In post 870, EspressoPatronum wrote: In post 866, NC 39 wrote: In post 679, EspressoPatronum wrote: In post 678, NC 39 wrote:
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 691, EspressoPatronum wrote:@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.
In post 697, EspressoPatronum wrote: 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
In post 847, EspressoPatronum wrote: In post 835, NC 39 wrote: In post 777, EspressoPatronum wrote:
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:
In post 671, NC 39 wrote: 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.
