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.
In post 867, EspressoPatronum wrote: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.
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.
In post 695, Hectic wrote: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.
In post 777, EspressoPatronum wrote: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 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:
In post 666, EspressoPatronum wrote:Assuming we pass a coalition and it fails, nobody should be voting to lynch outside of the 5 coalition members.
Why not? IF coalition fails - unless you think there’s two scum in it - unlikely. So, for today and today only, IF we lynch, it makes the most sense to lynch amongst the two scummiest players NOT in coalition. It was definitely GREAT for me, until Hectic decided to sub himself for Gamma pretty much immediately after voting the coalition.
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.[/quote]
Maybe there’s some misunderstanding here then? You’re seeing a connection - if someone were scum, by wanting to lynch outside coalition and wanting their hypothetical buddy inside it but you said prior to coalition that I didn’t want LUV in it and now you’re saying the converse.
I think I have a post, where I said, I didn’t want him in it but I didn’t think he should be the lynch in case coalition failed
. The VCA connection is due to a very clear no lynch happening - according to what I or someone who believed what I did - to logically believe that at the time, I was discussing LUV being in the coalition, that no lynch would happen regardless. This is why I liked Gamma’s post about that. I thought at the time, the optimal course of action was to no lynch, due to a complete lack of information and that’s why I unvoted.
Anyway, can you elaborate more on the other potential pairings you linked and as I’ve already stated. I think you missed some.
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.
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?
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.[/quote]
But how? We already know one of those mechanically has to be town?
My thinking att was if someone is townie enough to be in coalition, it makes 0 sense to vote them before we know the coalition results but it was clear if the lynch votes were to be counted, in the event of coalition fail, then any votes made prior to coalition outcome would fail anyway - due to the clear absence of a majority. In GS, scum!RC greatly protested being put into it. That’s one of the initial reasons I tr them. Nsg, clearly wanted to be included in it.
In post 878, NC 39 wrote: 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.
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.
Yeah I agree, scum trying to get both them and their buddy in coalition is against their wincon.
What do you think of Hectic, at least in part, basing his Alchemist vote on his read of RC’s alignment? @Hectic, how familiar with RC’s reads’ accuracy?
Iow, Are you in part, basing your Alchemist vote on RC being a dominant player or your familiarity with his reads?
In post 883, EspressoPatronum wrote:I found it helpful to delete all quoted spoilers and reapply them manually. That will probably help any future abominations like 880 lmao
Reapplying them manually prevents that? I thought the only way was to delete them. Thanks, I’ll try that next time.
But how? We already know one of those mechanically has to be town?
My thinking att was if someone is townie enough to be in coalition, it makes 0 sense to vote them before we know the coalition results but it was clear if the lynch votes were to be counted, in the event of coalition fail, then any votes made prior to coalition outcome would fail anyway - due to the clear absence of a majority. In GS, scum!RC greatly protested being put into it. That’s one of the initial reasons I tr them. Nsg, clearly wanted to be included in it. ~NC 39
Also I have a phenomenal record not just in general but specifically reading Alchemist21, and Alchemist knows this yet hasn't, in the slightest, reacted to my scumread on him that makes town coming from town who should expect town me to read him correctly.
So you just... don't plan to do anything about that?
I feel like you would be a lot more proactive in terms of forcing my hand: even now your engaging me as if I'm definitely acting in good faith by arguing that you did in fact try to sort me as opposed to prying for said info. Given my record reading you, you should be worried I'm scum setting you up as a mislynch.
Like, you're doing the things you should do to prevent me from lynching you if you're scum but not the things town you should do to deal with the situation if I'm in fact scum
Also arguing that you can't be scum because you have no viable scumpartners sounds like something scum says because they think they've done a hella woke job of distancing
But based on both yours and NSG’s meta I’m pretty sure you’re Town. I don’t feel a need to deal with you as if you’re scum because it’s still just not a possibility in my mind.
P-edit: No, no. Who could I have distanced from? Gamma, Great, Hectic. That’s pretty much it. 2 of those are impossible as my partner and the 3rd I still want lynched.
Because I’ve never needed to argue that you were Town before. In all our games together it’s always been obvious when you were Town. Your confidence in your ability to do well as Town always comes through in your posts in a way that it just doesn’t as scum.
Sorry about messing up the formatting.
