A Hypothetical Involving Three

[Infected Mushroom]

From the polls it seems that close to 50 percent of NSG wants to marry the Mafia Queen, date Felicie, and kill Annie

This is shocking because it reveals a bit of a contradiction

While most seem to find genocide a non negotiable Turn Off, it seems that the Mafia Queen (who also murders) is preferable to a mean and playful snobbish Canadian girl. At least more marriageable.

Why is this?

Perhaps elegance combined with a calculated degree of murders (but not genocidal level) has stronger appeal... so the objections to murders is not absolute

Was definitely expecting a lot more Marry Felicie (not a killer) votes

She comes across as too despicable?

[Page]

She comes across as too despicable?

Well, you created her and made her that unlikable in the first place. When I read that one, I wondered if it was a thing that happened to you.

[The Two Jerseys]

Point of this thread isn’t: “how can I try to get 2 and 3 of the girls or kill all of them”

This isn’t some exercise in rule lawyering

That's where your wrong. That may not have been the point you intended, but if you haven't noticed, most people want nothing to do with any of these women. When you give a hypothetical where we have to end up associated with at 2 of them, people are going to think of ways out. It's natural.

Something something changing the rules halfway through the thought exercise completely invalidates it something something complete.

[Forsher]

That's where your wrong. That may not have been the point you intended, but if you haven't noticed, most people want nothing to do with any of these women. When you give a hypothetical where we have to end up associated with at 2 of them, people are going to think of ways out. It's natural.

Something something changing the rules halfway through the thought exercise completely invalidates it something something complete.

Anyone who honestly thinks they're being true to the spirit of the exercise by trying to have their cake and eat it, understands none of the following:

• people (specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)
• this kind of game, which is literally built around having to make specific choices
• hypotheticals in general

One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).

Actually while we're at it... would you rather:

• not be able to understand people
• be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
• have the inability to understand hypotheticals
• be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in

?

Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.

[Aggicificicerous]

One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).

Believe it or not, we don't all like the same things as you. I enjoy examining a scenario to see how I create the best possible outcome.

Actually while we're at it... would you rather:

• not be able to understand people
• be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
• have the inability to understand hypotheticals
• be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in

?
Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.

Well, since we've developed into snark, I'll choose the fifth option: sneer at how unnecessarily rude and uptight you are.

[Infected Mushroom]

She comes across as too despicable?

Well, you created her and made her that unlikable in the first place. When I read that one, I wondered if it was a thing that happened to you.

The exact scenario has never happened to me

But the characters in that specific scenario are based on aspects of myself and other people I have met in real life

It’s still shocking to me though that there is this much dislike of Felicie... I mean I dare say a lot of people (perhaps even the majority), if they choose to play the marriage game irl will end up (consciously or accidentally) with a person of her type

[Infected Mushroom]

Something something changing the rules halfway through the thought exercise completely invalidates it something something complete.

Anyone who honestly thinks they're being true to the spirit of the exercise by trying to have their cake and eat it, understands none of the following:

• people (specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)
• this kind of game, which is literally built around having to make specific choices
• hypotheticals in general

One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).

Actually while we're at it... would you rather:

• not be able to understand people
• be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
• have the inability to understand hypotheticals
• be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in

?

Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.

This makes a lot of sense

I like this

[Forsher]

One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).

Believe it or not, we don't all like the same things as you. I enjoy examining a scenario to see how I create the best possible outcome.

I refer you to:

(specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)

This, of course, does not alter the fundamental reality of the situation... you are cheating. You have chosen to participate in an exercise where the sole point is that "creating the best possible outcome" is defined within very obvious parameters and you are moving beyond those boundaries. You are either not acting in your own interest or you've missed something very fundamental. Maybe it's the spirit of the game's details. Maybe it's the nature of the game. Regardless, you're trying to play rounders when IM asked you to play baseball.

Actually while we're at it... would you rather:

• not be able to understand people
• be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
• have the inability to understand hypotheticals
• be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in

?
Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.

Well, since we've developed into snark, I'll choose the fifth option: sneer at how unnecessarily rude and uptight you are.

Uptight? Hah! One of us is making snide remarks at their own expense whilst the other of us is responding to posts talking in general terms with self-defensive bluster.

If I was being uptight I'd accuse you of trying to bully IM. NSG has a problem with bullying, has for a long time, and IM's one of its favourite victims.

If I was being un-necessarily rude, I'd point out that anyone who missed the two very obvious digs I threw at myself has probably missed other important elements of textual communications in the recent past.

If I was being snarky, I'd wonder why the high and mighty, although whom this refers to would be left unsaid, of course, wouldn't notice the clear error, i.e. that people could always just have failed to read the thread and thus have missed the spirit of the game entirely.

It's almost as if what I find funny, amusing and playfully mocking the world in general, certain other people don't. Believe it or not, we don't all like the same things. But since I obviously haven't done any of these things, look, I specifically point out that I am not saying these things, it mustn't be as if people are reading at cross purposes.

[Aggicificicerous]

(specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)

This, of course, does not alter the fundamental reality of the situation... you are cheating. You have chosen to participate in an exercise where the sole point is that "creating the best possible outcome" is defined within very obvious parameters and you are moving beyond those boundaries. You are either not acting in your own interest or you've missed something very fundamental. Maybe it's the spirit of the game's details. Maybe it's the nature of the game. Regardless, you're trying to play rounders when IM asked you to play baseball.

No, the point is that I am acting in my own interest. And I don't like baseball.

Uptight? Hah! One of us is making snide remarks at their own expense whilst the other of us is responding to posts talking in general terms with self-defensive bluster.

If I was being uptight I'd accuse you of trying to bully IM. NSG has a problem with bullying, has for a long time, and IM's one of its favourite victims.

I was mistaken when I called you rude. I should have said long-winded and rude. You love your diatribes, and your metaphors, and so on, but it always seems to serve one purpose: you've already looked at the evidence, come to an unlikely conclusion, and now you're going to go to any length to justify it. I'm not interested in playing. You think an answer that doesn't play by the spirit of the rules (note that I didn't break the rules themselves) is bullying. I'd say that's an interesting conclusion to make, but I'm not going to hijack a thread to discuss it.

[Heloin]

Well, you created her and made her that unlikable in the first place. When I read that one, I wondered if it was a thing that happened to you.

The exact scenario has never happened to me

What, you haven't gone of a revenge quest after you families been murdered?

But the characters in that specific scenario are based on aspects of myself and other people I have met in real life

It’s still shocking to me though that there is this much dislike of Felicie... I mean I dare say a lot of people (perhaps even the majority), if they choose to play the marriage game irl will end up (consciously or accidentally) with a person of her type

Sounds more like you may be hanging around some shit people.

[Forsher]

No, the point is that I am acting in my own interest. And I don't like baseball.

When people write words, they try, usually, to communicate. This generally requires coherence. Your liking baseball has absolutely nothing to do with the point. IM could have asked you to play Solitaire, Fortnite, that random game that #GamerGate was "about". It doesn't matter what's chosen there because the point is that you want to do something entirely different. "I don't like baseball" is a non-sequitur. If you're trying to make a joke... unfortunately the relevance of your remarks to the subject at hand has been so unclear throughout the entirety of this exchange that it's unreasonable to believe this.

That you are able to articulate a reason why you'd be cheating doesn't alter the reality that you are cheating. Do you understand this?

I have had to edit this part of the post due to a quote tag kerfuffle. I have taken the opportunity to place in colour two bits.

I was mistaken when I called you rude. I should have said long-winded and rude. You love your diatribes, and your metaphors, and so on, but it always seems to serve one purpose: you've already looked at the evidence, come to an unlikely conclusion, and now you're going to go to any length to justify it. I'm not interested in playing. You think an answer that doesn't play by the spirit of the rules (note that I didn't break the rules themselves) is bullying. I'd say that's an interesting conclusion to make, but I'm not going to hijack a thread to discuss it.

On the point in blue:

What unlikely conclusion? That you were actively trying to wheedle your way out of the very, very obvious intentions of the exercise? This is an unlikely conclusion? If so, you are doomed by your own hand:

That's where you're wrong. That may not have been the point you intended, but if you haven't noticed, most people want nothing to do with any of these women. When you give a hypothetical where we have to end up associated with at 2 of them, people are going to think of ways out. It's natural.

Well, now, you might claim you're saying other people are trying to wheedle their ways out of it but we can read this in context and we find immediately you are describing your own behaviour.

Now, if you mean to say "bullying" is the unlikely conclusion... you will note that I did not make this argument. I said I could have made it, if I was being uptight. In the meantime, look up Slembana.

Which brings us to the remaining (?!) possibility... perhaps you mean the unlikely conclusion is that the "spirit of the game" doesn't preclude your flavour of wheedling. Well, if that's the case, I refer you again to the very nature of this genre. I refer you to the many people whose first reactions were to name this genre of game (although, possibly, the thread was edited and it used to go by the canonical name). But, really, all you need to know about this game to understand that wheedling is problematic is in its premise: marry one, kill another and have a one-night fling with a third. IM's attempts to make sure people don't do what they tried in, say, the death penalty thread* create the source of the wheedling but they're obviously framed in an attempt to avoid them.

On the point in red... that's not really how it works. There are no rules but the spirit of the rules. Otherwise is to presume the capacity of Man to isolate and control every single avenue. You want to hold IM's thread to an unfair standard? And for what? To validate your own behaviour? There's nothing wrong with suggesting improvements. For example, maybe you think it's dumb that in the game of President the Rules that most people play by let players choose whether or not the fourth card in a consecutive run be consecutive. That's fair if the purpose of President is a moral lesson about the unfairness of life... if the spirit of the "exercise" is that teaching. But what if the purpose of President is to be a card game with an unfairness mechanism? Well, then, shifting the strategic choice to the start, before the third card is placed (not after), creates a fairer and more balanced game. Totally different suggestion.

How is this game improved by your wheedling? By anyone's wheedling? Notice how Soldati did it. Tries to contrive a way out of the situation and then mocks the ridiculousness of his plan by... mocking the game's absurdity. I don't (quite plainly) don't agree with the idea but I applaud the spirit... it frames the purpose of this game as an exercise in amusement. We know to what end the wheedling is designed. Your original refusal to play by the rules... much the same. You just ignored them in order to amuse yourself. Okay. Not the point, but we know what it's about. But the abstract case for ignoring the point of the game and finding ways around it? That's about what? What do you want from it? To find the best possible yadda yadda? Well, no, because you're moving deliberately outside of the possible situations. You're creating a different game when the choosing is removed. It's a game about contrived choices. That''s all there is to it. Now that I think about it, this is probably a F7 thread.

Also, by the way, looking at the evidence and formulating an opinion is how it is meant to work. Not really sure what your alternative is. Everyone coming to the same conclusions that you have?

*For instance, IM's being forced to point out here that his absurd scenario isn't about a question of law, a construct that only exists in the non-absurd (differently absurd?) reality that we inhabit. I refuse to believe people are so unworldly so as to have only ever encountered scenarios that are purposely designed to strip out "beside the point" practical considerations so as to order to engage only with the abstract questions that remain in IM's threads. Consider a classic example. No-one actually believes parliament will vote to kill all blue eyed babies so why is that one of the most famous example's in the world? Because its sheer extremity highlights the abstract issue (parliamentary sovereignty/supremacy). Anyone who looks at that and starts to talk about, "Well, no-one's ever going to do this in real life" has completely failed to understand very basic English.

[Aggicificicerous]

When people write words, they try, usually, to communicate. This generally requires coherence.

Funny you should talk about coherence, so I'll say it again: I'm acting in my own interest. I believe your exact quote was "You are either not acting in your own interest or you've missed something very fundamental." I've missed nothing fundamental. Following the spirit of the game would be acting against my own interest.

"I don't like baseball" is a non-sequitur. If you're trying to make a joke... unfortunately the relevance of your remarks to the subject at hand has been so unclear throughout the entirety of this exchange that it's unreasonable to believe this.

That you are able to articulate a reason why you'd be cheating doesn't alter the reality that you are cheating. Do you understand this?

Thank goodness you can spot humour. Apparently you don't understand what cheating is though.

Well, now, you might claim you're saying other people are trying to wheedle their ways out of it but we can read this in context and we find immediately you are describing your own behaviour.

Of course I'm describing my own behaviour. Reading your posts is like watching The Pink Panther.

Now, if you mean to say "bullying" is the unlikely conclusion... you will note that I did not make this argument. I said I could have made it, if I was being uptight. In the meantime, look up Slembana.

My bad. You didn't accuse me of bullying. You only implied it.

Which brings us to the remaining (?!) possibility... perhaps you mean the unlikely conclusion is that the "spirit of the game" doesn't preclude your flavour of wheedling.

"Wheedling" is a possibility in any hypothetical.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You know, you made my choice easier too by saying "any lifestyle I wish within reason".

Marry the mafia chick, and have her finance an open relationship marriage and let me be with as many girls as I want to as well as let her be with as many people he wants to. Persuade her to accept this and bam! I can then go bang Ol' Queenie and Delacroix. No need for any of them to die.

Now, as to why would I try to do this? Because why not? I mean, if it was up to me I'd walk away from all three thirsty bitches, but since that is not an option, well....

This would breach the “(within reason)” disclaimer to the finance part

The Mafia Queen is highly vindictive and would definitely take a request or action towards an open relationship as a major slight. You’d embarrass her because word would spread that the young Queen isn’t good enough to hold on to a dude and it would look bad on her; her underlings might snicker

Remember when she decided that a whole family (not just the offender) had to die over the death of her sister? This is who you’re dealing with.

Yes, a bitch who goes out of script of "within reason" is who I am dealing with.

What makes you think she has "conservative, good morals" when she herself is a crime lord and essentially killed an entire family over the death of her sister?

Please goby. I might be suspending disbelief for your hypothetical, but I am not brain-dead.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Bed all three of the wenches.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Something something changing the rules halfway through the thought exercise completely invalidates it something something complete.

Anyone who honestly thinks they're being true to the spirit of the exercise by trying to have their cake and eat it, understands none of the following:

• people (specifically the inability of one person to completely close off all ideas that other people have)
• this kind of game, which is literally built around having to make specific choices
• hypotheticals in general

One can wheedle and whine and plead and whatever but the point remains: by trying to not stay permanently married to one woman exclusively, permanently kill another and have a brief fling with a third woman out of a defined set of three women. You can't, to make a movie reference, cut the wire... you've got to lie on top of it or you're not playing the game (and since this is a voluntary thread, if you're not playing the game or complaining about how people are trying to cheat at it, why are you here at all?).

Actually while we're at it... would you rather:

• not be able to understand people
• be incapable of perceiving that there is a genre of "unsavoury choice" games where the whole point is being forced to make a choice whilst regularly frequenting a forum hosted by a game that uses this precise mechanic
• have the inability to understand hypotheticals
• be in the habit of willingly volunteering your own participation in activities you know that you won't like that literally no-one other than yourself can tell you participated in

?

Aw, crap, I hate all these options. You know what I'll do? I'll decline to answer this question... and you'll never even know I read it.

The problem with this is that you assume too much of the rules.

The rules in this hypothetical can be bent, because it is a hypothetical, and it is a debate forum. If I just state an answer we wouldn't be having the discussion we have right now. In other words, as it pertains to the context in which this hypothetical is made I don't have to give an answer you like for the consistency of the hypothetical. All I have to do is give an answer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

OP doesn't state what she finds "reasonable". Open relationships are still in.

It doesn’t have to state it explicitly, the words are already there for me to give official interpretation

It’s common sense that it’s a breach of a duty of loyalty and that it wouldn’t be perceived as reasonable

And if you want, I can edit it in

Point of this thread isn’t: “how can I try to get 2 and 3 of the girls or kill all of them”

This isn’t some exercise in rule lawyering

It's not a breach of loyalty if she consents to it. Like I said, if I managed to convince her then I could keep all three.

It's not common sense that she will or will not accept to be in an open relationship, so long as you can convince her that open relationships are a boon both for her and the person offering it.

Also, it is an exercise in rules lawyering, you yourself keep commenting on the choices other people make as if we have to give justification for our choices, so let's stop pretending this isn't what it is.

[Caracasus]

Welp, I'm out of this one! Looks like the only winning move here is not to play.

I'd also say that the accepted rules of FMK is that you don't try to wriggle out of it - or find loopholes in the basic premise of the game. Other loopholes though...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

From the polls it seems that close to 50 percent of NSG wants to marry the Mafia Queen, date Felicie, and kill Annie

This is shocking because it reveals a bit of a contradiction

While most seem to find genocide a non negotiable Turn Off, it seems that the Mafia Queen (who also murders) is preferable to a mean and playful snobbish Canadian girl. At least more marriageable.

Why is this?

Perhaps elegance combined with a calculated degree of murders (but not genocidal level) has stronger appeal... so the objections to murders is not absolute

Was definitely expecting a lot more Marry Felicie (not a killer) votes

She comes across as too despicable?

Dude, you made all of them despicable, but most of us are also not going to kill any of them just because.

I mean, I just like to bang period, so I am going to bend the hypothetical accordingly. After all, it is a hypothetical. Like I told Forsher above, I don't have the obligation to give an answer you like, all I have to do is give an answer.

[Forsher]

As you might be able to tell from the odd quoting, I have had to make several edits to my post due to, as my edit says, a kerfuffle. More text was added. This might change your opinions.

When people write words, they try, usually, to communicate. This generally requires coherence.

Funny you should talk about coherence, so I'll say it again: I'm acting in my own interest. I believe your exact quote was "You are either not acting in your own interest or you've missed something very fundamental." I've missed nothing fundamental. Following the spirit of the game would be acting against my own interest.

Playing the game is against your own interest.

Once you are in the game, your interests are conditionally defined. You are either to find the best scenario within the game's parameters or you are to ignore those parameters... and, in which case, you cannot (by definition) find the best scenario (since you arise at scenarios that do not exist).

"I don't like baseball" is a non-sequitur. If you're trying to make a joke... unfortunately the relevance of your remarks to the subject at hand has been so unclear throughout the entirety of this exchange that it's unreasonable to believe this.

That you are able to articulate a reason why you'd be cheating doesn't alter the reality that you are cheating. Do you understand this?

Thank goodness you can spot humour. Apparently you don't understand what cheating is though.

Your complete inability to spot humour is a large part of the reason we're still talking.

Have fun defining cheating so that you're not.

Well, now, you might claim you're saying other people are trying to wheedle their ways out of it but we can read this in context and we find immediately you are describing your own behaviour.

Of course I'm describing my own behaviour. Reading your posts is like watching The Pink Panther.

How so?

And, obviously, I think you're describing your own behaviour. I'm just, much like IM, trying to close off avenues that disingenuous rogues might choose to pursue.

Now, if you mean to say "bullying" is the unlikely conclusion... you will note that I did not make this argument. I said I could have made it, if I was being uptight. In the meantime, look up Slembana.

My bad. You didn't accuse me of bullying. You only implied it.

Technically, I said that I could be of a mind to accuse NSG as a whole of being bullies towards IM. I've done it before. Possibly on several occasions. And do you know why I do? Because that's what the evidence bears.

To imply that you, personally, are bullying IM wasn't my intent. My intention was twofold:

• to allude to my longstanding criticism of NSG's open tolerance for bullying campaigns waged against forumites
• to emphasise how badly you'd have to ignore the words on the page to think I was uptight in that first post

I'm not really comfortable, having seen how few posts you have, on the whole, in this thread... and how few of those mention or allude to IM as an entity... with implying that you yourself are among those bullies.

"Wheedling" is a possibility in any hypothetical.

By all means, explain.

My confusion is large because of how "wheedling" isn't the subject under discussion and, indeed, the irrelevance of this comment to the point. I mean, the only way in which it would be relevant is if it's saying, "I confess, I'm acting in contravention of the spirit of the game" which you appear to accept anyway. I also can't see how you might be trying to point out that my sentence doesn't really make sense. What I am trying to say is that "perhaps you think it an unlikely conclusion that the spirit of the game invalidates your flavour of wheedling". Maybe it's too late and I did already say that but I think I've said the opposite.

[The New California Republic]

Welp, I'm out of this one! Looks like the only winning move here is not to play.

Or just give an answer that is a farce, like I did.

[Forsher]

Welp, I'm out of this one! Looks like the only winning move here is not to play.

I'd also say that the accepted rules of FMK is that you don't try to wriggle out of it - or find loopholes in the basic premise of the game. Other loopholes though...

Such as?

It's entirely possible that everyone agrees on this part "you don't try to wriggle out of it - or find loopholes in the basic premise of the game" and it's just that I think what, e.g. Aggy, believes to be "other loopholes" to be not possible.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

By all means, explain.

My confusion is large because of how "wheedling" isn't the subject under discussion and, indeed, the irrelevance of this comment to the point. I mean, the only way in which it would be relevant is if it's saying, "I confess, I'm acting in contravention of the spirit of the game" which you appear to accept anyway. I also can't see how you might be trying to point out that my sentence doesn't really make sense. What I am trying to say is that "perhaps you think it an unlikely conclusion that the spirit of the game invalidates your flavour of wheedling". Maybe it's too late and I did already say that but I think I've said the opposite.

Wheedling is usually acceptable as long as you can exploit a loophole.

I've done it before in hypotheticals in this forum, and more explicitly so with my own money against Xerografica with his pragmatarianism bit.

What makes you think I am not going to do it again when a dumb hypothetical shows up? And what is there to stop me? "The rules", which most people who write these hypotheticals do not make as clear as possible until I try to subvert them?

[Infected Mushroom]

By all means, explain.

My confusion is large because of how "wheedling" isn't the subject under discussion and, indeed, the irrelevance of this comment to the point. I mean, the only way in which it would be relevant is if it's saying, "I confess, I'm acting in contravention of the spirit of the game" which you appear to accept anyway. I also can't see how you might be trying to point out that my sentence doesn't really make sense. What I am trying to say is that "perhaps you think it an unlikely conclusion that the spirit of the game invalidates your flavour of wheedling". Maybe it's too late and I did already say that but I think I've said the opposite.

Wheedling is usually acceptable as long as you can exploit a loophole.

I've done it before in hypotheticals in this forum, and more explicitly so with my own money against Xerografica with his pragmatarianism bit.

What makes you think I am not going to do it again when a dumb hypothetical shows up? And what is there to stop me? "The rules", which most people who write these hypotheticals do not make as clear as possible until I try to subvert them?

Just make sure you are following the rules and the spirit of the hypothetical (which may get clarified as we move along to maintain the spirit of the dilemma)

Though for very obvious reasons I had to clarify that open relationships and attempts to kill 2 or 3 brides are out

[Caracasus]

Well the really obvious answer is to marry Annie. It's been established previously that she'll either be dead or in a maximum security facility for the rest of her natural life. That way your decision would have the least impact on your life.

As for the other two? Flip a coin I guess.

[Infected Mushroom]

Well the really obvious answer is to marry Annie. It's been established previously that she'll either be dead or in a maximum security facility for the rest of her natural life. That way your decision would have the least impact on your life.

As for the other two? Flip a coin I guess.

In this scenario she won the war though

It was changed so you can have a complete marriage