NC raises an interesting point, but I'm not comfortable enough with it to put LUV in my coalition.In post 455, Spangled wrote:@EP
What’s your take on LUV, post-NC 39’s observation about how consensus seems to be that LUV is scum?
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:
To expand:In post 369, EspressoPatronum wrote:LUV, fortwothreefour 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
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.