Micro 887: the coaLITion [game over]

Gamma Emerald · Post Post #650 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:18 am

In post 643, NC 39 wrote:
In post 640, Gamma Emerald wrote:Did we decide the coalition yet

In post 641, Gamma Emerald wrote:Looks like the answer is no

In post 636, Alchemist21 wrote:The currently proposed names are RC, NC 39, LUV, Espresso, and Gamma.

I think I'm okay with that? Dunno bout LUV but we are mega-short on time
How many people have that as theirs rn? I'll put it down unless it'll decide it then and there, because I want a little more time to discuss.

Alchemist21 · Post Post #651 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:18 am

In post 642, NC 39 wrote:
In post 638, Alchemist21 wrote:And NOW we have a problem.

3 people outside of the Coalition voting for it is a red flag.

HURT: Gamma

HEAL: Alchemist21
Who’s the 3rd?

Spangled

Hectic · Post Post #652 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:18 am

In post 575, Spangled wrote:If we believe that coalition is all town, anyone who’s not voting for this without a good reason is scum. Let’s go people!

hmmmm, kinda liking Spangled less and less, i know this is a joke, but it feels like a scum joke, ya know?

also don't like how reasonable he's being with nsg and how he's so okay with being excluded

Alchemist21 · Post Post #653 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:21 am

In post 639, Hectic wrote:
In post 638, Alchemist21 wrote:And NOW we have a problem.

3 people outside of the Coalition voting for it is a red flag.

HURT: Gamma

HEAL: Alchemist21
huh now this feels like an overreaction considering i said i'm just voting this temporarily in case people think i wouldn't come online in time to vote one through

better to try a coalition than none at all

Alchemist using this as reasoning for trying to slip himself in?

anyway got some time so catchup begins now

I was already in it before people started putting in Gamma.

I took myself out to add Gamma because of deadline.

And it’s simple logic that if 3 people outside the Coalition are ok with it then scum is in the Coalition.

Hectic · Post Post #654 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:24 am

In post 630, Alchemist21 wrote:
In post 627, EspressoPatronum wrote:@nsg I trust Hectic to help make the coalition happen, so I'm counting him as a 4th vote to back this coalition.
Nobody should ever be putting Hectic in their Coalition.

scummy scum scumming

your initial SR on me was literally only based on me forgetting to pressure with my vote. the tone thing was irrelevant as you said yourself, it was the same as my newbie game

then i make a case where i'm trying to see if i can find anything scummy from your posts since my read on you is a gut read, and you overreact again

NC 39 · Post Post #655 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:26 am

In post 647, Gamma Emerald wrote:
In post 616, Spangled wrote:Is there a reason we’re all ignoring lynching?
1) if we win by coalition no lynching needed
2) lynching before making a coalition nulls that part of the setup

I don’t understand this unless you think we don’t have enough info to determine that? However, whatever happens with the coalition, if we lynch today, it should definitely be outside the coalition.

So no, it only defeats the purpose if we lynch inside the coalition today, which is why I don’t understand where Espresso is coming from here.

So, that would be Spangled/Hectic/GREAT/Alchemist. Of those, GREAT makes the most sense, since she has been my weakest read this entire game.

Hectic · Post Post #656 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:28 am

changed my mind on Great, i think i'd do the following:

Hectic>RCMA>NC 39>Espresso>LUV>Gamma>Spangled>Great>Alchemist

don't judge me too much on the ordering please

and yes, i'm reluctant on LUV and can see his actions coming from both alignments but i don't know what to think of Gamma and people seem to like LUV

Hectic · Post Post #657 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:30 am

HURT: ALL
HEAL: Hectic, NC 39, Espresso, LUV, RCMA
will sub myself out for Gamma if required

NC 39 · Post Post #658 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:30 am

In post 649, Hectic wrote:
In post 569, NC 39 wrote:I’m not sr Hecking but it doesn’t look like my coalition will pass. Especially with nsg now not including him, so

HURT: Hecking

Sorry man.

HEAL: Alchemist
lul stop calling me hecking

would like to hear some explanation from nsg for why i'm still null or scum, though maybe i'll see some in the next few pages

Oops sorry.

NC 39 · Post Post #659 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:40 am

In post 653, Alchemist21 wrote:
In post 639, Hectic wrote:
In post 638, Alchemist21 wrote:And NOW we have a problem.

3 people outside of the Coalition voting for it is a red flag.

HURT: Gamma

HEAL: Alchemist21
huh now this feels like an overreaction considering i said i'm just voting this temporarily in case people think i wouldn't come online in time to vote one through

better to try a coalition than none at all

Alchemist using this as reasoning for trying to slip himself in?

anyway got some time so catchup begins now
I was already in it before people started putting in Gamma.

I took myself out to add Gamma because of deadline.

And it’s simple logic that if 3 people outside the Coalition are ok with it then scum is in the Coalition.

You’re right but are you considering the possibility that this is scum WIFOM to make us question the coalition at this late date?

How can you be certain that scum can’t pull a last minute bait and switch?

Iow, how do you know that scum is really onboard with this and wants to derail it?

You could definitely be right but I’ve seen clever scum pull this kind of stunt when it’s too late to do anything about it.

Maybe that’s tin foil but I don’t think we should totally write that off either.

NC 39 · Post Post #660 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:42 am

Edit: doesn’t want to derail it.

That would be the best scenario for scum, to have no coalition whatsoever.

Alchemist21 · Post Post #661 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:43 am

Maybe that’s tinfoil but it’s the less-likely option.

Frankly it was a mistake to take myself out of the Coalition vote in the first place.

NC 39 · Post Post #662 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:46 am

In post 656, Hectic wrote:changed my mind on Great, i think i'd do the following:

Hectic>RCMA>NC 39>Espresso>LUV>Gamma>Spangled>Great>Alchemist

don't judge me too much on the ordering please

and yes, i'm reluctant on LUV and can see his actions coming from both alignments but i don't know what to think of Gamma and people seem to like LUV

I’m not sold on him but I don’t have much experience playing with him and he could very well be disengaged town.

NC 39 · Post Post #663 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:48 am

In post 657, Hectic wrote:HURT: ALL
HEAL: Hectic, NC 39, Espresso, LUV, RCMA
will sub myself out for Gamma if required

What are you doing? Why not Alchemist or Spangled?

NC 39 · Post Post #664 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:50 am

UNVOTE:

I don’t know anymore. I was tr Hectic but would he really be this ballsy as scum?

EspressoPatronum · Post Post #665 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:58 am

In post 2, Skygazer wrote:
The Coalition Set-up

7 Vanilla Townies

2 Mafia Goons

- On day one, in addition to the normal lynch vote, each player may vote on a coalition.
- Use
HEAL:
and
HURT:
tags to add and remove players respectively from your coalition vote.
- If an all-town coalition is passed by a majority of 5 players, the town will win instantly.
- Otherwise, the game will continue as a mountainous game.
-
The day one lynch cannot occur until after a coalition has been passed or the deadline is reached (whichever comes first)
.

- The mafia goons have day-talk.
- You may vote for yourself.

[...]
The game thread is here. Please send me a PM confirming your role and alignment.
[/area][/color]

See bolded and underlined re my position on voting within the coalition.

EspressoPatronum · Post Post #666 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:59 am

Assuming we pass a coalition and it fails, nobody should be voting to lynch outside of the 5 coalition members.

NC 39 · Post Post #667 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:03 am

In post 647, Gamma Emerald wrote:
In post 616, Spangled wrote:Is there a reason we’re all ignoring lynching?
1) if we win by coalition no lynching needed
2) lynching before making a coalition nulls that part of the setup

I’m tl this post, so I think we should either leave the coalition the way it is or remove someone else, maybe LUV?

Because is it really best to risk one out of our 3 possible mislynches when coalition either succeeds or we have more info the next day? I don’t know.

I think if we do lynch today, it should be outside coalition but rn I don’t know if GREAT or Hectic is the best option but if I vote, it’s probably between them.

I don’t like how Hectic subbed himself in for Gamma right after voting the coalition.

If we lynch, I am opposed to lynching outside of GREAT/HECTIC today.

EspressoPatronum · Post Post #668 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:05 am

@NC read the quoted modpost at 665

EspressoPatronum · Post Post #669 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:06 am

In post 668, EspressoPatronum wrote:@NC read the quoted modpost at 665

Also @Gamma

EspressoPatronum · Post Post #670 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:10 am

In post 651, Alchemist21 wrote:
In post 642, NC 39 wrote:
In post 638, Alchemist21 wrote:And NOW we have a problem.

3 people outside of the Coalition voting for it is a red flag.

HURT: Gamma

HEAL: Alchemist21
Who’s the 3rd?
Spangled

Spangled has GREAT in his. It isn't the same.

NC 39 · Post Post #671 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:10 am

In post 666, EspressoPatronum wrote:Assuming we pass a coalition and it fails, nobody should be voting to lynch outside of the 5 coalition members.

Why not? IF coalition fails - unless you think there’s two scum in it - unlikely. So, for today and today only, IF we lynch, it makes the most sense to lynch amongst the two scummiest players NOT in coalition. It was definitely GREAT for me, until Hectic decided to sub himself for Gamma pretty much immediately after voting the coalition.

NC 39 · Post Post #672 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:14 am

In post 668, EspressoPatronum wrote:@NC read the quoted modpost at 665

I think you gave me the wrong link, that’s just the playerlist.

Alchemist21 · Post Post #673 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:14 am

In post 670, EspressoPatronum wrote:
In post 651, Alchemist21 wrote:
In post 642, NC 39 wrote:
In post 638, Alchemist21 wrote:And NOW we have a problem.

3 people outside of the Coalition voting for it is a red flag.

HURT: Gamma

HEAL: Alchemist21
Who’s the 3rd?
Spangled
Spangled has GREAT in his. It isn't the same.

m

Oh, whoops. Thought he had completely aligned his with the others.

That makes me feel a bit better about compromising again.

EspressoPatronum · Post Post #674 (ISO) » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:15 am

NC, did you read 665?

We CAN'T lynch until we pass a coalition or the deadline hits. I'm assuming we'll pull ourselves together enough to beat the deadline, so that leave us with this order of operations:

SCENARIO 1
A. We pass a coalition
B. We succeed
C. Game over

SCENARIO 2
A. We pass a coalition
B. It fails
C. We lynch
D. Game continues

Lynching outside of the coalition in the event of Scenario B makes no sense, as we have confirmed

at least

one scum in that group. We shouldn't risk voting outside of the coalition in the unlikely but possible event of both scum being in the coalition.