

Scotty, I am not a coaster and have never been one and that comment to G-Man was nothing but a joke (and an inside one too, given a reference from a past game that MP, the reference's creator in fact, was quick to acknowledge). The reason why I did actually zone out until right now can be read above in green.
I'd be able to offer links to each player's posts, but I see the Host has confirmed he will do so later. But if you need them sooner, just let me know.
I did some catch-up, but, as intense as it was, I'm not getting too much out of the D0 banter. Firstly, it strikes me as the first serious D0 one we've had since Death Note, with that D0 poll generating at least 10 pages or so of elephant talk. In that case, all the banter diffused once the majority decided to go for the regular, benign type of voting - which, in here, would translate to me that if the D1 ax won't fall on G-Man (although it currently seems like a possibility), Golden (which currently seems least likely to happen) or others involved, it will account for not much afterwards. Secondly, given the amount of fishing, rusing, jesting, banter and such, I either feel compelled to take it at face value or be slightly irritated by the "state something - launch debate/controversy over it - pull back by saying it was all a ruse or tongue-in cheek" dynamic. G-Man caught my eye with how, after almost an entire day of banter, policy talk and such, he himself seemed to finally acknowledge that his initial replies to Golden were also jest (second part of this post).
So what is it, in the end? Was it all a jest or are we trying to get something out of this eventually? There's no denying civs and mafia can both blend in on such banter occasions (thinking back to my Death Note, we had boo there, charming us with his analysis), but so far I'm not sure of any strong leads. I'm reading MP ok with his principles on the whole policy lynching thing and his inquiry of others. I'm reading Llama as doing regular Llama stuff on D0-D1, which is fishing and openly claiming a baddie read - except for maybe his Sloonei reasoning boiling down to "smileys and adverbs", because "it's reasonable guys", which is an eye-roller imo. For all the talk on "policy lynching" Golden based on his last baddie game: while I'm reading nothing suspicious in his posts so far, I can't help noticing how nobody's bringing Dharma up for the same "policy", considering how much he rekt the civs in Omerta.
So if it boils down to the originators of the whole banter, meaning Golden and G-Man, I think they both had a shaky start. Golden did basically start the whole thing, effectively signaling a meta from the sign-up phases that revenge lynching might be in store for him (including not just G-Man, but also MM and myself as players who might desire that


Then again, G-Man does indeed look worse in this equation, especially with how he decided at first to go ahead and call his "policy lynching" on Golden intentional and, as I've said, only after a full day to strongly claim it was just as jesting as everything else that's been said on the matter, by everyone else. Plus, in my catch up, other posts of his have also intrigued me, mostly notably this one, where he answers MP that he is not considering a policy lynch on Golden, yet Golden is his "contingency vote" if nothing else arises - which doesn't it sound a bit the same? To be fair, though, I'm reading his later explanations slightly better. There's also his answer to MM's question. If he accidentally claimed Watchmen, it's so interpretable, because the Watchmen go different ways and a lynch would probably have different repercussions for each one as well. Anyone has a take on this? I'm seeing only one instance of a "not posing a threat to civies", from the Watchmen that don't have secrets.
Oh christ I started this post an hour ago.