Micro 887: the coaLITion [game over]

[EspressoPatronum]

What's the optimal approach for setting up our coalition votes?

Starting with 5 seems too hasty to me, but I've never played a game mode like this before.

HEAL

EspressoPatronum

[EspressoPatronum]

HEAL: Alchemist, RC most awesomest, NC 39, Gamma Emerald, EspressoPatronum

That’s myself plus the 3 slots I believe to be the strongest slots coming into the game plus Espresso since I liked their entrance.

I think the Coalition should be the 5 strongest/Towniest players not just for the obvious reasons of the D1 wincon but also as a weak investigational tool if it fails - if the Coalition fails we know there’s a deep wolf in a group where we might not otherwise suspect scum to be.

is it considered a deep wolf if they're just in the top 5 town reads?

regarding the investigation potential, it is useful for knowing there's at least 1 scum in the group, i don't we can even be too confident that there can't be two scum in the 5 we agree on, so the utility isn't actually that useful

In the case of our coalition being wrong, we can be certain that at least 1 of the people not in the majority's coalition is town. That's probably more valuable than knowing 1 or 2 in 7 is scum.

[EspressoPatronum]

Could you maybe try playing the game and stop following the solve the setup philosophy?

What's wrong with approaching the coalition setup with a solve mindset?

[EspressoPatronum]

has town ever won by correctly selecting an all town coalition D1?

No. I think they've gotten close in the past.

wrong???

you were literally scum in the game that town won day one????

???

wiki link for the unaware – The Coalition

-nsg

has town ever won by correctly selecting an all town coalition D1?

No. I think they've gotten close in the past.

wrong???

you were literally scum in the game that town won day one????

???

wiki link for the unaware – The Coalition

-nsg

Then my memory fails me because I recall that not happening, though I do recall losing

For those wondering:
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=77544

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm skimming through the above game now to see what they did right. A few points that stood out to me in the first few pages:
- they talk about past games and setup a fair bit.
- don't treat your coalition like your reads list. Be aggressive with adding and subtracting from it
- put readable people in your coalition, not necessarily the ppl who seem towny
- re the above - at least 1 of the 2 scum will be able to appear towny, so it's better to have easy to read ppl in your coalition.

I have to go for a while, but I plan on reading the rest of the game to see how it developed.

@NSG is there anything that town did in that game that stood out to you as being influential in the win?
@Gamma, if you get the time to reread some of the game to jog your memory, can you comment on anything you tried to do as scum that town was good at counteracting? What should we be watching out for that may be specific to coalition games?

[EspressoPatronum]

I find it a bit strange that Hectic is being so normal this game. His town play usually has a chaotic posting + formatting style and he likes to fake claim random stuff.

Either he's getting tired of a 'hectic' playstyle, or this is his scum game. I think it's the latter.

[EspressoPatronum]

RC's intro reads like an excuse for him to not play his usual town game. I'm not familiar with RC's scum game, but from the games I've played with + seen him in, he usually plays aggressive town.

I'd like some more information from @nsg. Specifically, why do you think I'm scum + what is your answer to my question about the past game.

[EspressoPatronum]

am i late to the party?

Oh woa, I didn't realize you were in this game.

why am i not in everyone's town buckets, smh

Drop some Clemency insights and I'll think about it, haha.

[EspressoPatronum]

Cool, this has finally started. I was in Skitter’s game and we actually won on D1, only to have RAS cheat us out of a much deserved win.

How did you get cheated out of the win?

Can you share with us some of the things town did well in that game that we can implement in this game?

[EspressoPatronum]

Could you maybe try playing the game and stop following the solve the setup philosophy?

What's wrong with approaching the coalition setup with a solve mindset?

It doesn’t help in the long run.

The long run of D1 for the coalition, or the long run of the game as a whole?

Why doesn't it help in the long run?

[EspressoPatronum]

EP why do you as town think that going out of your way to tilt me to get maybe 2% win equity if I'm scum is worth sacrificing a massive amount of win equity if I'm town?

First of all, it's not my job to appease you. Second, I'm saying you're behaving differently than the RC I have played with and observed through reading other games.

I also fail to see why you think I'm trying to tilt you by scumreading you + not putting you in my coalition. It's part of the game.

[...]

RC's intro reads like an excuse for him to not play his usual town game. I'm not familiar with RC's scum game, but from the games I've played with + seen him in, he usually plays aggressive town.

I'd like some more information from @nsg. Specifically, why do you think I'm scum + what is your answer to my question about the past game.

i don't think rc is the kind of person who needs an excuse when he's playing scum.

I have no doubt in RC's abilities, but I've seen this method used a few times by experienced players. Nobody is above it.

i said that i scumleaned you because i felt like your posts were somewhat contentless and reminded me of a classic scum tactic of just talking about mechanics in an attempt to make it look like you're solving the game. specifically, the "what's the optimal approach" and other statements like that. i've entered threads the exact same way before as scum, and i've seen others do it not infrequently.

That's a fair observation on a mechanics-driven entrance, and I'll keep that in mind when I roll scum some day (still 0 scum games on forum).

That being said, in a short read of my meta, you'll see I like to look at mechanics early, especially in games that are not a normal setup. In the Purge game, for example, I was all about mechanics. While that game was more mechanical than this game, I think there is/was worthwhile discussion on the coalition mechanic.

Ignoring the discussion because you and a few others have already played the setup is a disservice to town as a whole. I take your point below, however, that it's important to not get hung up on the mechanics.

keeping in mind that i've both moderated this setup and played in it – i would say that town has won before by actually just putting towny players in the coalition. sounds simple, but goes against the third point that you noticed of winning by putting readable people rather than towny people – the dark wanderer, skitter, the worst and irrelephant as a collective probably rank among the top scum players on the site, and yet they (along with myself) made up the winning coalition. i really don't think there are any "tricks" or something along that line. i think focusing

too much

on the mechanic takes is a distraction – figure out your reads, update your coalition accordingly, and try to come to a consensus. that's about the best advice i can give to win the game.

-nsg

Thanks for this.

No lunch was advocating for putting readable ppl in the coalition over townreads, but she slowly changes her stance over the next 10 pages of Micro 829. While I haven't finished reading it through yet, I wouldn't be surprised to see everyone coming around to putting towny ppl in the coalition over readable ppl.

Can you link the game you're talking about in which you were town + won?

[EspressoPatronum]

fair point on people who haven't played this setup before

here's the one i was referring to

-nsg

Thanks! I'll take a look at this one once I finish up with the other one.

[EspressoPatronum]

[/color]HEAL: Gamma

The Gamma v LUV disagreement looks genuine + Gamma came out of it looking more town.

HEAL: Spangled

Liking Spangled's posting style thus far. I'm not yet certain if the wide coalition read on Spangled is a good or bad thing, but I'm treating it as a good thing for now.

[EspressoPatronum]

HEAL: Gamma
The Gamma v LUV disagreement looks genuine + Gamma came out of it looking more town.

HEAL: Spangled
Liking Spangled's posting style thus far. I'm not yet certain if the wide coalition read on Spangled is a good or bad thing, but I'm treating it as a good thing for now.

Oh whups, I tried using Sky's formatting for the Hurt + Heal thing but I also took the colour. EBWOP.

[EspressoPatronum]

[...]

Also, about the Gamma v LUV thing, I think Gamma came out of it

somewhat

towny, but what did you think about LUV? Did you agree with Gamma on his defensiveness?

My thinking on the Gamma read was this: as long as I believe their argument wasn't SvS, at least 1 of them is town. I agree that Gamma doesn't look

super

towny from the exchange, but he definitely looks more towny than LUV, meaning that he's more likely the town in a TvS scenario.

Regarding the defensiveness, I agree with Gamma. LUV's "no u" reaction wasn't helpful to anyone. In addition, I don't like LUV's answer to my question on why we shouldn't be discussing mechanics.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm liking Hectic's content and reads, but the difference in his playstyle is really nagging at me. It's almost like he's too good to be true now that he's playing normally, and I'm seeing that as a possible scum tactic.

@anyone else who has played with him, what are your thoughts on his behaviour? Do you think the change in his posting style is AI? Why/why not?

[EspressoPatronum]

@Alchemist, you haven't updated your coalition in a while. Is it still reflective of your current stance?

If yes, can you tell me a bit more about your NC and RCMA reads?

[EspressoPatronum]

[...]
RC reads was talked about earlier and it’s based on NSG actually posting.

I was hoping you'd have a bit more to substantiate the read at this point, as scum!nsg could very easily post more. What's your read on the RC head*?

*Note - I find it hard to read hydras. Is it better practice to split the read by head and consolidate later, or approach the read in a holistic manner from the outset?

[EspressoPatronum]

HEAL: Hectic[/quote]
I still have some meta reservations about him, but I like his content. On a brief iso skim:
+ he was willing to retract his RVS coalition vote
+ he's asking about reads and furthering discussion
+ he's being proactive with providing information
+ his reads seem to develop naturally
+ I agree with his reads

- he hasn't changed on his townread of me. Slight chance of this being an attempt at buddying.
- the meta/posting change, as discussed above

Overall, I'm happy with the +'s and think the -'s are probably just me being paranoid.

[EspressoPatronum]

HEAL: Hectic
I still have some meta reservations about him, but I like his content. On a brief iso skim:
+ he was willing to retract his RVS coalition vote
+ he's asking about reads and furthering discussion
+ he's being proactive with providing information
+ his reads seem to develop naturally
+ I agree with his reads

- he hasn't changed on his townread of me. Slight chance of this being an attempt at buddying.
- the meta/posting change, as discussed above

Overall, I'm happy with the +'s and think the -'s are probably just me being paranoid.

EBWOP. I'll get the heal tag right one of these days XD

[EspressoPatronum]

for my part i'm just going to treat EP like a nonparticipant in the game and hope that we win via coalition not including them regardless of their alignment.

Why? This makes no sense unless it's out of spite for my read.

I promise if it fails I won’t immediately point fingers at your slot because I know how you feel about people lynching you just based on your reputation as a strong scum player.

it's not about my feelings, it's about the fact that it's objectively wrong to do so

the only way that feelings come into play is how everyone ~feels~ about the prospect of losing to me

it's not some kind of personal fucking favor to me to treat me like an actual player in a game of mafia

I'm treating you exactly like I treated Formerfish in the Purge game. I have a small understanding of your town game and have concluded you're not playing within that normal style.

Look at it from the other point of view:
I'd like to think that at this point, I have a reputation of posting a lot and asking a lot of questions. It'd completely fair and valid for someone to question my alignment of me I played a game and did not play within my usual behaviour. There might be a valid reason for my change of behaviour, but that doesn't take away from the validity of someone else calling attention to it.

As stated earlier, my read of you has nothing to do with your scum game and everything to do with your town game.

[EspressoPatronum]

I won't have time to adequately respond to questions and comments tonight. Will do a proper response tomorrow.

[EspressoPatronum]

Just so we're clear, EP isn't policy. He's taken the same line of play that scum in the vast majority of my recent games have taken with me.

This is almost the exact line of reasoning I used on my scum read of you and you nearly wrote me out of the game because of it.

I disliked your reaction to my read because it was either scummy or petty, and neither is good for town.

Try to discredit me, call me scum while avoiding engagement and discrediting townreads on me.

Please show me where I haven't engaged.

The NSG engagement is even worse, she has a clearly established meta of efforting less as scum and there's even a hydra game of the two of us where we were scum where she literally posted once, and he's handwaving that as well. It's not an honest interaction with my slot: either his approach to this game was clearly defined before game as prevent RChydra from being in the coalition at all costs or he is scum.
[...]

I'd say my engagement with nsg has been pretty good, actually. That's mostly because she was willing to engage back.

Now that you're back to acknowledging me, we can start to move forward here.

[EspressoPatronum]

i dislike it when people ask the generic question "what are your reads" without any seeming deeper purpose

Why? Do you have examples of scum doing it?

I don't know if it's a scum thing more than just an unhelpful town thing most times.

From what I've read I'm guides and such, better questions include:
- what is your read on [specific player]?
- what do you think of [thing that happened]?
- do you agree with X line of thinking?

Open-ended questions with room for the person to speak more to

why

they think something, rather than what they think.

[EspressoPatronum]

@Hectic, I forget where you asked me this, but I can't find it in my quick skim.

I think your decision to remove your RVS coalition vote shows (1) a measure of indecision and (2) a willingness to compromise. Both are town traits.

On the second point, your discussion with RCMA and your eventual coalition vote of RCMA is a further example of this.

I'm feeling very good about town Hectic.

[EspressoPatronum]

I liked Spangled's posts, but his town reads of me might be biasing my thought process. I'll take a look at his ISO when I can. This week is pretty busy for me, so no promises on my timeliness.

I'm not feeling as good about my Gamma coalition read anymore. As above, I'll look into it more when I can.

[EspressoPatronum]

@nsg, my moving forward post was directed to the RC head, as he was trying to write me out the the game for reasons with which I strongly disagree. I've been trying to address you as nsg throughout + will continue to do so unless you prefer another tag. "RCMA" applies to both of you. Apologies for any confusion.

Also @nsg, I should also have been clearer with my Spangled update -- yours and Hectic's posts (and maybe others? I can't remember) have caused me to reconsider my Spangled read. As such, I will do a proper ISO and revisit the read later.

[EspressoPatronum]

Liking NC's posts. I will consider adding NC to my coalition later today.

[EspressoPatronum]

This is almost the exact line of reasoning I used on my scum read of you

How tho

See post 97. If you still don't agree in the similar reasoning, I'm happy to weigh in further.

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

Just so we're clear, EP isn't policy. He's taken the same line of play that scum in the vast majority of my recent games have taken with me.

This is almost the exact line of reasoning I used on my scum read of you and you nearly wrote me out of the game because of it.

I disliked your reaction to my read because it was either scummy or petty, and neither is good for town.

Try to discredit me, call me scum while avoiding engagement and discrediting townreads on me.

Please show me where I haven't engaged.

The NSG engagement is even worse, she has a clearly established meta of efforting less as scum and there's even a hydra game of the two of us where we were scum where she literally posted once, and he's handwaving that as well. It's not an honest interaction with my slot: either his approach to this game was clearly defined before game as prevent RChydra from being in the coalition at all costs or he is scum.
[...]

I'd say my engagement with nsg has been pretty good, actually. That's mostly because she was willing to engage back.

Now that you're back to acknowledging me, we can start to move forward here.

I felt like this entire post is trying to stick what EP was accused of onto RCMA

What, in your opinion, was I accused of?

[EspressoPatronum]

HURT: Gamma, Spangled
Gamma just seems to be poking holes in what everyone is saying without actually giving a lot of information. I misread that earlier as him being inquisitive.

RCMA makes a good argument on Spangled. While I could still see town!Spangled over town Clemency and/or LUV, I'm not so attached to the idea of town!Spangled that I'll go to bat for him. I haven't done my ISO of Spangled yet, so I'll go ahead and let that sit in my growing to-do list.

HEAL: NC, RCMA [/quote]
I feel much better about NC than I do Gamma, so I'm happy to make the replacement here. As mentioned above, I'm planning to form a more detailed read here later.

I'm liking nsg's engagement, and her towniness outweighs my misgivings about RC.

[EspressoPatronum]

HEAL: NC, RCMA **

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

Just so we're clear, EP isn't policy. He's taken the same line of play that scum in the vast majority of my recent games have taken with me.

This is almost the exact line of reasoning I used on my scum read of you and you nearly wrote me out of the game because of it.

I disliked your reaction to my read because it was either scummy or petty, and neither is good for town.

Try to discredit me, call me scum while avoiding engagement and discrediting townreads on me.

Please show me where I haven't engaged.

The NSG engagement is even worse, she has a clearly established meta of efforting less as scum and there's even a hydra game of the two of us where we were scum where she literally posted once, and he's handwaving that as well. It's not an honest interaction with my slot: either his approach to this game was clearly defined before game as prevent RChydra from being in the coalition at all costs or he is scum.
[...]

I'd say my engagement with nsg has been pretty good, actually. That's mostly because she was willing to engage back.

Now that you're back to acknowledging me, we can start to move forward here.

I felt like this entire post is trying to stick what EP was accused of onto RCMA

What, in your opinion, was I accused of?

On top of the "doing what scum do around me" thing, you also say "I engaged with NSG because she engaged back", which seems to be placing the blame on RC not engaging you for why you haven't really interacted, when that's not the case as I see it and RC had poked at you for refusing to interact with him except to call him scum.

Before I answer your question fully, I want to make sure we're both on the same page.
1. Is it fair to say that your answer to my question is: EP was accused of not engaging + am now trying to pin that on RCMA?
2. Have you recently read my ISO, or are you engaging with me right now based off your recollection of events?

[EspressoPatronum]

1: yes
2: I have not read your ISO yet.

In that case, can you please read my ISO first? My answer to your RC questions earlier will essentially be me rehashing what I've already said.

This is almost the exact line of reasoning I used on my scum read of you

How tho

See post 97. If you still don't agree in the similar reasoning, I'm happy to weigh in further.

I don't see what in 97 covers "looks like how scum treat me in other games"

RC said: "[EP has] taken the same line of play that scum in the vast majority of my recent games have taken with me.

I said: RC was playing differently from his usually aggressive town game, which was a method I have seen experienced scum do in some of my recent games.
Proof:

Spoiler:

[...]Second, I'm saying you're behaving differently than the RC I have played with and observed through reading other games.

I also fail to see why you think I'm trying to tilt you by scumreading you + not putting you in my coalition. It's part of the game.

[...]

RC's intro reads like an excuse for him to not play his usual town game. I'm not familiar with RC's scum game, but from the games I've played with + seen him in, he usually plays aggressive town.

I'd like some more information from @nsg. Specifically, why do you think I'm scum + what is your answer to my question about the past game.

i don't think rc is the kind of person who needs an excuse when he's playing scum.

I have no doubt in RC's abilities, but I've seen this method used a few times by experienced players. Nobody is above it.

Both of us were saying that the other was taking a line of play consistent with scum behaviour we had witnessed in recent games.

[EspressoPatronum]

Hey Hectic, what's your coalition read on Gamma? If you were to remove him, who would you replace him with?

[EspressoPatronum]

You’ve asked me exactly one thing and in the very next post Gamma pointed out your question had been answered already.

fair point I guess although you were plenty of capable of expanding on why you didn't have a town read on us and we are close to DL so isn't about time to start sharing your view of the gamestate?

How do I expand on a nullread? I can’t.

I think what NC is getting at is that they want you to be more proactive with your reads and/or supplying us with information.

Imo, only weighing in when you're asked questions is a more reactionary and less helpful style compared to proactively engaging with the thread.

More information is better than none, so I'm happy to hear your thoughts on pretty much everything and anything.

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

VC 1.06 Coalitions: Hectic (5): EspressoPatronum, Gamma Emerald, Hectic, NC 39, RC most awesomest EspressoPatronum (3): EspressoPatronum, Gamma Emerald, Spangled Alchemist21 (3): Alchemist21, EspressoPatronum, RC most awesomest NC 39 (2): NC 39, RC most awesomest Gamma Emerald (2): Gamma Emerald, Spangled RC most awesomest (1): RC most awesomest Clemency (0): Lil Uzi Vert (0): Spangled (0): Lynch: Lil Uzi Vert (2): Hectic, Gamma Emerald Not Voting (7): RC most awesomest, EspressoPatronum, NC 39, Clemency, Lil Uzi Vert, Spangled, Alchemist21 With 9 players alive, it takes 5 to reach a majority. Day one ends in (expired on 2019-09-12 18:00:00).

didn't Espresso put me down as a heal?

I don’t even know if throwing around lynch votes will be useful until the Coalition is decided on since we can’t lynch before the Coalition is decided.

i think it's still good go throw around votes to show who we suspect and intend to lynch after we decide on the coalition, it'll be useful later on as well when we look back at wagons and potential bussing

also we can still pressure scum with votes which is always good

VOTE: Lil Uzi Vert

weakest entrance thus far imo

Hectic do you still believe what you said about applying pressure with your votes? Do you think your LUV vote is still good?

yes and probably not, if he's not currently reading the thread

VOTE: Spangled

I have to say you’ve been pinging me this whole game. What makes Spangled a good vote in your eyes? How come you seemingly forgot about voting for anyone else this whole time?

I'll help jumpstart the information requested above. Can you give us more on your Hectic ping? You said he's been pinging you all game but you pointed to two recent developments. Can you tell us some of the early things Hectic did that pinged you?

[EspressoPatronum]

Hey Hectic, what's your coalition read on Gamma? If you were to remove him, who would you replace him with?

i think my read is RCMA>Espresso>Spangled>NC 39>Gamma>Clemency/LUV>Alchemist

i know people will question my Alchemist vote, more of a gutread than anything, i'll go looking for actual reasons tomorrow, it's way too late right now

Thanks for this, Hectic.

I'm not sure I'm on board with Alchemist being on the lowest rung, but I think a scum gutread on him is reasonable given his more reactive style.

Looking forward to hearing more about it tomorrow.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm a few pages behind. Going to reply/comment as I
I catch up.

[EspressoPatronum]

Hey Hectic, what's your coalition read on Gamma? If you were to remove him, who would you replace him with?

i think my read is RCMA>Espresso>Spangled>NC 39>Gamma>Clemency/LUV>Alchemist

i know people will question my Alchemist vote, more of a gutread than anything, i'll go looking for actual reasons tomorrow, it's way too late right now

Thanks for this, Hectic.

I'm not sure I'm on board with Alchemist being on the lowest rung, but I think a scum gutread on him is reasonable given his more reactive style.

Looking forward to hearing more about it tomorrow.

If you’re not on board with Alchemist on the lowest rung (that is to say, for the lynch), who are you on board (or most on board) with lynching?

LUV, for two reasons:
1. The lurking
2. I didn't like his early posts

[EspressoPatronum]

YOUAREGREAT replaces Clemency.

Welcome, YOUAREGREAT!

[EspressoPatronum]

1: yes
2: I have not read your ISO yet.

In that case, can you please read my ISO first? My answer to your RC questions earlier will essentially be me rehashing what I've already said.

This is almost the exact line of reasoning I used on my scum read of you

How tho

See post 97. If you still don't agree in the similar reasoning, I'm happy to weigh in further.

I don't see what in 97 covers "looks like how scum treat me in other games"

RC said: "[EP has] taken the same line of play that scum in the vast majority of my recent games have taken with me.

I said: RC was playing differently from his usually aggressive town game, which was a method I have seen experienced scum do in some of my recent games.
Proof:

Spoiler:

[...]Second, I'm saying you're behaving differently than the RC I have played with and observed through reading other games.

I also fail to see why you think I'm trying to tilt you by scumreading you + not putting you in my coalition. It's part of the game.

[...]

RC's intro reads like an excuse for him to not play his usual town game. I'm not familiar with RC's scum game, but from the games I've played with + seen him in, he usually plays aggressive town.

I'd like some more information from @nsg. Specifically, why do you think I'm scum + what is your answer to my question about the past game.

i don't think rc is the kind of person who needs an excuse when he's playing scum.

I have no doubt in RC's abilities, but I've seen this method used a few times by experienced players. Nobody is above it.

Both of us were saying that the other was taking a line of play consistent with scum behaviour we had witnessed in recent games.

How is RC playing less aggressive in line with what you've seen other scum do?

Again, please read my ISO, as I have already answered this question.

For your convenience - here it is: FormerFish did the exact same thing in Purge. I know him as an aggressive town player, so when he left some throwaway comment about sitting back that game, I (correctly) called it out as scummy.

[EspressoPatronum]

Hey Hectic, what's your coalition read on Gamma? If you were to remove him, who would you replace him with?

i think my read is RCMA>Espresso>Spangled>NC 39>Gamma>Clemency/LUV>Alchemist

i know people will question my Alchemist vote, more of a gutread than anything, i'll go looking for actual reasons tomorrow, it's way too late right now

Thanks for this, Hectic.

I'm not sure I'm on board with Alchemist being on the lowest rung, but I think a scum gutread on him is reasonable given his more reactive style.

Looking forward to hearing more about it tomorrow.

If you’re not on board with Alchemist on the lowest rung (that is to say, for the lynch), who are you on board (or most on board) with lynching?

LUV, for two reasons:
1. The lurking
2. I didn't like his early posts

Update:

LUV, for

two

three reasons:
1. The lurking
2. I didn't like his early posts
3. I don't like his recent posts

Most of the catch-up posts are excuses for not helping town, and the others give us weak reads on 2 or 3 people.

I struggle to envision a scenario in which I don't vote LUV here, much less put him in my coalition.

VOTE: LUV

[EspressoPatronum]

VOTE: EspressoPatronum

LUV, for

two

three

four reasons:
1. The lurking
2. I didn't like his early posts
3. I don't like his recent posts
4. I don't like the OMGUS vote

[EspressoPatronum]

HEAL: Spangled

I read Spangled's ISO and reread RCMA's scumcase on Spangled. I also considered GREAT's town read of Spangled and Hectic's meta analysis of Spangled (which offsets some of the RCMA concerns imo), I'm happy with Spangled in a coalition.

As another note, Spangled hasn't seemed worried about being removed from the coalition. If you'll recall, Gamma said he started feeling desperate as scum in nsg's game when town cut him out of the coalition. I saw no notable changes in Spangled's play after he got cut from the coalition.

[EspressoPatronum]

I have a busy few days approaching. I'll still be keeping up and posting, but I won't be as active as normal.

@ me if I miss a question or anything like that.

[EspressoPatronum]

@EP
What’s your take on LUV, post-NC 39’s observation about how consensus seems to be that LUV is scum?

NC raises an interesting point, but I'm not comfortable enough with it to put LUV in my coalition.

First, I want active people in my coalition so I have a better chance at correctly sorting them. Putting LUV in because of inactivity and everyone else's behaviour seems backwards.

Second, all of my previous thoughts on LUV still apply. If we consider LUV's universal scum read ("USR") as a town factor in reading him, I'm still left with:

VOTE: EspressoPatronum

LUV, for

two

three

four reasons:
1. The lurking
2. I didn't like his early posts
3. I don't like his recent posts
4. I don't like the OMGUS vote

To expand:

1. My experience thus far has scum lurks surprisingly often. I even advocate for lurker policy lynches in most of my games bcz of how often I've seen scum skate by under the radar by lurking.

2. He wasn't helpful early. Telling us to ignore the mechanics of the game was anti-town. His early RC tr looks like he was trying to avoid attention. Alchemist gave a meta reason for his read, but I recall LUV leaving the TR without any reasons.

3. I disagreed with most of his catch-up posts. I also think that anyone touting a 'low activity' meta for town is doing a disservice to everyone else playing.

4. He again provided no reasons for what he was doing. I'm not even sure if OMGUS is scum indicative, but it's not a good look either way.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm not as sure about my Gamma read anymore. I'll revisit it tonight.

@Gamma, if you get the chance today, could you link me some of your scum games?

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm not as sure about my Gamma read anymore. I'll revisit it tonight.

@Gamma, if you get the chance today, could you link me some of your scum games?

Nvm. I thought for a moment that maybe Gamma doesn't post very much as scum (he was a middle poster in nsg's coalition game), but I don't think that's right. He was top 3 in posts as scum in Pokemon Fusion U-Pick.

[EspressoPatronum]

[..]
Lurking isn’t AI. I know there are many players like EP who think it is but until he can tell me how I’m manipulating the game state in my favor by intentional doing it, that point is basically invalid. [...]

You said the same thing in Ruby Mafia about my lurker post. Plot twist - 2 of the 4 lurkers in that game were scum! Not ALL lurkers are mafia, but I would say there's a greater than random chance of lurkers being scum.

As stated to you in Ruby Mafia, the scum team doesn't have just 1 objective. Some manipulate the game state while others try to make it to the end game. Lurker is a means of achieving the latter.

[..]
He calls my reads weak but never attempts to ask me about them. Not once did he ask me to expand.

Or you could be proactive and expand on your reads without being asked.

[EspressoPatronum]

@Alch who's your fifth btw? I did a quick check and I think you're at Alch, RCMA, NC and EP.

@Spangled can you tell me more about your GREAT addition? Who would you consider swapping for the 5th position + who are you deadset on not including?

@RCMA what does your updated coalition look like?

@Hectic if you were forced to not include yourself in the coalition, who would you pick?

[EspressoPatronum]

Didn’t town end up winning that game?

Yeah, we clutched it out on mechanics.

One of the lurkers subbed out + we caught the other one bcz of his lurking and a few other things.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm not as sure about my Gamma read anymore. I'll revisit it tonight.

@Gamma, if you get the chance today, could you link me some of your scum games?

Still want this?

Yes plz.

I tried doing it myself, but you've played a ton of games + I didn't feel like sifting through all of them. I called it quits after like 4 games

[EspressoPatronum]

We have just a little over 3 days and so far, we don’t have a consensus. How are we going to get 5 people aboard on the same 5 reads, if people aren’t willing to agree on any 5 slots?

The way I see it, most of the debate is over 1 slot.

Almost every coalition has EP, NC, RCMA, and Spangled. I feel quite good about that core 4, but the big question is who to put at the 5th.

Contenders appear to be: Hectic, Alch, and GREAT. Anyone with those people in their coalition (myself included re: Hectic) seems willing to change with some convincing.

[EspressoPatronum]

@Spamgled
I won't have time to address your questions point by point until later tonight. Will get to it then.

Some quick notes:
- the formality of some of my posts is perhaps due to my area of study + work. Some of those posts you linked look like the way I structure some emails.
- the paranoia is normal. Almost every player in nsg's game was convinced the coalition would fail + were thus paranoid. (*remind me later to find the scum pairings post by Almost50 -- we may be able to use his logic here).

[EspressoPatronum]

Spangled.* That typo was not a passive aggressive jab.

[EspressoPatronum]

Had a busy day today. Catching up now.

[EspressoPatronum]

Keeping track of who's in the coalitions is getting difficult. I'll do mine from scratch for clarity.

[EspressoPatronum]

Doesn't sit well with me that Spangled and Great have each other in their coalitions.

Still pretty sure Hectic is fine, but I'll go with the group here.

It pains me to put LUV in, but again, I'll go with the group.

[EspressoPatronum]

HURT: everyone

HEAL: Espresso, NC, RCMA, LUV, Gamma

[EspressoPatronum]

@nsg I trust Hectic to help make the coalition happen, so I'm counting him as a 4th vote to back this coalition.

[EspressoPatronum]

Given the low amount of time between us passing the coalition and needing to vote, we need to prepare votes for someone within the coalition.

The reason being if it succeeds, we win the game bcz we're all town. If it fails, at least 1 scum is in the group of 5.

[EspressoPatronum]

VOTE: Gamma

I'm happy with either Gamma or LUV in the event of a failed coalition.

[EspressoPatronum]

@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.

That's fine. He already said he would do a coalition without him in it. That's what I meant by him being a 4th vote.

[EspressoPatronum]

@Alch we need to pass a coalition asap. I would like you to vote for the coalition even though you're not in it.

[EspressoPatronum]

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]

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

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC read the quoted modpost at 665

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC read the quoted modpost at 665

Also @Gamma

[EspressoPatronum]

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.

[EspressoPatronum]

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.

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC read the quoted modpost at 665

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

You're right - the link isn't working. Read my post at #665 plz.

The part about not being able to lunch until after we pass a coalition.

[EspressoPatronum]

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.

Compromise is the only way I see this coalition getting passed. Everyone is too paranoid and it's making things chaotic.

I don't feel great about LUV in the coalition and I don't know about Gamma, but I'm keeping them in to get the coalition passed.

[EspressoPatronum]

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

Please do so.

[EspressoPatronum]

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.

Okay, that’s a relief then. I think this is probably a winning coalition then. And you were the only one outside the coalition voting it, so I think it plus you is probably alltown. If we do add you, I would probably sub out LUV over Gamma, since I’m liking his recent posting.

This unfortunately comes after me establishing that we should vote within the coalition.

While I still believe you're town, I think I'd rather keep it {RCMA, LUV, Gamma, Espresso, NC} in the event that scum!NC tries to get 2 scum out of the coalition.

[EspressoPatronum]

I also agree that Gamma is more town out of LUV and Gamma.

VOTE: LUV

Per my reasoning above, LUV is a good lynch if the coalition fails because:
1. He's within the coalition (see my earlier reasoning)
2. If he's town, I feel even better about town!NC
3. If he's scum, I feel very strongly about scum!NC (see reasoning above)

[EspressoPatronum]

Is that a coalition hammer, or do we still need one more?

[EspressoPatronum]

I believe that’s a hammer (RC, NC39, Espresso, Hectic, and myself all voted for it).

Unless I’m wrong again.

I think you're right. I counted up RC's coalition votes + I'm fairly certain it's the same.

Now we wait..... fingers crossed.

[EspressoPatronum]

Oof

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC

Yeah, I worded that poorly.

I was trying to say scum!NC wouldn't want 2 scum in the coalition and with want to take one out.

[EspressoPatronum]

We still have a day to talk about scum pairings.

I have to leave shortly, but I'll post my thoughts later tonight.

[EspressoPatronum]

i'll be honest, i don't really have much clue what's going on this game

but Espresso, why is it favourable for scum!NC to get 2 scum in the coaliton, don't scum want exactly one in there since we're inclined to lynch from the coalition since we now know there's at least 1 scum in there?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Scum don't want 2 in.

If scum!NC and scum!LUV, NC would want to remove LUV in favour of someone else.

1-1 is the best outcome for scum.

[EspressoPatronum]

RC comes in to call us all bad for failing the coalition despite being mia for the past few days. NIIIICE!

If it weren't for nsg mainly piloting the hydra, I'd probably be voting RCMA right now.

[EspressoPatronum]

maybe I should be voting EP

I assumed you'd come around to it eventually.

[EspressoPatronum]

We don't really have time for much discussion + I think it's a bad idea to not lynch.

[EspressoPatronum]

We're down to 8 hours. My vote is on LUV, but I could go for Gamma as well.

I will check in occasionally over the next few hours + will swap my vote as needed to achieve a lynch.

[EspressoPatronum]

What’s the case on Alchemist again?

There isn't one rn because he wasn't in the coalition

[EspressoPatronum]

I think limiting the lynch pool solely to those who were in the failed coalition is more likely to lead to a town loss.

I think you're right in the long term, but I see no reason why voting outside of it now is a good idea.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm going to start our pairings discussion. It's not super important to complete it until after we figure out the lynch, but I want it out there to get people thinking about it.

It's woefully incomplete rn, but it's a first step.

Possible Pairings

Gamma-Hectic

- I don't recall either of them having each other in the coalitions. Hectic's might have had Gamma for a while, but I think it was brief.

Gamma-Spangled

- pretty sure Spangled started pushing Gamma into the coalition after we removed Spangled. Spangled's vote on Gamma could be a scum gambit.

NC-LUV

- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

There are a few others, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. Imo, it's a red flag if someone in the core coalition (me, RCMA, NC, Hectic for most of the day, and Spangled for a little while) vetoed anyone else bcz a scum in the coalition would want to avoid having another scum in the coalition.

Unlikely Pairings:
(In progress, but it's pretty much all of the in-coalition pairs)

Impossible pairings

(>=50% chance of 1 or more being town)
Alchemist-Hectic
Alchemist-GREAT
Alchemist-Spangled
Hectic-GREAT
Hectic-Spangled
Spangled-GREAT

[EspressoPatronum]

In the mean time, we really need people casting votes. Hedging bets and sitting on your vote isn't helping anyone, especially with ~5 hours of the day remaining.

[EspressoPatronum]

VOTE: Alchemist21

sheep me if you want any reasonable probability of winning

his partner is someone with whom he distanced heavily

Who did he distance heavily?

Why aren't you voting within the coalition?

[EspressoPatronum]

I don't expect you to coddle or handhold anyone. I expect you to play the game as though your mere participation isn't some favour to us. I

'm here to play the game, not stroke your ego.

[EspressoPatronum]

And yeah, you might be right on some things. Maybe I'm garbage at the game and maybe my reads aren't great, but you haven't given me any reason to trust you more than anyone else.

I'm fact, your entitlement and evident god complex make it really tough to agree with what you're saying.

[EspressoPatronum]

like actually the audacity of going out of your way to play into every single one of my pet peeves, pet peeves which are widely known, and then get mad at me for not wanting to play the game

I've played one game with you. I don't know your pet peeves and don't really care about them.

One of my pet peeves is entitlement. Congrats, you're playing to my pet peeves, too.

[EspressoPatronum]

@GREAT a few questions:
What specifically is wrong with my pairings list?
What pairings would you add?
Why are none of your lynchpool options within the coalition?

[EspressoPatronum]

@GREAT a few questions:
What specifically is wrong with my pairings list?
What pairings would you add?

Why are none of your lynchpool options within the coalition?

Scratch that last point. I am.

[EspressoPatronum]

I stopped playing this game because you guys talk about the game and play the game like everyone thinks you're hot fucking shit when in reality you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about
I don't think the concepts of

not trying to policy lynch a slot that I'm in
not ignoring the reads of the strongest town player in this game (debatable wrt NSG but she's in my slot so)
not going out of your way to shit up the game for me in a way that's going to screw over both my investment and my capacity to generate good reads

really if any of you are town what exactly is it that you think is going to happen?

it has taken absolutely ridiculous levels of awful for town to lose games that i've been in this year and you guys managed to throw the coalition and no lynch

sorry, when you guys failed the coalition and can't get a lynch through before the deadline the play isn't to hyperscrutinize my actions

you can't get a fucking lynch through, you don't stand a snowballs chance in hell if i'm scum

so

FUCK OFF

lmao cry me a fucking river

i don't have experience with you but it seems that you're one of Those players that comes in with an astounding amount of entitlement and then gets shocked when not everybody follows you just because of your name recognition

THANK YOU

[EspressoPatronum]

NC-LUV
- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

...

Unlikely Pairings:
(In progress, but it's pretty much all of the in-coalition pairs)

Huh?

What about this do you not understand? I'm happy to elaborate, but I need a more specific response first.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'll probably get scumread for saying this but I think it's pretty unfair to scum to have the deadline extended here.

NAI imo. It's a reasonable opinion coming from town or scum.

[EspressoPatronum]

NC-LUV
- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

...

Unlikely Pairings:
(In progress, but it's pretty much all of the in-coalition pairs)

Huh?

What about this do you not understand? I'm happy to elaborate, but I need a more specific response first.

@Gamma
Nvm, I think I see what you were getting at. Were you highlighting NC-LUV as being an in-coalition pair? If yes, that's the only in-coalition pairing I thought was likely. The others fall into Unlikely Pairings, hence the "pretty much all" but not "all" in-coalition pairings being unlikely.

[EspressoPatronum]

Hectic, who is your top scumread of the people within the coalition?

[EspressoPatronum]

NC-LUV

- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition

, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

I think you’ve completely misunderstood what I did and didn’t understand about the mechanics of this game. As I have already explained, the ONLY thing I was confused about, was the

timing

of the finalizing of the lynch part of it.

I played this game before as well as GS, so I totally do understand how coalitions work but we won D1 (or so I thought) in Skitter’s game, so the lynch part of that, never came into play and in GS, we voted coalitions and lynches on SEPARATE days, not

simultaneously

.

So, what I had understood, was that any lynch would obviously be voided in case of coalition pass but I thought, we had to have decided on it, BEFORE we knew the outcome of the coalition and then we were suddenly expected to rush the vote, before we had any real info to process - coalition result . Thank God, Sky granted us an extension.

I hope you are now clear on this?

Thank you for the clarification. This is the post I was referring to btw:

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.

I see how the timing misunderstanding coloured your interpretation of who we should be voting for. While that's good to kniw, I'm not sure if it changes my pairings observation.

Scum operating under your assumption above would likely want two scum in the coalition if they thought town would be voting outside of the coalition. In the case at hand, you advocated to remove LUV from the coalition once you learned about the timing. It was probably nothing, but it's why I think an NC-LUV pairing is possible while all the other in-coalition pairings seem unlikely.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'd vote Alchemist

Why are you considering voting outside the coalition?

I think limiting the lynch pool solely to those who were in the failed coalition is more likely to lead to a town loss.

We're not doing it the whole game, just starting there day 1.

LUV was the first one to suggest, that limiting lynches to just inside coalition was antitown but no one so far, has explained why.

Espresso agreed but just not on D1. So, if we vote inside coalition today and if we don’t get a scumflip, why is this different after that? @Espresso, your take on that confuses me.

@NC that's Gamma's quote, not mine

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

I'd vote Alchemist

Why are you considering voting outside the coalition?

I think limiting the lynch pool solely to those who were in the failed coalition is more likely to lead to a town loss.

We're not doing it the whole game, just starting there day 1.

LUV was the first one to suggest, that limiting lynches to just inside coalition was antitown but no one so far, has explained why.

Espresso agreed but just not on D1. So, if we vote inside coalition today and if we don’t get a scumflip, why is this different after that? @Espresso, your take on that confuses me.

@NC that's Gamma's quote, not mine

@NC this is my stance:

I think limiting the lynch pool solely to those who were in the failed coalition is more likely to lead to a town loss.

I think you're right in the long term, but I see no reason why voting outside of it now is a good idea.

Imo, we should probably vote within the coalition until we hit a scum bcz we're certain at least one is in there + our chances of hitting one increase each time we're wrong.

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

I'd vote Alchemist

Why are you considering voting outside the coalition?

I think limiting the lynch pool solely to those who were in the failed coalition is more likely to lead to a town loss.

We're not doing it the whole game, just starting there day 1.

LUV was the first one to suggest, that limiting lynches to just inside coalition was antitown but no one so far, has explained why.

Espresso agreed but just not on D1. So, if we vote inside coalition today and if we don’t get a scumflip, why is this different after that? @Espresso, your take on that confuses me.

@NC that's Gamma's quote, not mine

I think limiting the lynch pool solely to those who were in the failed coalition is more likely to lead to a town loss.

I think you're right in the long term, but I see no reason why voting outside of it now is a good idea.

See post 851 for my reply to this.

What's your stance on how long we should vote within the coalition?

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC What are your reads looking like right now?

I’m getting concerned that Espresso continues to misinterpret my posts. I initially thought that I hadn’t explained things clearly enough but now that I have, I’m getting annoyed with his what is looking like to me, a mischaracterizing of my posts about that. I still think he’s not getting it but I don’t know how much clearer he needs me to be. I explained very clearly that I fully understand how the coalition mechanics work and he keeps insisting I don’t. I’m now getting a but paranoid that LUV may be town, because of that. I don’t understand why he keeps ignoring what I’ve said about both Skitter’s game and GS.

My misunderstanding of the timing of the deciding of the lynch doesn’t cancel that out.

I think you're reading into my pairings post a little too deeply. It's not a scumcase.

If you read the beginning of the post, you'll see that I posted it to get discussion flowing on possible pairings. Aubrey and A50 did this in nsg's game. While they ultimately won with the coalition, I think their discussion of pairings may have been helpful if the game continued. I wanted to do the same in this game.

I'm not saying you're scum (as I still tr you), but I'm saying that IF you were scum, LUV is a potential partner. If LUV is town, you're even more likely to be town imo (note - I have said all of this in my past posts). I even considered adding myself and possible pairings, but I decided against it because it wouldn't be very genuine.

What result are you trying to achieve by citing the VCAs and your stance on Alchemist?

[EspressoPatronum]

For ease of reference, at post 777, I said:

I'm going to start our pairings discussion. It's not super important to complete it until after we figure out the lynch, but I want it out there to get people thinking about it.

It's woefully incomplete rn, but it's a first step. [Snipped the list of pairings]

[EspressoPatronum]

I did a quick skim of Alchemist's town SC game, town Overkill game, and the scum SC game and I honestly can't tell the difference between them.

If I had to pick something, he seemed a bit more proactive in the scum SC game compared to the others, but not by much.

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

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.

Okay, that’s a relief then. I think this is probably a winning coalition then. And you were the only one outside the coalition voting it, so I think it plus you is probably alltown. If we do add you, I would probably sub out LUV over Gamma, since I’m liking his recent posting.

This unfortunately comes after me establishing that we should vote within the coalition.

While I still believe you're town, I think I'd rather keep it {RCMA, LUV, Gamma, Espresso, NC} in the event that scum!NC tries to get 2 scum out of the coalition.

@NC

Yeah, I worded that poorly.

I was trying to say scum!NC wouldn't want 2 scum in the coalition and with want to take one out.

i'll be honest, i don't really have much clue what's going on this game

but Espresso, why is it favourable for scum!NC to get 2 scum in the coaliton, don't scum want exactly one in there since we're inclined to lynch from the coalition since we now know there's at least 1 scum in there?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Scum don't want 2 in.

If scum!NC and scum!LUV, NC would want to remove LUV in favour of someone else.

1-1 is the best outcome for scum.

I'm going to start our pairings discussion. It's not super important to complete it until after we figure out the lynch, but I want it out there to get people thinking about it.

It's woefully incomplete rn, but it's a first step.

Possible Pairings

Gamma-Hectic

- I don't recall either of them having each other in the coalitions. Hectic's might have had Gamma for a while, but I think it was brief.

Gamma-Spangled

- pretty sure Spangled started pushing Gamma into the coalition after we removed Spangled. Spangled's vote on Gamma could be a scum gambit.

NC-LUV

- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

There are a few others, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. Imo, it's a red flag if someone in the core coalition (me, RCMA, NC, Hectic for most of the day, and Spangled for a little while) vetoed anyone else bcz a scum in the coalition would want to avoid having another scum in the coalition.

Unlikely Pairings:
(In progress, but it's pretty much all of the in-coalition pairs)

Impossible pairings

(>=50% chance of 1 or more being town)
Alchemist-Hectic
Alchemist-GREAT
Alchemist-Spangled
Hectic-GREAT
Hectic-Spangled
Spangled-GREAT

NC-LUV

- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition

, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

I think you’ve completely misunderstood what I did and didn’t understand about the mechanics of this game. As I have already explained, the ONLY thing I was confused about, was the

timing

of the finalizing of the lynch part of it.

I played this game before as well as GS, so I totally do understand how coalitions work but we won D1 (or so I thought) in Skitter’s game, so the lynch part of that, never came into play and in GS, we voted coalitions and lynches on SEPARATE days, not

simultaneously

.

So, what I had understood, was that any lynch would obviously be voided in case of coalition pass but I thought, we had to have decided on it, BEFORE we knew the outcome of the coalition and then we were suddenly expected to rush the vote, before we had any real info to process - coalition result . Thank God, Sky granted us an extension.

I hope you are now clear on this?

Thank you for the clarification. This is the post I was referring to btw:

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.

I see how the timing misunderstanding coloured your interpretation of who we should be voting for. While that's good to kniw, I'm not sure if it changes my pairings observation.

Scum operating under your assumption above would likely want two scum in the coalition if they thought town would be voting outside of the coalition. In the case at hand, you advocated to remove LUV from the coalition once you learned about the timing. It was probably nothing, but it's why I think an NC-LUV pairing is possible while all the other in-coalition pairings seem unlikely.

Maybe you are the one who isn’t fully understanding the mechanics in this game? [/quote]
Honestly, maybe you're right. I feel like what I'm saying isn't very contentious, but it evidently is. Hopefully I can work this out in this reply to you.

If that doesn't work and I'm still misunderstanding your posts, can you help me out by stating, as succinctly as possible, comments the following:
- what is the purpose of EP's pairings post?
- where, specifically, is the point of contention between NC and EP?

So which is it @Espresso? Before coalition result, you link LUV/Me because scum!me wouldn’t want 2 scum in the coalition and afterwards, you do a complete 180 on this and say, scum!me would want that?

Ok let's take you and me out of the equation here. I'm going to use A, B, C instead. If I unfairly impose an assumption on A/B/C, don't apply it to you. I'm just working within this micro example here:
1. A and B are partners.
2. A thinks that voting outside of the coalition is town's likely avenue.
3. A therefore wants B in the coalition

4. C says something that disproves what A thought at step 2.
5. A now thinks that town's likely avenue is to vote within the coalition
6. A therefore wants B out of the coalition now.

In this example, A's sudden want to remove B from the coalition is suggests to C that A and B may be paired together.

Bringing it back to the case at hand, your recent posts have demonstrated that the actual events are far more nuanced than my example.

Assuming for a moment that the statements in the example are all true (which you have demonstrated they aren't, but work with me here), and that A=you, B=LUV, and C=EP, does it seem reasonable for me to conclude that you and LUV may be connected?

I don’t understand why you keep maintaining I don’t understand coalition mechanics? I’ve now played 2 games with that particular mechanic? Why would you think I’d expect a lynch to happen at all in the event of coalition fail,

considering I believed we had to decide this before it passed with no clear majority

?

I was perhaps being too general here + we may be talking past each other.

I don't think you don't understand all of the coalition mechanics. The specific mechanic I was referring to was setting up a vote before the coalition and why we should do that.

You understood it a different way because you've played games in this mode before. Totally understandable. I wasn't trying to attack your competency... my point of highlighting the misunderstanding was me jumping to the conclusion j of the ABC example (above) without explaining the specifics.

There is 0 evidence to suggest anything other than a no lynch would happen in case of coalition fail. [...]

On my reading, I assumed we would go right into the lynching phase of D1. Given our limited amount of time, I tried to complete the coalition and get ready for lynching. My posts in my ISO will support this.

[EspressoPatronum]

As a note - I always post on my phone. Please ignore small typos, formatting errors, etc.

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

@NC What are your reads looking like right now?

I’m getting concerned that Espresso continues to misinterpret my posts. I initially thought that I hadn’t explained things clearly enough but now that I have, I’m getting annoyed with his what is looking like to me, a mischaracterizing of my posts about that. I still think he’s not getting it but I don’t know how much clearer he needs me to be. I explained very clearly that I fully understand how the coalition mechanics work and he keeps insisting I don’t. I’m now getting a but paranoid that LUV may be town, because of that. I don’t understand why he keeps ignoring what I’ve said about both Skitter’s game and GS.

My misunderstanding of the timing of the deciding of the lynch doesn’t cancel that out.

I think you're reading into my pairings post a little too deeply. It's not a scumcase.

If you read the beginning of the post, you'll see that I posted it to get discussion flowing on possible pairings. Aubrey and A50 did this in nsg's game. While they ultimately won with the coalition, I think their discussion of pairings may have been helpful if the game continued. I wanted to do the same in this game.

I'm not saying you're scum (as I still tr you), but I'm saying that IF you were scum, LUV is a potential partner. If LUV is town, you're even more likely to be town imo (note - I have said all of this in my past posts). I even considered adding myself and possible pairings, but I decided against it because it wouldn't be very genuine.

What result are you trying to achieve by citing the VCAs and your stance on Alchemist?

Your response:

Spoiler:

I obviously don’t want to mislynch. I understand you’re not scumcasing me but prior to coalition, your linking me with LUV was based on my not wanting him in coalition and now it’s the opposite, hence my confusion.

I posted the VCA because you suggested that scum!me, due to misunderstanding coalition would be somehow influenced by that but at the time, there was no clear majority. So, I just don’t understand why you mentioned that. If there’s no clear majority at the time of the coalition passing, then how could scum be influenced by that at all? That just made 0 sense to me.

You also posted non-coalition pairings as being less than 0 or something but I don’t know why you’d even bother with that, since we know now with 100% certainty that one scum is in failed coalition, so isn’t kind of redundant to post that?[/quote]

I'm hoping my big wallpost addressed your first and second para. If it doesn't, I will revisit this as needed.

Non-coalition pairings are >50% likely to be one or more town. It's not redundant because the likelihood holds true if/after we find the scum in the coalition.

[EspressoPatronum]

I did a quick skim of Alchemist's town SC game, town Overkill game, and the scum SC game and I honestly can't tell the difference between them.

If I had to pick something, he seemed a bit more proactive in the scum SC game compared to the others, but not by much.

So, how are you reading him here by comparison?

Town... but again, his town and scum play look very similar.

[EspressoPatronum]

For ease of reference, at post 777, I said:

I'm going to start our pairings discussion. It's not super important to complete it until after we figure out the lynch, but I want it out there to get people thinking about it.

It's woefully incomplete rn, but it's a first step. [Snipped the list of pairings]

Is there some reason you have Gamma linked with Spangled but not GREAT and why isn’t LUV linked with either?

Didn’t both Spangled and GREAT have both Gamma and LUV in their final coalitions?

The reason for me not including them is I didn't notice them. Happy to add them to the pairings list.

My methodology was less focused on the final result and more focused on who ppl added shortly after they were removed from the coalition. I also tried to look at who the core coalition members vetoed.

Example:
If Hectic is scum with Gamma, for instance, Hectic likely wouldn't push Gamma as long as Hectic was in the coalition. If I'm remembering correctly, Hectic pushed Gamma once people removed Hectic from the coalition.

Hypo example: if a core coalition member was widely TRd, it would be in their best interest to veto their scumbuddy to ensure the result of 1in / 1out.

[EspressoPatronum]

Sorry about messing up the formatting.

No prob. I'm happy with leaving that at an understanding of a misunderstanding. We can go back to it at game end if you want, but I don't think it's helpful to get to the bottom of it.

The pairings discussion seems more fruitful anyway.

[EspressoPatronum]

I found it helpful to delete all quoted spoilers and reapply them manually. That will probably help any future abominations like 880 lmao

[EspressoPatronum]

[...]

What do you think of Hectic, at least in part, basing his Alchemist vote on his read of RC’s alignment? [...]

I think Hectic has been pretty consistently against Alchemist on his own, even going back to fairly early in the game:

[...]
VOTE: Alchemist

I also recall Hectic disagreeing with RC's stonewalling of me earlier in the game, so his Alchemist sr is probably his own.

Hectic was likely waiting for an opportunity to go on Alchemist + RC's vote was a good chance to do so.

[EspressoPatronum]

Hectic was likely waiting for an opportunity to go on Alchemist + RC's vote was a good chance to do so.

This sounds like you’re accusing Hectic of opportunism... but the rest of the post seems not to indicate that...
Remind me, what’s your read on Hectic?

Town.

I don't see why town can't be opportunistic. It seems to me as though Alch was Hectic's top scum read + he probably wouldn't have voted outside of the coalition without support.

[EspressoPatronum]

Hectic was likely waiting for an opportunity to go on Alchemist + RC's vote was a good chance to do so.

This sounds like you’re accusing Hectic of opportunism... but the rest of the post seems not to indicate that...
Remind me, what’s your read on Hectic?

Town.

I don't see why town can't be opportunistic. It seems to me as though Alch was Hectic's top scum read +

he probably wouldn't have voted outside of the coalition without support.

How is that anything other than NAI?

Agreed. My town read of Hectic is not because of said opportunism. I was addressing it bcz Spangled said I was accusing (ie. Insinuating Hectic was scum) with my opportunism comment.

My reasons for my Hectic tr are fleshed out earlier in my posts + they haven't changed since.

[EspressoPatronum]

Voting outside of the coalition is objectively bad from a probability standpoint.

[EspressoPatronum]

Hey Spangled, what's your read of Hectic?

[EspressoPatronum]

@Espresso, What is your current read on Alchemist?

townlean.

I've had him as null in my head for a while, but the way he's playing here seems more similar to the town games you linked than the scum game he linked. As I said earlier though, his town/scum meta are quite similar and I'm not very confident on my read.

[EspressoPatronum]

I don't need to win this game to prove the point that I want to make.

I'm just waiting for it to be over.

Then do us all a favour and sub out.

[EspressoPatronum]

I don't need to win this game to prove the point that I want to make.

I'm just waiting for it to be over.

Then do us all a favour and sub out.

You’re not supposed to make posts like this. Site rules.

Noted. Thanks.

[EspressoPatronum]

I think that the odds of Gamma/Alch overwhelm the odds of any other scumteam.

I am willing to move onto Gamma to test this.

[EspressoPatronum]

I consider lynching outside the coalition to be +town equity for reasons.

Mechanical reasons or...?

I would also like an answer to this.

[EspressoPatronum]

I think that the odds of Gamma/Alch overwhelm the odds of any other scumteam.

I am willing to move onto Gamma to test this.

You're the other likely Alch partner though, so...

I know -- my defence of voting within the coalition tied me to Alch. I also don't think I advocated for Alch being in the coalition at any point, so that's another point in favour of an EP-Alch.

It looks like the Alch lynch will likely go through though, so we'll worry about my ties to him if he flips scum.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm still against voting outside of the coalition, but I'd rather that than no lynch.

I have to leave for ~3ish hours. If LUV/Gamma hasn't picked back up and Alch is still the top contender, I'll hammer it.

[EspressoPatronum]

VOTE: Alchemist

[EspressoPatronum]

Welp, time to go back to square one... we vote within the coalition no matter what. I won't be caving on this stance under any circumstances.

The scum thankfully helped us out by killing off one of the potential lunch candidates.

[EspressoPatronum]

I think the fact that scum decided to kill within the coalition is pretty telling.

Telling of what?

[EspressoPatronum]

I think the fact that scum decided to kill within the coalition is pretty telling.

Telling of what?

Maybe I’m wrong and it’s WIFOM and RCMA was pretty townie but I nevertheless find it interesting that first scum kill was inside the coalition, don’t you?

Yes. I find it very interesting because RCMA was a sub-optimal kill target imo.

[EspressoPatronum]

@Spangled, what specifically about me was good from a tone and content perspective, and what specifically has changed?

You've been slowly walking your town read of me back + it looks like you're positioning to scumread me. I can't address your read of me if it's vague though, so I'd like you to drill down on the specifics.

[EspressoPatronum]

In:

RCMA

NC
EP
LUV
Gamma

Out:

Alchemist

Spangled
Hectic
GREAT
__________________
Legend:

In!X = town/scum in the coalition
Out!X = town/scum outside of the coalition
IN - inside the coalition
OUT - outside of the coalition
1-1 = 1 in!scum, 1 out!scum

My guess is that scum killed inside the coalition because they're 1-1. If they killed outside of the coalition (bringing it down to two players OUT) + we assumed 1-1, then the remaining out!town would have conf!scum on the other out!slot, and the rest of us would have a 50/50 shot.

With that in mind, scum probably killed IN to either:
a) prevent the above from happening, or
b) make us think they were preventing the above from happening.

It's probably option a over b, but that's pretty WIFOMy. Bearing in mind we have two MLs before game loss, I propose we lynch IN:
Example:

Spoiler:

RCMA

NC
EP

LUV

(hypothetically)
Gamma

Out:

Alchemist

Spangled
Hectic
GREAT

If we're right, we have 2 lynches to find the remaining scum in the 3 out!slots. If we're wrong, we force the scum to bring one category (IN or OUT) down to 50/50, meaning we enter LYLO with decent odds of hitting scum.

All of the above assumes 1-1. If it's 2-0, then we for sure need to be voting IN.

[EspressoPatronum]

Why do you have LUV crossed out?

Hypo example. Is that all you took from the post??

[EspressoPatronum]

Why do you have LUV crossed out?

Hypo example. Is that all you took from the post??

No, why would you assume that?

You’re saying if it’s 1-1, we have 2 lynches to find the scum in the out slots.

I just didn’t think it necessary to repeat that.

No, I said we should lynch within the coalition.

Also, where is everyone else?

[EspressoPatronum]

Hello
Anyone got any points they want my input on?

Why do you think scum killed within the coalition?

What are our next steps?

[EspressoPatronum]

RCMA was widely townread so that seems like a reason why
I feel like that might say something about where scum us

but also possibly not, my head doesn't feel super clear rn

No prob. Let me know what you think some time tomorrow once things clear up.

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC you haven't mentioned your read of Spangled since the ~500s, so a strong TR on him came as a bit of surprise. Can you give us an updated reads list?

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC you haven't mentioned your read of Spangled since the ~500s, so a strong TR on him came as a bit of surprise. Can you give us an updated reads list?

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?

@Espresso

Once again: @Espresso. Is RC’s selective amnesia catching or what?

Yes, you’re probably going to think I reacted strongly but I tend to get somewhat irritated when It’s clear to me I’ve made something blatantly obvious and continue to be questioned on it.

I do think you're reacting strongly, but that's consistent with before, so I'm not reading into it.

The post you quoted is from 650ish + the post by me said 500ish. It's not super far off considering we're in the thousands now. Your "@Espresso" in the 800s was related to your Alchemist read, so it's reasonable to assume you weren't quoting it to show me your Spangled read.

All that to show it's reasonable that I didn't misinterpret your posts. You ended up giving your updated reads, so I'm happy either way.

[EspressoPatronum]

I think the fact that scum decided to kill within the coalition is pretty telling.

Telling of what?

Maybe I’m wrong and it’s WIFOM and RCMA was pretty townie but I nevertheless find it interesting that first scum kill was inside the coalition, don’t you?

Yes. I find it very interesting because RCMA was a sub-optimal kill target imo.

Well, I never got this post. Wasn’t almost everyone tr that slot?

Yeah that's true. That may have changed after the Alch flip, but it's tough to say.

I also made this post before I fully thought through the kill targets. Assuming 1in/1out, a kill within the coalition isn't actually suboptimal.

[EspressoPatronum]

Thinking for a little bit my early sense is it means scum might be in some of the middling reads outside the coalition? I recall Hectic being rather SR, Spangled was back and forth, and YAG I think was on the table for some but not really strong as anything. I think YAG is a decent push, Spangled a little less. There's also a question of who they can be scum with. I'll probably lynch in the coalition today but I'll use this logic to decide whom.

With RC being so wrong about Alchemist, it’s only strengthened my already strong tr on Spangled. Had Alchemist actually flipped scum, I would be a lot more likely to reconsider that slot but I’m going to go with my gut, like I wish I had done with Alchemist and rn, my gut is telling me he’s probably town and only way I’d even consider Spangled attp is if we get to LYLO and Hectic and GREAT have both flipped town.

If anyone thinks I’m not seeing something wrt to Spangled, let me know but I feel pretty good about this read.

Remember SC 2, I had Taly as a hard gut townlock and therefore also tr Creature because of it? Nobody listened to me because I couldn’t explain it but I just knew, like I knew Maria was 99.9999% flipping town in DnD. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get anyone to listen to me because I suck at the whole charisma thing. And I unfortunately tend to doubt myself when extremely confident players like RC are 100% convinced of their reads. I do sometimes have bad reads but rarely when they’re gutbased. I’m still mad at myself that I ignored my strong town gutread on Alchemist. I’m not making that mistake again, especially not in this game.

I'm with you on Spangled being hard town at the beginning, but I'm not as confident in him now. I'm feel good about you being town, so can you work with me by engaging in the following:

Assume for a moment that you're in my pov and you know you're town. Do Spangled's posts on you (read:EP) look like scum positioning or town game solving?

I'm pretty convinced he's scum who's been slowly trying to dial back his townread on me to open up mislynch targets, but I'd like another opinion.

[EspressoPatronum]

Prodding LUV and YOUAREGREAT

This is really getting super annoying. If either of you guys are town here, your being afk so often is super antitown. Like why did you guys even sign up for this? It’s getting beyond ridiculous that Sky has to continue to prod the two of you repeatedly.

Agreed. People always ask me why I like to try policy lynching lurkers in D1. I'll point them to this game in the future.

And then all we get is this when he comes back:

Hi.

All I have so far is EP’s thoughts on the night kill feel super fake to me.

It's killing me

[EspressoPatronum]

@Spangled: I'm reading through your case on me now:

It's driving me crazy that you keep harping on my tone.
1. I already told you about my sometimes formalistic tone. It's a product of my work and field of study. Formal emails, letters, memos are all commonplace.
2. Do a meta skim on me and you'll see.

[EspressoPatronum]

I’ll probably revisit these thoughts and I

need

people to talk to me about them, but for now, here they are. Still not so sure what my read is; I need people to talk to me. I need it so much you would not believe; sorting EP properly will be critical to win this

Happy to oblige. My comments will be in this colour

PROMISED THOUGHTS ON EP
Early game: good; stuff like 41 and 74 and 130 and 139.
Lots of it... seems very surface level? But early game that’s all you can do, really.

I actually thought the Hectic thing was a decent catch. I don't think many others were in a position to make that observation.

Lots of questions.

Haha, I do what I can.

370: I like the reconsideration but it’s kind of when other people were starting to re-townread me I think, so ??

Tone still a bit weird, but if no one else is seeing that it’s probably not worth anything...?

This was killing me so much that I had to make a second post about it, lol. I didn't even read the second half of the sentence though, so perhaps my tone post is a little overboard

Uh... progression on Gamma is... almost nonexistent? Despite voting them near EoD1. I don’t like how it happens; it’s a consensus that’s built and he just accepts it as status quo; no apparent thought process just ‘others have called this person maybe-not-town; that seems like a good lynch to make’. I don’t like it.

I can't remember the context of my Gamma read, but I'm willing to bet it's because of his meta. Remind me later if this is still bugging you + I'll go back and look at it

682 is weird; it amounts to — ‘two people who are low in coalition, and getting a flip from this one, the lower one will help me make another read...’ just... what?

This is an unfair categorization of what I said. I discussed this at length with NC, so I welcome you to read through that to fully understand the point I was making. In sum, I was seeing a potential scum pairing between NC and LUV + the result of the LUV lynch would well sort that. Also worth noting that NC was one of my top people in the coalition.

Scum pairings post (777) is weird; I find it strange that there are only 3 likely pairings kind of?

I almost regret making this post because of how many times people have misinterpreted the point. Read the first sentence of 777. It wasn't meant to be a complete pairings post + shouldn't be treated as such. Question for you -- what pairings would you add or remove? NC added a few near the end of D1.

He also puts a lot of weight on ‘scum will want to make sure it’s 1-in-1-out’; I’m really not sure that scum were explicitly aiming for that; there’s all kinds of WIFOM-traps to fall into there and so I think that a good deal of this analysis is worthless.

Scum should ABSOLUTELY be playing to 1-in/1-out. Assuming they weren't trying to do this is assuming they either don't understand the investigative value of coalition mechanic or they are incompetent. The result is perhaps a bit WIFOMy, but that's no reason to discount their goal of getting 1in/1out.

Maybe argument with RC is +townpoints but... I can see that as fakeable, probably?

Definitely fakeable... but you better believe scum!me appeases RC then just NKs him immediately. (Looking at LUV here)

Uh... I hold by my statement that you’ve dropped off in content, if not in tone; early game there was lots of good stuff going on but lately... mostly by-and-large pointless arguments, honestly.

But you said my early game was surface-level, albeit active. If I've dropped off from early game, do you mean that I haven't maintained the surface-level comments or that I've dropped even below that?
By arguments, I believe you're referring to the one with RCMA and NC. I agree that the first may have been pointless, but I believe the second (and @NC, correct me if I'm wrong) helped NC and I sort our respective townreads of one another.

[...]

[EspressoPatronum]

Pov = point of view.

Can't address the rest until a bit later.

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

@NC you haven't mentioned your read of Spangled since the ~500s, so a strong TR on him came as a bit of surprise. Can you give us an updated reads list?

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?

@Espresso

Once again: @Espresso. Is RC’s selective amnesia catching or what?

Yes, you’re probably going to think I reacted strongly but I tend to get somewhat irritated when It’s clear to me I’ve made something blatantly obvious and continue to be questioned on it.

I do think you're reacting strongly, but that's consistent with before, so I'm not reading into it.

The post you quoted is from 650ish + the post by me said 500ish. It's not super far off considering we're in the thousands now. Your "@Espresso" in the 800s was related to your Alchemist read, so it's reasonable to assume you weren't quoting it to show me your Spangled read.

All that to show it's reasonable that I didn't misinterpret your posts. You ended up giving your updated reads, so I'm happy either way.

True but I still think you’re missing the point that you were wrong that my current Spangled tr came out of nowhere. That’s why I posted this.

I worry that we're about to descend into semantics again, but I'll go for it anyway.

I did not say your townread of Spangled came out of nowhere. I said your

strong

townread of Spangled came as a surprise bcz you hadn't mentioned it in ~500 posts.

That is me acknowledging you made the read (i.e. that it wasn't out of nowhere), but that a

strong

TR is surprising given the lack of

recent

mention.

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC
1. I use dark mode, so the green is easy to read. If you're having trouble with it, try highlighting all of it. I'll use a more neutral colour in the future.

2. You're right about that one Spangled quote. I might be wrong + he may not be positioning on me. I'll reconsider his ISO.

3. I just assume reads change over time. If I don't hear about one in a long time, I assume it isn't the same. Asking about it ensures scum can't be complacent and ride off of strong early reads.

[EspressoPatronum]

Fwiw I'm almost 100% lynching LUV today.

[EspressoPatronum]

gobbledygook replaces YOUAREGREAT .

Welcome, gobbledygook!

[EspressoPatronum]

@Spangled my progression and reasons for LUV

Spoiler:

@EP
What’s your take on LUV, post-NC 39’s observation about how consensus seems to be that LUV is scum?

NC raises an interesting point, but I'm not comfortable enough with it to put LUV in my coalition.

First, I want active people in my coalition so I have a better chance at correctly sorting them. Putting LUV in because of inactivity and everyone else's behaviour seems backwards.

Second, all of my previous thoughts on LUV still apply. If we consider LUV's universal scum read ("USR") as a town factor in reading him, I'm still left with:

VOTE: EspressoPatronum

LUV, for

two

three

four reasons:
1. The lurking
2. I didn't like his early posts
3. I don't like his recent posts
4. I don't like the OMGUS vote

To expand:

1. My experience thus far has scum lurks surprisingly often. I even advocate for lurker policy lynches in most of my games bcz of how often I've seen scum skate by under the radar by lurking.

2. He wasn't helpful early. Telling us to ignore the mechanics of the game was anti-town. His early RC tr looks like he was trying to avoid attention. Alchemist gave a meta reason for his read, but I recall LUV leaving the TR without any reasons.

3. I disagreed with most of his catch-up posts. I also think that anyone touting a 'low activity' meta for town is doing a disservice to everyone else playing.

4. He again provided no reasons for what he was doing. I'm not even sure if OMGUS is scum indicative, but it's not a good look either way.

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.

Compromise is the only way I see this coalition getting passed. Everyone is too paranoid and it's making things chaotic.

I don't feel great about LUV in the coalition and I don't know about Gamma, but I'm keeping them in to get the coalition passed.

I also agree that Gamma is more town out of LUV and Gamma.

VOTE: LUV

Per my reasoning above, LUV is a good lynch if the coalition fails because:
1. He's within the coalition (see my earlier reasoning)
2. If he's town, I feel even better about town!NC
3. If he's scum, I feel very strongly about scum!NC (see reasoning above)

The NC connection wasn't my only reason at the time. Although I didn't cite it (and I kind of wish I did now), my scumread on LUV also informed my vote.

[EspressoPatronum]

@Spangled is the Gamma push you're referring to the one where I removed him from my coalition, the one where I wanted to lynch him (in between my LUV votes, or the one where I said I'd vote for Gamma or LUV?

Trying to figure out which one to talk about. Maybe all of them?

[EspressoPatronum]

Out of curiosity, when we figure out the scum who caused coalition to fail, would you then want to continue to lynch inside coalition or outside of it?

This is a hard question. I think it depends if we hit scum.

That’s precisely what I’m asking you.

I'd also like to hear how gobbled answers this question

[EspressoPatronum]

@EP, tl;dr me your scumread on LUV

You can find it at 1079.

In short, he's been lurking a lot and not contributing to the town's discussion. When he does weigh in, it's not helpful information.

[EspressoPatronum]

VOTE: LUV

[EspressoPatronum]

VC 2.03 Lil Uzi Vert (2): gobbledygook, EspressoPatronum Not Voting (5): Hectic, Spangled, Gamma Emerald, Lil Uzi Vert, NC 39 With 7 players alive, it takes 4 to reach a majority. Day one ends in (expired on 2019-09-23 19:25:00).

This is so frustrating. Once again, LUV isn’t voting. He was voting Espresso but preferred Alchemist and now, he wants Espresso but isn’t voting anyone.

Either LUV is scum and all of this makes sense, or LUV is town and he's pretty much throwing the game.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former. If it's the latter, I definitely don't want him in lylo.

[EspressoPatronum]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a no lynch is pretty much the same as a mislynch, as it allows the mafia one extra kill at the price of the game going one extra day. We'd be in mylo at an even number.

Considering lynches are our only way to catch scum, I'd even say a no-lynch is worse than a mislynch.

[EspressoPatronum]

@Spangled my progression and reasons for LUV

Spoiler:

@EP
What’s your take on LUV, post-NC 39’s observation about how consensus seems to be that LUV is scum?

NC raises an interesting point, but I'm not comfortable enough with it to put LUV in my coalition.

First, I want active people in my coalition so I have a better chance at correctly sorting them. Putting LUV in because of inactivity and everyone else's behaviour seems backwards.

Second, all of my previous thoughts on LUV still apply. If we consider LUV's universal scum read ("USR") as a town factor in reading him, I'm still left with:

VOTE: EspressoPatronum

LUV, for

two

three

four reasons:
1. The lurking
2. I didn't like his early posts
3. I don't like his recent posts
4. I don't like the OMGUS vote

To expand:

1. My experience thus far has scum lurks surprisingly often. I even advocate for lurker policy lynches in most of my games bcz of how often I've seen scum skate by under the radar by lurking.

2. He wasn't helpful early. Telling us to ignore the mechanics of the game was anti-town. His early RC tr looks like he was trying to avoid attention. Alchemist gave a meta reason for his read, but I recall LUV leaving the TR without any reasons.

3. I disagreed with most of his catch-up posts. I also think that anyone touting a 'low activity' meta for town is doing a disservice to everyone else playing.

4. He again provided no reasons for what he was doing. I'm not even sure if OMGUS is scum indicative, but it's not a good look either way.

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.

Compromise is the only way I see this coalition getting passed. Everyone is too paranoid and it's making things chaotic.

I don't feel great about LUV in the coalition and I don't know about Gamma, but I'm keeping them in to get the coalition passed.

I also agree that Gamma is more town out of LUV and Gamma.

VOTE: LUV

Per my reasoning above, LUV is a good lynch if the coalition fails because:
1. He's within the coalition (see my earlier reasoning)
2. If he's town, I feel even better about town!NC
3. If he's scum, I feel very strongly about scum!NC (see reasoning above)

The NC connection wasn't my only reason at the time. Although I didn't cite it (and I kind of wish I did now), my scumread on LUV also informed my vote.

@Gg, Hectic? thoughts on this?

so Espresso here didn't want LUV in the coalition badly, but then used that same logic to say NC and LUV could be a thing because NC didn't want LUV in the coalition too?
is that what you're getting at?

Actually, I didn’t even think of that but on rereading this, I see your point. Why was he linking me and LUV, when he was doing the exact same thing?

I explained this at length several pages ago. We eventually stopped talking about it because we were too deep down the rabbithole of misinterpretation.

I'll bring it up again if you want, but remember that you asked me to.

[EspressoPatronum]

true, would like to hear some expansion from Espresso on that association actually, seems kinda hypocritical and loosely based
[..]

Sigh.

I'll link you to the relevant posts in my ISO. Let me know if you want me to go through it again in current time.

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm fine with a Gamma or LUV lynch btw. I can't see myself voting NC any time soon, so it's realistically one of those two.

[EspressoPatronum]

@all see spoilers below for my progression and case on the possibility of a LUV-NC connection.

In short, it came about because NC wanted to remove LUV almost immediately after I established that lynching within the coalition was in our best interest. NC and I then had a long discussion about NC's understanding of the coalition mechanics.

Spoiler: you asked for this

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.

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.

Okay, that’s a relief then. I think this is probably a winning coalition then. And you were the only one outside the coalition voting it, so I think it plus you is probably alltown. If we do add you, I would probably sub out LUV over Gamma, since I’m liking his recent posting.

This unfortunately comes after me establishing that we should vote within the coalition.

While I still believe you're town, I think I'd rather keep it {RCMA, LUV, Gamma, Espresso, NC} in the event that scum!NC tries to get 2 scum out of the coalition.

I'm going to start our pairings discussion. It's not super important to complete it until after we figure out the lynch, but I want it out there to get people thinking about it.

It's woefully incomplete rn, but it's a first step.

Possible Pairings

Gamma-Hectic

- I don't recall either of them having each other in the coalitions. Hectic's might have had Gamma for a while, but I think it was brief.

Gamma-Spangled

- pretty sure Spangled started pushing Gamma into the coalition after we removed Spangled. Spangled's vote on Gamma could be a scum gambit.

NC-LUV

- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

There are a few others, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. Imo, it's a red flag if someone in the core coalition (me, RCMA, NC, Hectic for most of the day, and Spangled for a little while) vetoed anyone else bcz a scum in the coalition would want to avoid having another scum in the coalition.

Unlikely Pairings:
(In progress, but it's pretty much all of the in-coalition pairs)

Impossible pairings

(>=50% chance of 1 or more being town)
Alchemist-Hectic
Alchemist-GREAT
Alchemist-Spangled
Hectic-GREAT
Hectic-Spangled
Spangled-GREAT

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.

Okay, that’s a relief then. I think this is probably a winning coalition then. And you were the only one outside the coalition voting it, so I think it plus you is probably alltown. If we do add you, I would probably sub out LUV over Gamma, since I’m liking his recent posting.

This unfortunately comes after me establishing that we should vote within the coalition.

While I still believe you're town, I think I'd rather keep it {RCMA, LUV, Gamma, Espresso, NC} in the event that scum!NC tries to get 2 scum out of the coalition.

@NC

Yeah, I worded that poorly.

I was trying to say scum!NC wouldn't want 2 scum in the coalition and with want to take one out.

i'll be honest, i don't really have much clue what's going on this game

but Espresso, why is it favourable for scum!NC to get 2 scum in the coaliton, don't scum want exactly one in there since we're inclined to lynch from the coalition since we now know there's at least 1 scum in there?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Scum don't want 2 in.

If scum!NC and scum!LUV, NC would want to remove LUV in favour of someone else.

1-1 is the best outcome for scum.

I'm going to start our pairings discussion. It's not super important to complete it until after we figure out the lynch, but I want it out there to get people thinking about it.

It's woefully incomplete rn, but it's a first step.

Possible Pairings

Gamma-Hectic

- I don't recall either of them having each other in the coalitions. Hectic's might have had Gamma for a while, but I think it was brief.

Gamma-Spangled

- pretty sure Spangled started pushing Gamma into the coalition after we removed Spangled. Spangled's vote on Gamma could be a scum gambit.

NC-LUV

- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

There are a few others, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. Imo, it's a red flag if someone in the core coalition (me, RCMA, NC, Hectic for most of the day, and Spangled for a little while) vetoed anyone else bcz a scum in the coalition would want to avoid having another scum in the coalition.

Unlikely Pairings:
(In progress, but it's pretty much all of the in-coalition pairs)

Impossible pairings

(>=50% chance of 1 or more being town)
Alchemist-Hectic
Alchemist-GREAT
Alchemist-Spangled
Hectic-GREAT
Hectic-Spangled
Spangled-GREAT

NC-LUV

- NC clearly didn't understand the purpose of voting within the coalition

, so it's possible they would try to put both scum in the coalition + try convincing people to vote outside of it.

I think you’ve completely misunderstood what I did and didn’t understand about the mechanics of this game. As I have already explained, the ONLY thing I was confused about, was the

timing

of the finalizing of the lynch part of it.

I played this game before as well as GS, so I totally do understand how coalitions work but we won D1 (or so I thought) in Skitter’s game, so the lynch part of that, never came into play and in GS, we voted coalitions and lynches on SEPARATE days, not

simultaneously

.

So, what I had understood, was that any lynch would obviously be voided in case of coalition pass but I thought, we had to have decided on it, BEFORE we knew the outcome of the coalition and then we were suddenly expected to rush the vote, before we had any real info to process - coalition result . Thank God, Sky granted us an extension.

I hope you are now clear on this?

Thank you for the clarification. This is the post I was referring to btw:

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.

I see how the timing misunderstanding coloured your interpretation of who we should be voting for. While that's good to kniw, I'm not sure if it changes my pairings observation.

Scum operating under your assumption above would likely want two scum in the coalition if they thought town would be voting outside of the coalition. In the case at hand, you advocated to remove LUV from the coalition once you learned about the timing. It was probably nothing, but it's why I think an NC-LUV pairing is possible while all the other in-coalition pairings seem unlikely.

Maybe you are the one who isn’t fully understanding the mechanics in this game?

Honestly, maybe you're right. I feel like what I'm saying isn't very contentious, but it evidently is. Hopefully I can work this out in this reply to you.

If that doesn't work and I'm still misunderstanding your posts, can you help me out by stating, as succinctly as possible, comments the following:
- what is the purpose of EP's pairings post?
- where, specifically, is the point of contention between NC and EP?

So which is it @Espresso? Before coalition result, you link LUV/Me because scum!me wouldn’t want 2 scum in the coalition and afterwards, you do a complete 180 on this and say, scum!me would want that?

Ok let's take you and me out of the equation here. I'm going to use A, B, C instead. If I unfairly impose an assumption on A/B/C, don't apply it to you. I'm just working within this micro example here:
1. A and B are partners.
2. A thinks that voting outside of the coalition is town's likely avenue.
3. A therefore wants B in the coalition

4. C says something that disproves what A thought at step 2.
5. A now thinks that town's likely avenue is to vote within the coalition
6. A therefore wants B out of the coalition now.

In this example, A's sudden want to remove B from the coalition is suggests to C that A and B may be paired together.

Bringing it back to the case at hand, your recent posts have demonstrated that the actual events are far more nuanced than my example.

Assuming for a moment that the statements in the example are all true (which you have demonstrated they aren't, but work with me here), and that A=you, B=LUV, and C=EP, does it seem reasonable for me to conclude that you and LUV may be connected?

I don’t understand why you keep maintaining I don’t understand coalition mechanics? I’ve now played 2 games with that particular mechanic? Why would you think I’d expect a lynch to happen at all in the event of coalition fail,

considering I believed we had to decide this before it passed with no clear majority

?

I was perhaps being too general here + we may be talking past each other.

I don't think you don't understand all of the coalition mechanics. The specific mechanic I was referring to was setting up a vote before the coalition and why we should do that.

You understood it a different way because you've played games in this mode before. Totally understandable. I wasn't trying to attack your competency... my point of highlighting the misunderstanding was me jumping to the conclusion j of the ABC example (above) without explaining the specifics.

There is 0 evidence to suggest anything other than a no lynch would happen in case of coalition fail. [...]

On my reading, I assumed we would go right into the lynching phase of D1. Given our limited amount of time, I tried to complete the coalition and get ready for lynching. My posts in my ISO will support this.

[EspressoPatronum]

Chinese Fire Drill, it's a term for a wagon that forms very quickly. I am cognizant of the looming deadline rn. And like if people are up to vote gobs I can do that

4 is required for majority; there’s only me, you and NC on (discounting Gobble).
I’m willing to see what we can do though, and where this goes VOTE: Gobbledygook

Whhhhyyyyy are you voting outside of the coalition?

Have you forgotten all of the posts I made on this?

[EspressoPatronum]

VOTE: Gobbledegook

This is Alchemist all over again.

[EspressoPatronum]

Gobs my issue is you talk game about me+LUV being town but you don't act on it as I see it. You + me + Spangled + NC 39 is enough to get a lynch on Hectic or EP, why don't you seem interested in those? Didn't you FoS Ep earlier?

I don’t think I FoS’d EP. if I did I can’t remember why. I think EP is probably town. I don’t want to flash wagon those two because I think they are town. I could flash wagon Hectic, but it is antitown to go off coalition. Plus I think he might be town too.

I think your vote on me is probably town though. I don’t see you trying to flash wagon me as scum.

What's FoS?

[EspressoPatronum]

So who are we waiting on to hammer?

[EspressoPatronum]

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that it's NC/Hectic, but I don't know why I think that and I don't have time to go into it tonight.

I also don't see myself winning a 1v2 argument with them, so there's also that.

[EspressoPatronum]

We're in lylo btw, so nobody throw out any votes until we've discussed it plenty.

[EspressoPatronum]

You're using one of my pairings ideas (which again was a WIP from D1) as a reason you can't be paired with Hectic. If you care that strongly, I'll concede that you could be linked with someone else. At the end of the day, you're getting super defensive about a gut read.

We clearly have no idea on who is scum + I'm sure there's a 'perfectly rational explanation' they can point to for their actions. That's why it's going to be hard to 1v2 here.

[EspressoPatronum]

@NC who of Spangled or Hectic is scum?

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

Scum operating under your assumption above would likely want two scum in the coalition if they thought town would be voting outside of the coalition. In the case at hand, you advocated to remove LUV from the coalition once you learned about the timing. It was probably nothing, but it's why I think an NC-LUV pairing is possible while all the other in-coalition pairings seem unlikely. ~Espresso

Per my reasoning above, LUV is a good lynch if the coalition fails because:
1. He's within the coalition (see my earlier reasoning)
2. If he's town, I feel even better about town!NC
3. If he's scum, I feel very strongly about scum!NC (see reasoning above)

The NC connection wasn't my only reason at the time. Although I didn't cite it (and I kind of wish I did now), my scumread on LUV also informed my vote. ~Espresso

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that it's NC/Hectic, but I don't know why I think that and I don't have time to go into it tonight.

Care to explain this?

My explanation is that I was clearly wrong about LUV.

[EspressoPatronum]

Correction - people keep asking me about my reasoning from my D1 pairings post (specifically you and LUV) and I keep explaining it for them. That's not the same as pushing.

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

Scum operating under your assumption above would likely want two scum in the coalition if they thought town would be voting outside of the coalition. In the case at hand, you advocated to remove LUV from the coalition once you learned about the timing. It was probably nothing, but it's why I think an NC-LUV pairing is possible while all the other in-coalition pairings seem unlikely. ~Espresso

Per my reasoning above, LUV is a good lynch if the coalition fails because:
1. He's within the coalition (see my earlier reasoning)
2. If he's town, I feel even better about town!NC
3. If he's scum, I feel very strongly about scum!NC (see reasoning above)

The NC connection wasn't my only reason at the time. Although I didn't cite it (and I kind of wish I did now), my scumread on LUV also informed my vote. ~Espresso

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that it's NC/Hectic, but I don't know why I think that and I don't have time to go into it tonight.

Care to explain this?

My explanation is that I was clearly wrong about LUV.

Why are you still sr me then?

I can sr you without the need of LUV. Your defensiveness is a big one right now.

[EspressoPatronum]

Correction - people keep asking me about my reasoning from my D1 pairings post (specifically you and LUV) and I keep explaining it for them. That's not the same as pushing.

I was slightly paranoid that you were possibly setting me up for an eventual mislynch but I kept believing this but it’s looking now that my paranoia may possibly have been justified since you - pretty much out of left field are pushing me and Hectic as buddies.

Both of us didn’t want LUV in coalition but you still linked me and LUV as buddies. You made it very clear you wanted LUV lynched. I will find that post. Why did I vote LUV when Gg - someone outside coalition was getting wagoned? What do you see as the scum motivation for that?

I just don’t buy your sudden push on me because it contradicts everything you’ve been saying. You want to mischaracterize that as “overreacting”, I otoh, view it as me being pinged.

Although, I fully expect you to try to twist that too.

Convince me I’m wrong.

I don't need to convince you of anything if you're actually scum.

And you've been positioning on me for a while now, so it's funny to see you accuse me of positioning on you.

You're using the LUV connection (from D1!!) as a reason to try
clearing yourself. I've already explained this ad nauseum, so drumming it up more just looks like you're trying to cling o something that doesn't and shouldn't matter anymore.

[EspressoPatronum]

You're using one of my pairings ideas (which again was a WIP from D1) as a reason you can't be paired with Hectic. If you care that strongly, I'll concede that you could be linked with someone else. At the end of the day, you're getting super defensive about a gut read.

We clearly have no idea on who is scum + I'm sure there's a 'perfectly rational explanation' they can point to for their actions. That's why it's going to be hard to 1v2 here.

Well one thing is for sure, it’s 100% LYLO not MYLO because the only way we don’t lose is to correctly lynch one of the scum. So, I obviously know it’s not me and I don’t think it’s Spangled. If you’re actually town here than this is counterproductive. It’s instinctive for me to sr anyone who fmpov is making a bad push on me and if you’re town, this is not helping get the clarity I need to try to figure this out.

I'm at a 50/50 between you and Gamma. Pushing either of you is not counterproductive. Saying otherwise is just an attempt at gaslighting me and taking the focus off of yourself.

[EspressoPatronum]

So if 1 + 1, I lean Gamma/Espresso with Hectic more likely than Spangled.

If 2, then obviously Espresso/Gamma but am not sure on which.

Gamma seemed pretty townie at EoD and my suspicion on Hectic has lessened since Alchemist mislynch. I feel the best about Spangled and Espresso’s unexplained 180 on me is majorly paranoia pinging me.

I think it would greatly help if I could figure out which is which: 2 scum in coalition or 1 +1.

Because once we have a clearer idea on that, I think the game is definitely solvable.

I think I feel best about Spangled because he seems to be very natural, kind of the opposite of Espresso but that could also be a playstyle thing.

Fmpv, I don't have to worry about 2 in bcz lynching you or Gamma will result in a scum death. You shouldn't be worried about 2 in either, as from a town!NC perspective, 2 scum in the coalition results in a scum death either way.

How do you propose we solve the 1+1?

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler:

Scum operating under your assumption above would likely want two scum in the coalition if they thought town would be voting outside of the coalition. In the case at hand, you advocated to remove LUV from the coalition once you learned about the timing. It was probably nothing, but it's why I think an NC-LUV pairing is possible while all the other in-coalition pairings seem unlikely. ~Espresso

Per my reasoning above, LUV is a good lynch if the coalition fails because:
1. He's within the coalition (see my earlier reasoning)
2. If he's town, I feel even better about town!NC
3. If he's scum, I feel very strongly about scum!NC (see reasoning above)

The NC connection wasn't my only reason at the time. Although I didn't cite it (and I kind of wish I did now), my scumread on LUV also informed my vote. ~Espresso

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that it's NC/Hectic, but I don't know why I think that and I don't have time to go into it tonight.

Care to explain this?

My explanation is that I was clearly wrong about LUV.

Why are you still sr me then?

I can sr you without the need of LUV. Your defensiveness is a big one right now.

You obviously haven’t metacased me then.

Can you point me to a few town games for metacasing purposes? You're right that I haven't done this yet.

[EspressoPatronum]

So if 1 + 1, I lean Gamma/Espresso with Hectic more likely than Spangled.

If 2, then obviously Espresso/Gamma but am not sure on which.

Gamma seemed pretty townie at EoD and my suspicion on Hectic has lessened since Alchemist mislynch. I feel the best about Spangled and Espresso’s unexplained 180 on me is majorly paranoia pinging me.

I think it would greatly help if I could figure out which is which: 2 scum in coalition or 1 +1.

Because once we have a clearer idea on that, I think the game is definitely solvable.

I think I feel best about Spangled because he seems to be very natural, kind of the opposite of Espresso but that could also be a playstyle thing.

Fmpv, I don't have to worry about 2 in bcz lynching you or Gamma will result in a scum death. You shouldn't be worried about 2 in either, as from a town!NC perspective, 2 scum in the coalition results in a scum death either way.

How do you propose we solve the 1+1?

Why shouldn’t I be worried about 2 scum in coalition? There are two other players: you and Gamma and two non-coalition players. Of course I’m worried because it could also be 1 + 1. The point is I don’t want another mislynch or we lose and fmpov, I have no idea if both you and Gamma are scum or just one of you, so I don’t understand where you’re coming from with this.

I don't think lynching outside of the coalition is correct here, so I'm assuming any vote that passes today will be within the coalition.

When I said 2-in doesn't matter today, I meant that the town who is in the coalition will always be voting for scum if they vote within the coalition. So assuming scum!EP and scum!Gamma for a moment, town!NC is fine either way.

I agree with you that the discussion should focus on 1+1.

The point is, I don’t have a clue if it’s 2 in coalition or 1 + 1. I don’t know if you’re the reason coalition failed or you are woefully incapable of correctly understanding my posts. It’s almost like we’re speaking different languages. What I do know is that I am apparently not understanding you any better than you’re understanding me and this is why continuing to engage with you is so damned frustrating because I don’t think anything I’ve said is at all getting through and it’s been like this from day fucking one.

I recall gobbled saying you were the common denominator in all of these misunderstanding posts, but I'll agree that I've misinterpreted

some

of your posts. I don't see where I'm

continually

misinterpreting you, but you keep saying I am + then doing the same back to me. Regardless of your alignment, we both agree that it's frustrating.

At least if I honestly thought you were making a good faith effort, I might still try but you’re clearly not for whatever reason. You still have yet to explain how and why you suddenly apparently did this 180 on me. It’s really hard not to feel like you’re just confibiasing me.

It's honestly a mixture of gut read, my interactions with you this game, your general hesitance on giving strong reads, and your defensiveness about any scumread on you.

On the latter point, I still need to look at your meta. On the other points, I still need to look into them further and weigh them against Gamma.

[EspressoPatronum]

How do you propose we solve the 1+1?

If it is then I’ve already answered that. You have clearly misunderstood me. I didn’t say it has to be you and Gamma, it could just be one and one outside coalition. I am trying my damndest to figure out which.

So, if we lynch outside, I already told you I lean Hectic over Spangled in that case but that is dependent on it being a 1 + 1.

If it isn’t and Hectic or less likely Spangled, is a mislynch, then we lose. How is this not townie fyp? Isn’t it townie to consider all possibilities?

I don’t understand you at all. :/

I didn't say you thought it had to be me and Gamma.
I didn't say 1+1 is not towny.
I didn't say your Hectic>Spangled lean is not towny.

This is why you think I'm misunderstanding you... I'm not saying some of the things you think I'm saying.

Question for you so I can understand your perspective -- Are you considering +/ open to voting outside of the coalition today?

[EspressoPatronum]

Hey Hectic, do you want me to do a line-by-line response to your posts on me?

[EspressoPatronum]

Had an intense game that just finished off-site. I'll have some time tonight or tomorrow to get back into this one.

[EspressoPatronum]

Sorry about my siteflake, all.

@NC and Gamma, you both did great! Congratulations on the much deserved win.