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.
[...]
