Quick Fix Game 39: Corruption in the Senate 2: Allomantic Boogaloo

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

Joe(4): Striker, Bard, Lumgol
Gaea(2): Fifth, Drake
Wilson(2): Araris, Ark

Well if we wanted a three way tie between the constables, we have it. I'm not too sure this is actually a good idea, as any elim with three boxings to spare can take steps to protect the corrupt constable. Joe is currently in the lead by one vote, but any two of the three could be lynched with a single bribe. Joe is in the lead, but Lumgol might end up switching her vote.

5 hours ago, Alvron said:

If we lose the Black Market then any items that would normally go there would instead be removed from the game.  Not just my precious Daggers but Whiskey, Ledgers and Warrants.  We would basically be removing every role in the game.  Hoarding of items will occur and the game will grind to a halt with the only kills being that of the lynch.  To me, that's extremely boring.

Whiskey and ledgers might turn out fine if Gaea dies, as both items can be ditched if their owner is about to be lynched. Daggers and search warrants might not turn out so well, but they're still difficult to lose accidentally. Since the elims can win without dagger kills, it's less intrinsically useful to lynch Gaea and purposefully shut down the dagger trade. It's probably still useful to limit the number of daggers flying around.

If the choice of corrupt constable wasn't random, we're intended to: create a possibility for a neutral who will attempt to unbalance the game by favouring the winning faction, sabotage one of the game's most important mechanics, or severely limit PMs. It might be useful to have a survivor around if we arrest several elims without taking significant losses, but it will be difficult to determine whether that's the case if we don't lynch the corrupt constable. The village is undoubtedly collectively richer than the elims, but the elims are better able to concentrate wealth by bribing each other. Luckily, the recipients of such bribes will be noticeable, and its likely that if everyone with at least three boxings went for an item, the majority of items would end up in village hands. That's probably true in general, as anyone purchasing an item won't be getting those boxings back. I don't see any way to recover boxings from the constables, although I'm not sure I'm reading the rules correctly here(do we get the constable's boxings if we lynch them?), so killing Wilson effectively kills PMs.

The second assumption that seems to be made is that the corrupt constable was not only picked deliberately, but was specifically chosen to have the most damaging effect on the village. There's no particular reason to believe this is true, but it's a possibility. None of the constables have a catastrophic effect if lynched, but Joe's death provides the most helpful result. I would say the market is more helpful to the village simply because most of the other boxing abilities are even more favourable to the elims, and the elims will be less willing to sacrifice boxings to a pool rather than to another player as compared to a villager. We have two ledgers and a third for purchase that can be used as a rough alignment scan, with everyone being scanned as non-corrupt being confirmed good to the player with the ledger. Anyone confirmed this way would be hampered by having PMs go down.  In all, I don't have any clear reason to say whether mislynching Gaea or Wilson would be worse. I personally would favour having the market open rather than PMs as I feel the item passing mechanic is more interesting than being able to create PMs. If the corrupt constable was randomly selected, or if the GMs wanted to preserve the most unique mechanic, I would prefer to lynch Joe and Wilson. If the GMs wanted to make us suffer for lynching the corrupt constable, the targets are Wilson and Gaea. Let's see what happens in the next two and three quarters hours if I vote for Wilson.

4 minutes ago, Lumgol said:

Lynching Gaea today would be a waste of her ability, since there's no one in jail right now. Although not being able to buy items would not be fun, I think it's a better alternative than losing PM's. Besides, the elims would better be able to pool their resources and coordinate which items for everyone to use. So, as much as I don't like the idea of not being able to buy items, I think that it'll probably be of more benefit to the village. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would love to hear their explanations

Lynching Joe allows the Governor to release someone from jail, while lynching Gaea shuts down the market. You appear to have it backwards. Additionally, if Joe dies a Governor can release a prisoner at any time; it doesn't have to be right away.

[StrikerEZ he/him]

So, for the Constables, right now we have a vote tally of this:

Joe(4): Striker, Bard, Lumgol, Elandera
Gaea(2): Fifth, Drake
Wilson(3): Araris, Ark, Devotary

Personally, I think PMs are far more important than the black market. But we don’t have to risk losing either of those right now if we just lynch Joe. We have a 33% chance of getting the corrupt constable. Worst case scenario, we get rid of the black market tomorrow if Joe turns out to be clean. 

[Araris Valerian he/him]

6 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Personally, I think PMs are far more important than the black market.

What about PMs makes you think they are important?

[Haelbarde he/him]

I feel like I'd honestly rather not vote on any of the constables. We can live with 10-15% uncertainty in results for a little while. Rereading the writeup, because I'm sure that Joe left clues in the writeup, Wilson could well be the culprit, given that Altea survived a sip. I feel like Joe'd also do so to mess with Wilson. But as Wilson's PR Agent, I am not willing to actually put a vote on her in this game.

With only a few hours left, I want to poke the inactives:  @Bugsy,  @Arraenae, @Rathmaskal 
 
Rathmaskal - you've been on since cycle started? Any thoughts at all?

[StrikerEZ he/him]

30 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

What about PMs makes you think they are important?

The elims have the ability to coordinate their actions without the village knowing. The only way the village can do that is via PMs. They could coordinate via the thread, but then the elims see everything they’re planning. Plus, role claims (or I guess item claims in this game) are far safer in PMs than in thread. 

[Kidpen he/him]

Alright. After reading through the thread I think lynching a Constable is probably a good plan (and it looks like it's happening no matter what I think) so I'm most likely going to vote for one of them. I'm not totally sure which one is the right move though. It seems like Joe would definitely be a good choice, considering that his lynch ability is almost no risk, unless I've misunderstood something. I'm unsure why the governor would release someone from jail in general, regardless of alignment, and even if they did, it doesn't seem like it would be that much of an issue. But then again, I'm not honestly not particularly attached to PMs or the market either, although PMs are probably a good asset for the village, even if not for me personally. So basically lemme think about it a bit more and then I will vote (unless I decide ties are the best and it's already a tie or whatever).

Electing a governor this turn is a hard no for me.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Kidpen
I accidentally wrote do when I meant think

[Arrae]

Annie slumped into a messy desk, exhausted from the day. Onde hadn't given her any warning that he was going on vacation, and he'd had her running all around Elendel sending last-minute correspondence. By the time she had delivered the last of the letters, the sun had already fallen. And she still had to organize the Senator's desk. She groaned.

Still, the Senator expected her to do her job. Annie picked up the haphazardly strewn papers around her. A bill on the proper size of water pipes in government buildings went into one pile, an invitation to a dinner party to another. Annie sorted all of it from most to least urgent, and took note of which ones required Onde's input. The notice of the special election to find a new governor went on top of the business pile. Annie would have to write to Onde to get his vote on that.

But there was one thing that couldn't be forwarded to Onde, wherever he was going. That was the discussion on how to find Governor Shreeves's murderer, and it was labeled as top secret. It demanded a response within the next three days, and was labeled at such a high security clearance that it couldn't just be sent through the mail. Annie chewed on her lip worriedly. Maybe if she rented a horse...but no, Annie had no idea how to ride a horse. She didn't have an address, either, just the name of a province. And Onde might not have even gotten the news yet; Annie herself had only heard rumors of the murder circulating after midday.

Fine, then. Annie picked up a pen, and began to write a response.

Quote

To the Senate of Elendel:

As the aide to Senator Onde, it is my opinion that Constable-General Yosef Busshu be brought in for questioning, as he was there at the time of the murder.

Annabelle Botaneaux

Edit: Sorry for being late, I had a DnD session and didn't realize the game was up yet. I'll try to be more on time in the future.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Arraenae

[Furamirionind]

It's been a while since I read the rules. Finally reread the constable ones. Will reread the rest tomorrow.

Joe is the safest Lynch. It doesn't have any directly negative influence. It can just become negative if later we aren't careful. But even then, that's only true if...

Joe isn't evil. I'm fairly certain. If he is, then lynching him has no negative affect on us. We will know the alignment of any player we lynch, and therefore, there will be no risk of using the effect to bring back a village lynched player to keep voting. If an evil person becomes gov, then they have to bring back a village player, or they will be outed as an elim. Strategically just seems far too powerful. While it's possible Joe did this, there are direct negative effects to the other two. I think this is a trap to get us to lynch Joe, and then pick one of the other 2 to lynch. Only giving us a 50% chance on getting the corrupted constable.

I don't want to lose PMs though, as I have been too busy today to use them at all. So...

xxGaea

[Kidpen he/him]

Welp I've gotta get to bed now to try and get more than 5 hours of sleep, so I suppose it makes the most sense to vote for Contable-General Joe.

2 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

It's been a while since I read the rules. Finally reread the constable ones. Will reread the rest tomorrow.

Joe is the safest Lynch. It doesn't have any directly negative influence. It can just become negative if later we aren't careful. But even then, that's only true if...

Joe isn't evil. I'm fairly certain. If he is, then lynching him has no negative affect on us. We will know the alignment of any player we lynch, and therefore, there will be no risk of using the effect to bring back a village lynched player to keep voting. If an evil person becomes gov, then they have to bring back a village player, or they will be outed as an elim. Strategically just seems far too powerful. While it's possible Joe did this, there are direct negative effects to the other two. I think this is a trap to get us to lynch Joe, and then pick one of the other 2 to lynch. Only giving us a 50% chance on getting the corrupted constable.

I don't want to lose PMs though, as I have been too busy today to use them at all. So...

xxGaea

This logic is very confusing to me. My understanding is that any player that's brought back loses their original win condition and just becomes the neutral Survivor. Imo that's mostly a neutral affect, but it could be negative depending on how it goes.

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

1 hour ago, Elbereth said:

Knowing Burnt, I’m nearly certain this isn’t alignment indicative. It is very on brand for her not to want governorship as a villagers. 

Fura. The eliminators almost definitely would not claim, and if they had any search warrants they could steal and use as many daggers as they had warrants for with impunity. Let’s definitely not. 

Knowing Burnt (sort of), I would agree with you. Seems pretty in line with the last game I played with village!Burnt.

Knowing Fura (sort of), I would disagree with you. Village!Fura tried something very similar in MR35, trying to get people to claim their attack targets to suss out eliminators. Incidentally, I was the loudest voice in opposition to said accountability, mostly just because I wanted to run around firing destructors at people unchecked, but that is besides the point  I think this is pretty in character for village!Fura.

53 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

The second assumption that seems to be made is that the corrupt constable was not only picked deliberately, but was specifically chosen to have the most damaging effect on the village.

Yep, I would throw myself in that camp. I'm pretty much on the same page as Fifth here, where I reckon the most inconvenient target is probably the correct one. Doesn't it seem weird to anybody else that of the three constables, one of them makes for a far less appealing target the way things are set up? Joe is kind of the obvious choice given his history as a GM, and at least to me the consequences for lynching Wilson seem vastly lower than the consequences for lynching Gaea.

More to the point, I don't like the Joe lynch very much. I say this a lot, probably at least twice in every game I play these days, but this lynch is waay to easy for an eliminator constable. I am the only person defending Joe, and I'm only doing it pretty late in the cycle. As I am Joe's sole defender, the only particularly likely conclusions are that either Joe is innocent, or that both Joe and myself are evil. Unless I am evil, there is no evidence of an eliminator team trying to save corrupt!Joe. In short, if you want to lynch Joe, you might as well lynch me first, instead of wasting one of our very limited number of constable lynches. I'm serious, please go through me if you want to get to him. You can recover from my loss easier than from mislynching a constable.

I also have to disagree with the fact that 99% of the decisions being made for which constable to lynch are based on mitigating the consequences of a constable's dying. That isn't going to get us any closer to finding the evil constable. Sure there's a cost to lynching any constable, which we want to avoid, but the cost to lynching the wrong constable is a lot steeper. If we get it wrong, we have to lynch a second constable, doubling the penalties. Not to mention we would have wasted a lynch. Not to mention we only get 2 shots at this. Losing the black market is a setback but it doesn't really compare to the setback of lynching a constable and choosing incorrectly.

18 minutes ago, Haelbarde said:

I feel like I'd honestly rather not vote on any of the constables. We can live with 10-15% uncertainty in results for a little while. Rereading the writeup, because I'm sure that Joe left clues in the writeup, Wilson could well be the culprit, given that Altea survived a sip. I feel like Joe'd also do so to mess with Wilson. But as Wilson's PR Agent, I am not willing to actually put a vote on her in this game.

With only a few hours left, I want to poke the inactives:  @Bugsy,  @Arraenae, @Rathmaskal 
 
Rathmaskal - you've been on since cycle started? Any thoughts at all?

Why does poking inactives follow from there only being a few hours left? Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't that kind the worst possible time to poke inactives, since they almost certainly won't show up in time to respond to your poke?

Sorry if I'm being paranoid. This just feels like a really easy place to sink a vote.

[Furamirionind]

15 minutes ago, Kidpen said:

Welp I've gotta get to bed now to try and get more than 5 hours of sleep, so I suppose it makes the most sense to vote for Contable-General Joe.

This logic is very confusing to me. My understanding is that any player that's brought back loses their original win condition and just becomes the neutral Survivor. Imo that's mostly a neutral affect, but it could be negative depending on how it goes.

If the survivor is an elim, that's bad. If it's a villager, that's good.

If Joe is lynched, we can pick a survivor.

When the corrupted constable is lynched, we are guaranteed that the person picked to be the Survivor will be a villager.

Therefore, if Joe is evil, both will be triggered, meaning 2 things:

  1. It is super powerful for the village, as they are guaranteed  to undo a mislynch (unless an elim wants to out themselves.)

  2. We wont have triggered any negative effects on us.

Notice, 2 constables cause bad things on their death, one doesnt. And one unknown constable causes good things on their death. It would make more sense to stick that on one of the bad effect ones

Oh and 3. If we lynch Joe, and he is evil, we will never lynch another constable. Yet it is relevent for some reason we can only lynch 2 of them. Therefore, it would make more sense if there was a situation where we would want to lynch 3. Lynch Joe, then Wilson. Neither is evil. But we cant lynch Gaea now. Or lynch Wilson, then Gaea, but now we cant have the good effect on lynching Joe.  I think the latter example is what is supposed to happen.

Edit: @DrakeMarshmallow You are no longer alone in defending Joe. : P

Edit edit: I suspect Kidpen. I don't like how he responded to my "anti-Joe Lynch thing" with a vote on Joe, while saying he didn't understand my reasoning. Im tired, and likely not the most coherent. However, I would normally expect a villager to prod for details, as we were obviously on at the same time.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Furamirionind

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

5 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

If the survivor is an elim, that's bad. If it's a villager, that's good.

If Joe is lynched, we can pick a survivor.

When the corrupted constable is lynched, we are guaranteed that the person picked to be the Survivor will be a villager.

Therefore, if Joe is evil, both will be triggered, meaning 2 things:

  1. It is super powerful for the village, as they are guaranteed  to undo a mislynch (unless an elim wants to out themselves.)

  2. We wont have triggered any negative effects on us.

Notice, 2 constables cause bad things on their death, one doesnt. And one unknown constable causes good things on their death. It would make more sense to stick that on one of the bad effect ones

Oh and 3. If we lynch Joe, and he is evil, we will never lynch another constable. Yet it is relevent for some reason we can only lynch 2 of them. Therefore, it would make more sense if there was a situation where we would want to lynch 3. Lynch Joe, then Wilson. Neither is evil. But we cant lynch Gaea now. Or lynch Wilson, then Gaea, but now we cant have the good effect on lynching Joe.  I think the latter example is what is supposed to happen.

Edit: @DrakeMarshmallow You are no longer alone in defending Joe. : P

Dangit Fura, why you have to poke my argument full of more holes without even trying  At least have the decency to do it on purpose 

Can't really say I'm suspicious of your reasoning, though.

I will point out though that unless I misunderstood the survivor role, a formerly village survivor would be perfectly free to backstab the village and still meet their survival wincon. I imagine some people definitely not yours truly might entertain the notion of stooping to such vile acts of treachery.

[Elandera she/her]

7 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

If the survivor is an elim, that's bad. If it's a villager, that's good.

If Joe is lynched, we can pick a survivor.

When the corrupted constable is lynched, we are guaranteed that the person picked to be the Survivor will be a villager.

Therefore, if Joe is evil, both will be triggered, meaning 2 things:

  1. It is super powerful for the village, as they are guaranteed  to undo a mislynch (unless an elim wants to out themselves.)

  2. We wont have triggered any negative effects on us.

Notice, 2 constables cause bad things on their death, one doesnt. And one unknown constable causes good things on their death. It would make more sense to stick that on one of the bad effect ones

Oh and 3. If we lynch Joe, and he is evil, we will never lynch another constable. Yet it is relevent for some reason we can only lynch 2 of them. Therefore, it would make more sense if there was a situation where we would want to lynch 3. Lynch Joe, then Wilson. Neither is evil. But we cant lynch Gaea now. Or lynch Wilson, then Gaea, but now we cant have the good effect on lynching Joe.  I think the latter example is what is supposed to happen.

I take a few issues with your logic here. Joe is exactly the kind of GM to let RNG decide which constable is corrupt, and not pick based on potential outcomes. 

Also, we do not get to pick which person is selected as survivor. The governor does, and we cannot guarantee that person is village. Not without ledger scans and trust that whomever says the results is not lying. 

The rule that keeps us from lynching three, from how I originally understood it, was to make us actually think about which should be killed. We can't just cycle through them all and hit the corrupt one eventually. 

[Alvron he/him]

13 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

Losing the black market is a setback but it doesn't really compare to the setback of lynching a constable and choosing incorrectly.

Unless it's both.  We lose the Black Market and lynch the wrong Constable.  I freely and wholeheartedly admit I want the Black Market to remain.  I have plans for it as it's one of the few ways for me to get my hands on Daggers.  Seeing it be removed will greatly lessen my chances of getting all of them by the end of the game.  As an aside, if you do have a named Dagger at the end of the game, shoot me a PM and I'll discuss terms of buying it from you.  

Personally, Wilson would be the one I would vote for as I don't really use PMs.  

There is also something else to consider.  Those that vote for the successful lynch are the ones that benefit the most as any items/boxings that are up for grabs goes to them so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bunch of votes pile onto the leading candidate near the end of each cycle.  It's what happened last time iirc.

[Furamirionind]

1 minute ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

Dangit Fura, why you have to poke my argument full of more holes without even trying  At least have the decency to do it on purpose

Um, I have no idea what your argument is... And... No. I don't see how I'm poking holes in it xD

Just now, Elandera said:

I take a few issues with your logic here. Joe is exactly the kind of GM to let RNG decide which constable is corrupt, and not pick based on potential outcomes. 

Sure, but my main reasoning is I don't think it's balanced for Joe to be evil. It's possible that the 1/3 chance made him feel like it was balanced enough. And that might be fair. idk how randomness would play a factor in it. However, I think Joe is the obvious first lynch, and if Joe is lynched first, and is evil, that unbalances the game in the villages favor.

Just now, Elandera said:

Also, we do not get to pick which person is selected as survivor. The governor does, and we cannot guarantee that person is village. Not without ledger scans and trust that whomever says the results is not lying. 

Not completely true. We pick the governor iirc. In a hypothetical world where Joe is evil, we will know the alignments (100%) of every player. Therefore, we can guarantee that we will pick a village player. 
If the gov is village, they will pick a villager (because it's in their best interests)
If the gov is evil, they will pick a villager (because otherwise they will be outed as an elim, and we will instantly kill both players)

7 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

I will point out though that unless I misunderstood the survivor role, a formerly village survivor would be perfectly free to backstab the village and still meet their survival wincon. I imagine some people definitely not yours truly might entertain the notion of stooping to such vile acts of treachery.

I can't see anywhere in the rules where it says the wincon of the survivor changes.
@A Joe in the Bush does the Survivor's wincon change?

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

16 minutes ago, Kidpen said:

This logic is very confusing to me. My understanding is that any player that's brought back loses their original win condition and just becomes the neutral Survivor. Imo that's mostly a neutral affect, but it could be negative depending on how it goes.

A survivor will help whichever team is winning at the time, in the interests of finishing the game as quickly as possible. If we do a good job of getting rid of elims, a survivor is essentially a villager. If we have a difficult time finding the elims, the survivor will try to finish off the remaining villagers. I'd say this slightly favours the village, as a formerly village survivor wouldn't know who the elims are and thus wouldn't be able to coordinate with them even if they intended to hurt the village. I doubt a survivor would be made from an elim, as then we get in a situation where the survivor could theoretically just out the entire elim team. A formerly evil survivor might just end up voting purely at random so as not to abuse their information. Any sort of survivor will be eager to kill people, and will feel no shame for ordering everyone killed if they get to 50 boxings.

@Furamirionind, the survivor's win condition is to survive to the end without being arrested.

Joe(6): Striker, Bard, Lum, Elandera, Rae, Kidpen
Gaea(4): Fifth, Drake, Fura, Devotary
Wilson(2): Araris, Ark

10 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

Yep, I would throw myself in that camp. I'm pretty much on the same page as Fifth here, where I reckon the most inconvenient target is probably the correct one. Doesn't it seem weird to anybody else that of the three constables, one of them makes for a far less appealing target the way things are set up? Joe is kind of the obvious choice given his history as a GM, and at least to me the consequences for lynching Wilson seem vastly lower than the consequences for lynching Gaea.

More to the point, I don't like the Joe lynch very much. I say this a lot, probably at least twice in every game I play these days, but this lynch is waay to easy for an eliminator constable. I am the only person defending Joe, and I'm only doing it pretty late in the cycle. As I am Joe's sole defender, the only particularly likely conclusions are that either Joe is innocent, or that both Joe and myself are evil. Unless I am evil, there is no evidence of an eliminator team trying to save corrupt!Joe. In short, if you want to lynch Joe, you might as well lynch me first, instead of wasting one of our very limited number of constable lynches. I'm serious, please go through me if you want to get to him. You can recover from my loss easier than from mislynching a constable.

I also have to disagree with the fact that 99% of the decisions being made for which constable to lynch are based on mitigating the consequences of a constable's dying. That isn't going to get us any closer to finding the evil constable. Sure there's a cost to lynching any constable, which we want to avoid, but the cost to lynching the wrong constable is a lot steeper. If we get it wrong, we have to lynch a second constable, doubling the penalties. Not to mention we would have wasted a lynch. Not to mention we only get 2 shots at this. Losing the black market is a setback but it doesn't really compare to the setback of lynching a constable and choosing incorrectly.

The surge of votes on Joe don't seem like something the elims would leave alone if Joe was evil, true. Ignoring culpability, I would rather shut down PMs than the market, though it seems others have differing opinions on this matter. I would be willing to lynch either Gaea or Wilson this cycle. Since the votes are tied between the latter, it would seem my best chance of making either of those lynches happen is if I switch my vote from Wilson to Gaea. 

[A Joe in the Bush]

1 minute ago, Furamirionind said:

I can't see anywhere in the rules where it says the wincon of the survivor changes.
@A Joe in the Bush does the Survivor's wincon change?

Quote

The Senate must arrest or kill all the Corrupt senators. The Corrupt Senators must outnumber the Living, Unarrested Senators. The Survivor must Survive and be Unarrested to the end of the game.

The survivor's win con changes.

8 minutes left!

[Alvron he/him]

1 minute ago, Furamirionind said:

Not completely true. We pick the governor iirc. In a hypothetical world where Joe is evil, we will know the alignments (100%) of every player. Therefore, we can guarantee that we will pick a village player. 
If the gov is village, they will pick a villager (because it's in their best interests)
If the gov is evil, they will pick a villager (because otherwise they will be outed as an elim, and we will instantly kill both players)

Unless the Gov is a Troll or someone that likes chaos.  I personally would have no problem freeing an elim just for kicks.  Plus we might be able to get them to reveal their former teammates since they will no longer share a win con.

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

3 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Um, I have no idea what your argument is... And... No. I don't see how I'm poking holes in it xD

I was referring to the bit about nobody defending Joe

[Furamirionind]

Just now, Alvron said:

Unless the Gov is a Troll or someone that likes chaos.  I personally would have no problem freeing an elim just for kicks.  Plus we might be able to get them to reveal their former teammates since they will no longer share a win con.

... If I was evil, lynched, and brought back, I'd probably side with the elims regardless of anything else that happens. It would be unethical to reveal your former teammates like that.

Edit: I highly encourage people to switch off of joe. 7 minutes left!

Edited August 5, 2019 by Furamirionind

[Alvron he/him]

Just now, Furamirionind said:

... If I was evil, lynched, and brought back, I'd probably side with the elims regardless of anything else that happens. It would be unethical to reveal your former teammates like that.

As would I but others might not feel the same.  If they want to turn on their former teammates, that's up to them but I personally wouldn't advise it.

Also Joe.  If it's you or Gaea then I would rather you be lynched.

[Furamirionind]

Just now, Alvron said:

Also Joe.  If it's you or Gaea then I would rather you be lynched.

why?

[Elandera she/her]

5 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Not completely true. We pick the governor iirc. In a hypothetical world where Joe is evil, we will know the alignments (100%) of every player. Therefore, we can guarantee that we will pick a village player. 
If the gov is village, they will pick a villager (because it's in their best interests)
If the gov is evil, they will pick a villager (because otherwise they will be outed as an elim, and we will instantly kill both players)

If we learned the alignment of all the players if the corrupt constable dies, lynching them would be an automatic win for village. The only thing it does is guarantee the lynched/killed player's alignments are accurate. Which doesn't help in electing a Governor, as we can't elect from jail. I don't think...?

[Alvron he/him]

1 minute ago, Furamirionind said:

why?

As I said, I need the Market so I can get more Daggers.

[Young Bard he/him]

Blegh... I'm paranoid now, but it's either chance (in which case it could be anyone), it's whatever's painful for the village (in which case it's definitely isn't Joe), or it's based on what Joe finds funny (in which case I think it's most likely to be Joe). So who knows, but I'll keep my vote where it is.