roger Rabbit (Golden :P ), I'll follow this vote.

Overanalyzing the day one poll led directly to the aces lynch...

[Golden]

I voted Rorschach because it is a nifty ink blot test.

I see we've already got MP in full overreaction mode, which is a good start.

What about my posts is an overreaction?

Everything.

We are joking about lynching people who screwed up with us on previous game and you're going full mama bear on us.

Well at least I know I'm joking, can't speak for the others.

MP can go mama bear in my defence any time he likes. I'd do the same for him.

[thellama73]

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.

Where did I say 100% certainty, Captain Straw Man? I just said I think you are bad. It's a vibe I'm getting from you based on what I know of you from past games and contrasting with other players who have a similar style to you. You've been vocal today, but not as productive as DDL and Golden, who I think of as playing somewhat similarly to you. As I said, vague, undefined, but a hunch nevertheless. WHich is why I wanted other people's thoughts.

[Sloonei]

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.

[Golden]

So what I want to discuss and know from everyone is:

1) Do you think that G-Man intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
2) Do you think that DDL intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?
3) Do you think that Llama intended to, in any degree, consider a policy lynch vote for Golden tomorrow?

4) Do you consequently think that I overreacted and that your answer to questions 1) through 3) were all No?

5) Do you find G-Man, DDL, or Llama suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?
6) Do you find me suspicious? If so, why? If not, why?

I am not casting suspicion on any of them, nor am I issuing my own opinions on the matter. Let that be known clear. I just want to know what everyone is thinking.

Of course, I hope others will make observations of behavior that they want to discuss as they come in here and catch up, but I want to leave this on the table while I go do some work, so at least there is some more potential for discussion than there would be otherwise, and we're not left with a situation where everyone else just checks in and we're scrambling on Day 1 to cram good discussion into 24 hours or less. I have no intent for this to dominate the discussion, by any means, but to merely push it and get everyone talking.

1) yes
2) no
3) who the %*&@ knows
4) Not in the slightest, the posts were not obviously in jest
5) Not yet.
6) No, your responses are pretty much what I would expect from civ MP.

[Golden]

4) Yes you did. Even if one of those is a mafioso intending to kill Golden, a policy lynch for such silly reasons would never happen.

You played eco with me, DDL. You saw the first me go down. How easily did people pile on votes on to a couple of very poorly explained votes?

I'm lynched on day one quite frequently, because I'm a neat little target for baddies to get out of the way quickly.

To say 'policy lynch for such silly reasons would never happen' is, I think, incorrect. Silly bandwagons grow on day one.

[thellama73]

G-Man's response is very interesting. It sounds like he is trying to convince himself. "Llama couldn't have possible figured me out this early, right? He must just be fishing, right? Right?!"

[Golden]

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

Sloonei totally liked it.

[Sloonei]

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.

[Sloonei]

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.

[Sloonei]

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

[G-Man]

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.

Where did I say 100% certainty, Captain Straw Man? I just said I think you are bad. It's a vibe I'm getting from you based on what I know of you from past games and contrasting with other players who have a similar style to you. You've been vocal today, but not as productive as DDL and Golden, who I think of as playing somewhat similarly to you. As I said, vague, undefined, but a hunch nevertheless. WHich is why I wanted other people's thoughts.

You didn't say 100% certainty. That was me fishing. I always try to be a little different every game to avoid being predictable. It's good for the brain. You should also know that my productivity isn't very good early on in games by now.

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.

I'm curious to find out more specifics as to what drew him to me today as well. As someone who doesn't pick up on vibes or read people very well, I suppose I have come to view vibes and reads as grossly overrated.

[Golden]

I'm completely in agreement with llama. If the day one poll was closing now, I'd vote for G-Man.

If there is anyone who overreacted in this game, it's not MP. It was the first post G-Man made towards me.

I feel like he has already been talking himself into a corner. Even if it was not ME he was talking about, the stance that "I would sooner lynch a super-civilian than give a super-baddie a free pass" is ridiculous, and is not something that I have seen anything remotely like from G-Man in the other games I've played with him, especially biblical, where in our chat we both talked about the virtues of there being several people alive and talking lots (such as llama and rico) even though we weren't 100% sure that they were good. I think this position only exists now because he wants to be able to justify his vote in this game. I do not believe civilian G-Man thinks it's a better idea to lynch contributors than non-contributors.

[Marmot]

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.

To spot a baddie with 100% certainty? Yes that's hard.

But MP called the entire baddie team in Guess Who?! without even playing.

[Marmot]

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.

[Sloonei]

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

[Sloonei]

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

[thellama73]

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

Not to meantion...

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.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

4) Yes you did. Even if one of those is a mafioso intending to kill Golden, a policy lynch for such silly reasons would never happen.

You played eco with me, DDL. You saw the first me go down. How easily did people pile on votes on to a couple of very poorly explained votes?

I'm lynched on day one quite frequently, because I'm a neat little target for baddies to get out of the way quickly.

To say 'policy lynch for such silly reasons would never happen' is, I think, incorrect. Silly bandwagons grow on day one.

There is silly, and there is SILLY. The lynch you took in Economics was the former. Lynching someone because "they were bad last game" is the later.

[G-Man]

I'm completely in agreement with llama. If the day one poll was closing now, I'd vote for G-Man.

If there is anyone who overreacted in this game, it's not MP. It was the first post G-Man made towards me.

I feel like he has already been talking himself into a corner. Even if it was not ME he was talking about, the stance that "I would sooner lynch a super-civilian than give a super-baddie a free pass" is ridiculous, and is not something that I have seen anything remotely like from G-Man in the other games I've played with him, especially biblical, where in our chat we both talked about the virtues of there being several people alive and talking lots (such as llama and rico) even though we weren't 100% sure that they were good. I think this position only exists now because he wants to be able to justify his vote in this game. I do not believe civilian G-Man thinks it's a better idea to lynch contributors than non-contributors.

1) I was matching the ridiculousness of your first post with my first post.

2) The viewpoint I expressed is to be taken on its own and is not to be combined with any other traits or characteristics. For some reason this game has me drawing from the fenced off well of STV G-Man style. Back then I could be about as friendly as a balrog at times. Not sure why I went there but it feels oddly refreshing.

3) Civilian G-Man certainly prefers contributing players to non-contributing players. Early on it is necessary to take a utilitarian stance and thin the herd. I think the problem is that you're not keeping my stance on eliminating "good players" separate from the contributor v. non-contributor argument. I think we're more in agreement on things than you realize. For instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.

[Sloonei]

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

Not to meantion...

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

[thellama73]

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

Not to meantion...

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

Epignosis believes that baddies use adverbs more than civvies. I think he's right.

[thellama73]

That theory encompasses smilies as well.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

9 townies, 3 mafiosos. Chance of lynching a townie is three timer higher than a mafioso (75-25).

The indies are excluded because they can be either pro-town, anti-town, or neutral, we can't possible measure that. So I just assume they all average as neutral and that we are still more likely to lynch pro-town.

I think you can add Silk Spectre and The Comedian to the civvie side of the equation. Neither of their win conditions suggest any harm to the civvies. Regardless, we're always more likely to lynch civvie than a baddie whether we use randomization or our best effort to deduce the identity of a baddie. Using strict probability, the odds are always stacked against us.

Silk Spectre wants to stay alive long enough to find the roles she is looking for. If I were her, I'd help whatever faction seemed to be losing at the moment. If town starts winning too hard, I could see her helping mafia.

The Comedian would benefit from looking very civ, since he has to be night killed. So he is likely the most pro-civ one. But he still has a separate wincon, and might change sides if town starts winning too hard.

Nite Owl has a wincon that looks very pro-civ. He will be helping us at start. But if his dad is still alive and he has a chance to help hammer a civ lynch to end the game, he will. Likewise, if he kills the guy he has to kill, but his wincon means he has to survive till the end of the game, he will want the game to end faster.

Rorschach is a serial killer. He will kill anyone in his list, regardless of the alignment. Whether that helps town or not will depend on our luck.

The others are a mystery.

[DharmaHelper]

I think baddies use vowels more than civvies.

[Sloonei]

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

[thellama73]

@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.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

for instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.

IF they say something obviously fishy that can lead to a reasonable lynch.

But on D1, that's incredibly rare, and most votes as based on BS.

And if I am to cast a BS vote, knowing full well I'm probably taking down an innocent civilian, I'd rather have that likely civilian be someone who has a lower chance of helping town winning the game.

It's not about giving good players a free pass. It's about not playing russian roulette with players who are more likely to be good assets. Once we get to D2, when actual data is available and better cases can be made, nobody is getting a free pass.

[G-Man]

for instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.

IF they say something obviously fishy that can lead to a reasonable lynch.

But on D1, that's incredibly rare, and most votes as based on BS.

And if I am to cast a BS vote, knowing full well I'm probably taking down an innocent civilian, I'd rather have that likely civilian be someone who has a lower chance of helping town winning the game.

It's not about giving good players a free pass. It's about not playing russian roulette with players who are more likely to be good assets. Once we get to D2, when actual data is available and better cases can be made, nobody is getting a free pass.

See, I agree with just about everything you said there.

Unfortunately it means that we develop a kind of caste system, which bothers me. What's to say this won't be [insert name here]'s game to break through and show how awesome they can be after Day 3 or 4? But no, based on past history we label said player as a liability and lynch them when they barely have to to contribute anything but a chuckle and a smiley face. Meanwhile we let [awesome history player] coast based on the amount of awesome they've displayed in the past. We're obviously much more egalitarian around these parts compared to some mafia forums that shall remain nameless but we're not truly egalitarian. I've completely lost sight of where this post was going, so...

[thellama73]

Interesting discussion. I'll just add that I famously like lynching non-participants and it famously gets me killed. Do I learn though?

No. No, I don't.

[G-Man]

Interesting discussion. I'll just add that I famously like lynching non-participants and it famously gets me killed. Do I learn though?

No. No, I don't.

I remember when that was the norm, honestly. Random votes quickly became taboo and we moved onto the next easiest thing to do on Day 1. I don't recall how successful it was as a go-to strategy but I see no harm in it, as inactive civvies are easily used by baddies. Inactive baddies can be useful too because sometimes their baddie teammates try to lead the pack against that player for cred. I feel like those instances were usually obvious.

[DharmaHelper]

I won "Shut The Fuck Up Mafia" thanks to inactive civvies.

[Sloonei]

@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?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

for instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.

IF they say something obviously fishy that can lead to a reasonable lynch.

But on D1, that's incredibly rare, and most votes as based on BS.

And if I am to cast a BS vote, knowing full well I'm probably taking down an innocent civilian, I'd rather have that likely civilian be someone who has a lower chance of helping town winning the game.

It's not about giving good players a free pass. It's about not playing russian roulette with players who are more likely to be good assets. Once we get to D2, when actual data is available and better cases can be made, nobody is getting a free pass.

See, I agree with just about everything you said there.

Unfortunately it means that we develop a kind of caste system, which bothers me. What's to say this won't be [insert name here]'s game to break through and show how awesome they can be after Day 3 or 4? But no, based on past history we label said player as a liability and lynch them when they barely have to to contribute anything but a chuckle and a smiley face. Meanwhile we let [awesome history player] coast based on the amount of awesome they've displayed in the past. We're obviously much more egalitarian around these parts compared to some mafia forums that shall remain nameless but we're not truly egalitarian. I've completely lost sight of where this post was going, so...

I see what you mean, and I know the whole logic is kind of heartless but...

1) I usually don't post a list of who I think is good or not. That's personal information based on how I feel. I'm not any more interested than you are in a making "chaste system", just in deciding one lynch.

2) There are 19 players in the game. Only 1 will be D1 lynched. We will still have a lot of inactives and uncontributive players who will survive longer, and this policy won't stop that.

3) It's day 1, I'll hardly find a better reason than that to lynch anyone, really.

4) The whole thing makes a lot more sense in my forum than it does here. The number of useless/inactive/troll players there is a lot higher. Here, everybody cares, or at least pretends to. So the whole thing may prove to be just unnecessary here, and we may be wasting our time with this discussion. I'll see how it goes.

[Golden]

3) Civilian G-Man certainly prefers contributing players to non-contributing players. Early on it is necessary to take a utilitarian stance and thin the herd. I think the problem is that you're not keeping my stance on eliminating "good players" separate from the contributor v. non-contributor argument. I think we're more in agreement on things than you realize. For instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.

Then you would be talking about lynching someone suspicious rather than someone who isn't. Which is obvious.

And who has ever been afraid of lynching a good player on day one if they think they are suspicious? I can't think of anyone.

But talking about lynching suspicious good players is not what you were doing, let's be very clear here...

Golden is simply now my de facto fallback vote in case I don't see anything vote-worthy on Day 1.

In each of the games I started in here so far, we have lynched a civvie on Day 1, so it seems evident to me that mafia communities have gotten no better at rooting out the baddies early on in games. As someone who is a terrible people-reader, many of my early votes are either blind guesses or have weak reasoning. I fully intend to have several fallback contingencies in place for my Day 1 vote.

[Sloonei]

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.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

G-Man, I've seen you talking about having Golden as a back-up vote, and also talking about how you were joking about lynching him.

Questions:

1) Is Golden your back-up vote right now? If you had to vote now, would you vote for him?
2) Do you think the reason you gave in your first interaction with Golden is a reason for lynching him? And if not, then what is the reason?

[Marmot]

@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.

Smileys and adverbs!

[Marmot]

@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?

People like to be transparent around here.

[thellama73]

@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?

People like to be transparent around here.

It all depends on what happens between now and then. If I had to vote right now, I would vote for G-Man. But I don't have to vote right now, and many things could cause me to change my mind. It's a confusing question. If anyone says they are "settled" on a lynch vote, it means literally nothing could happen to change their opinion, which is obvious nonsense.

[Golden]

I'm not any more interested than you are in a making "chaste system".

It always comes back to sex.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I'm not any more interested than you are in a making "chaste system".

It always comes back to sex.

Will there ever be a game here where I don't make a stupid typo and get laughed at because of it?

[Golden]

I'm not any more interested than you are in a making "chaste system".

It always comes back to sex.

Will there ever be a game here where I don't make a stupid typo and get laughed at because of it?

I hope not. Personally I think we should all make more typos. Laughing at each other keeps the game light and fun

[G-Man]

G-Man, I've seen you talking about having Golden as a back-up vote, and also talking about how you were joking about lynching him.

Questions:

1) Is Golden your back-up vote right now? If you had to vote now, would you vote for him?
2) Do you think the reason you gave in your first interaction with Golden is a reason for lynching him? And if not, then what is the reason?

1) If I had to vote now, then sure. I'd vote for Golden just for kicks and giggles. If literally nothing of interest happens on Day 1 and there are no inactive players, or you guys decide to steamroll me, then sure, I'd vote for him for the lulz.

2) If you're referring to this...

I just want to warn you all that I'm pretty sure G-Man wants to kill me and I find this highly suspect.

His ass would be better served helping me make a lot of rainbow lists.

Wow, you're not even going to be subtle and sneaky with me this time? Perhaps that's because you have reason to be afraid this game. Taking a joke from pre-game and trying to use it to cast shade on me looks pretty cheap and bad. Golden the Coward indeed.

I intend to keep my rainbow lists to myself from now on, unless they point to an obvious baddie. Sticking my neck out got me killed in Biblical and Guess Who, so maybe I should revert to cryptic and mysterious. That served me well enough in Economics.

...then I would say it's a valid reason to vote for him if he was actually being serious. I assume he's kidding, which is why I went all tongue-in-cheek over-the-top on him. I've been having fun by pushing buttons all day. I'd have to look back but I'm willing to bet that I haven't made any accusations or suppositions that weren't at least partly in jest.