Micro 1075: The Coalition of Imaginary Creatures (Game over)

[lilith2013]

V OTECOUNT 1.006
E LIMINATION V OTES
P LAYER N AME	C URRENT V OTES
Keychain (2)	northsidegal, Not_Mafia
patchwork (0)	None
KawaiiKame (1)	Keychain
Not_Mafia (0)	None
northsidegal (0)	None
Eiralox (0)	None
Umlaut (0)	None
Dunnstral (0)	None
Bingle (0)	None
NOT VOTING: patchwork, KawaiiKame, Dunnstral, Bingle, Umlaut, Eiralox
C OALITION V OTES
P LAYER N AME	C URRENT C OALITION
Keychain (5)	Keychain, Dunnstral, northsidegal, Eiralox, Not_Mafia
patchwork (4)	patchwork, northsidegal, Bingle, Eiralox
KawaiiKame (5)	Eiralox, Dunnstral, Keychain, northsidegal, Umlaut
Not_Mafia (5)	Not_Mafia, Keychain, patchwork, northsidegal, Umlaut
northsidegal (2)	northsidegal, Eiralox
Eiralox (4)	Eiralox, northsidegal, Umlaut, Not_Mafia
Umlaut (5)	Umlaut, northsidegal, Keychain, Eiralox, Bingle
Dunnstral (4)	Dunnstral, northsidegal, Umlaut, Eiralox
Bingle (2)	Bingle, Eiralox
With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lock in a Coalition and 5 to eliminate. Deadline: (expired on 2023-04-06 14:49:20)
Notes: Imaginary creatures have completely fallen by the wayside HEAL: northsidegal HEAL: Deltabreedy HEAL: patchwork HEAL: Keychain HEAL: Not_Mafia VOTE: Keychain I am again not counting these coalition votes since you already have a proposed coalition of 5. Please use hurt tags to remove players from your coalition before adding new ones.

[Keychain]

This sort of seems like you're assuming Keychain sees the game the same way you do. I tend to agree with her that directly arguing I'm town is typically a waste of time.

it's not about "directly arguing I'm town", which i don't expect. it's mainly about the persistent avoidance, which i have seen scum do before

Ok I'll keep biting because I'm legitimately curious about this now

even though

I still don't believe it's game productive because I doubt this conversation will change your mind. "persistent avoidance" is such a strong term for continuing to do my own scumhunting because I was sure you'd realise your mistake without my help once you got a bigger sample size of my behaviour in this game. I seriously can't think of why I'd want to engage with you over it and what it would have brought me. asking about your read of me is meaningless because I know it's wrong! It's not like I'm going to change my behaviour because of your read because I'm doing my best already and I don't expect to be able to convince you, so why would I care?

like don't we just end up in this same sort of conversation where you're insistent I'm scum (for whatever the original reason was) and there's nothing I can do about it? what

was

the original reason for putting me at the bottom then? was it just to get my attention?? how would this have played out in a more productive manner earlier in the game north please help me understand, your conception of my town behaviour is so alien to me

[Keychain]

Umlaut I desperately want you to be town since you're in sync with my thoughts on everything except bingle but that also makes it so hard to read you

[Eiralox]

What did I do?

Don't sweat it it's not personal <3

[Not_Mafia]

I'm curious though what game was it?

[northsidegal]

This sort of seems like you're assuming Keychain sees the game the same way you do. I tend to agree with her that directly arguing I'm town is typically a waste of time.

it's not about "directly arguing I'm town", which i don't expect. it's mainly about the persistent avoidance, which i have seen scum do before

Ok I'll keep biting because I'm legitimately curious about this now

even though

I still don't believe it's game productive because I doubt this conversation will change your mind. "persistent avoidance" is such a strong term for continuing to do my own scumhunting because

I was sure you'd realise your mistake without my help once you got a bigger sample size of my behaviour in this game

. I seriously can't think of why I'd want to engage with you over it and what it would have brought me. asking about your read of me is meaningless because I know it's wrong! It's not like I'm going to change my behaviour because of your read because I'm doing my best already and I don't expect to be able to convince you, so why would I care?

like don't we just end up in this same sort of conversation where you're insistent I'm scum (for whatever the original reason was) and there's nothing I can do about it? what

was

the original reason for putting me at the bottom then? was it just to get my attention?? how would this have played out in a more productive manner earlier in the game north please help me understand, your conception of my town behaviour is so alien to me

i find the idea that you expected me to at some point just go from "i will never be okay with a coalition that includes keychain" to townreading you to be, if not somewhat unbelievable, at least a very surprising mindset. it makes me wonder – if that

didn't

end up happening at some point, would

that

be the point at which you finally brought anything up yourself? would you just hope that a coalition passes that manages to include you anyways, and people ignore my read on you? or would you just not expect to be in the coalition? you've said already that you don't expect the coalition to pass anyways. i don't think that i could really say that this is a scummy mindset, but i find it again very surprising to come from town.

i don't think that my conception of your behavior is actually as strange as you're implying. if, as you've said, you believe that you're playing your towngame here (or otherwise in a towny manner), i don't think that it's entirely unreasonable to be at least somewhat concerned or interested in someone whose reads you've indicated you trust completely misreading you. town wins this setup by forming strong, mutual townreads.

asking about your read of me is meaningless because I know it's wrong!

i'm having a hard time finding the words to explain exactly how i disagree with this. like, if i had a cop innocent on someone who you were strongly scumreading, probably the first immediate thing i would do would be to ask you why you were scumreading that person. earlier this game, i saw that delta was making some reads seemingly based on people being unhelpful, so i said something to the effect of "hey, i think that you're making a mistake here". i don't think that what i'm saying here is fundamentally different from any of that.

[Eiralox]

I'm curious though what game was it?

MN 2289

[Not_Mafia]

I'm curious though what game was it?

MN 2289

Pretty meh game tbh

[lilith2013]

Please note that if your coalition is full and you use heal tags to add more players, I will not add any new players unless you first use hurt tags to remove specific players.

[Eiralox]

I'm curious though what game was it?

MN 2289

Pretty meh game tbh

Eh I had fun.

[Not_Mafia]

HURT: Umlaut
HEAL: Eiralox

[Keychain]

i find the idea that you expected me to at some point just go from "i will never be okay with a coalition that includes keychain" to townreading you to be, if not somewhat unbelievable, at least a very surprising mindset. it makes me wonder – if that

didn't

end up happening at some point, would

that

be the point at which you finally brought anything up yourself? would you just hope that a coalition passes that manages to include you anyways, and people ignore my read on you? or would you just not expect to be in the coalition? you've said already that you don't expect the coalition to pass anyways. i don't think that i could really say that this is a scummy mindset, but i find it again very surprising to come from town.

i don't think that my conception of your behavior is actually as strange as you're implying. if, as you've said, you believe that you're playing your towngame here (or otherwise in a towny manner), i don't think that it's entirely unreasonable to be at least somewhat concerned or interested in someone whose reads you've indicated you trust completely misreading you. town wins this setup by forming strong, mutual townreads.

I feel like the timeline from my perspective should be clarified here: I wasn't engaging while you were just putting me at the bottom of your readslist because I don't expect your reads to be instant perfection and left you space to reassess.

You said you wouldn't be ok with me on the coalition while I was asleep. I woke up, read the game because I'm obsessed with it at the moment and made like 3 posts with the thoughts I had, and commented that it would be silly for you to scumread me on activity here but otherwise didn't have much to say about it bc idk, it was early and just one thing in a whole bunch of things I'd read? it wasn't super meaningful to me. Off the top of my head I felt like I was mostly unpopular in coalitions when I posted this morning, no idea if that's factual since I didn't check so it's not like it was a huge change in gamestate to me that needed to be urgently addressed.

Then I did bring it up in 250, after you hinted it might be an interesting reason that would be good to discuss, related to my read on bingle, etc etc. That's why we're discussing it now. It's not like there was a huge time period of you really staking that position and me ignoring it.

As far as mutual townreads go, I agree they're important, I formed my townread on you, now it's your turn to see me forming these reads and scum/town hunting even if you think it's suboptimal and meet me halfway please! This is lots of fun but it would really help if we could be on the same side here.

asking about your read of me is meaningless because I know it's wrong!

i'm having a hard time finding the words to explain exactly how i disagree with this. like, if i had a cop innocent on someone who you were strongly scumreading, probably the first immediate thing i would do would be to ask you why you were scumreading that person. earlier this game, i saw that delta was making some reads seemingly based on people being unhelpful, so i said something to the effect of "hey, i think that you're making a mistake here". i don't think that what i'm saying here is fundamentally different from any of that.

This is again a playstyle thing I think rather than a town/scum differentiation.

[Bingle]

it's not super relevant, but explain where you're getting 30% from? my naive analysis gave that eliminating from within the coalition (while being reads agnostic, i.e. assuming that everyone in the coalition is a genuine scum candidate) is optimal unless you're about 62% sure that there's only one scum in, and if you're 50/50 on it then you have a 20% chance to hit scum. saying that, i think that maybe i'll rethink about it given the fact that i know that i'm town and also taking into consideration people overwhelmingly considered consensus townreads (although just saying that it seems to also favor eliminating within the coalition).

Given a failed coalition, we're in 1 of 2 states. Either there is 1 scum in the coalition (1/5 or 20%) or 2 scum in the coalition (2/5 or 40%).

The naive assumption is that those two are equally likely, and the math gets arbitrarily complicated if we don't make that assumption. If they are equally likely, the odds of eliminating scum inside of that pool is the average of the two probabilities, or 30%.

This is from the PoV of someone outside of the pool who is informed of 0 alignments. From the PoV of someone inside the pool who is town, the numbers jump to 25% and 50% (an average of 37.5%).

[Bingle]

Though I do think Umlaut's strategy appeals more to me

They're not mutually exclusive. Priority 1: put town in coalition. Priority 2: if you're unsure on 5 townreads, group likely teams together. It's an additive layer of strategy, not a replacement.

[Bingle]

HEAL: nsg
dunn

[Keychain]

I do think we should start finalising the coalition - it presents a potential immediate loss to scum so I think it'll be useful to see. I started looking at who's voting who for the coalition to see any patterns but my lunch is over, just making a note for myself to continue it later

[Keychain]

These are the current votes for each player to be on the coalition for reference from the votecount as of this post, please correct it if I messed up, manual votecounting and reformatting is a nightmare.

Eiralox

(9): Eiralox, Keychain, patchwork, KawaiiKame, Not_Mafia, northsidegal, Umlaut, Dunnstral, Bingle

northsidegal

(9): northsidegal, Keychain, patchwork, KawaiiKame, Not_Mafia, Eiralox, Umlaut, Dunnstral, Bingle

Keychain

(4): Keychain, KawaiiKame, Not_Mafia, Umlaut

Umlaut

(4): Umlaut, KawaiiKame, Eiralox, Dunnstral

Dunnstral

(4): Dunnstral, Keychain, KawaiiKame, Bingle

Bingle

(3): Bingle, patchwork, Umlaut

Not_Mafia

(3): Not_Mafia, Keychain, Eiralox

patchwork

(2): patchwork, Not_Mafia

KawaiiKame

(0)

The fact that Kawaii's coalition is exactly the 5 most coalitioned players bothers me so much since if we were going to do partner hunting, I'd assume scum!kawaii's partner would be in their coalition

[Not_Mafia]

I'm okay with switching patchwork for Umlaut

[northsidegal]

Keychain

(4): Keychain, KawaiiKame, Not_Mafia, Umlaut

Umlaut

(4): Umlaut, KawaiiKame, Eiralox, Dunnstral

Dunnstral

(4): Dunnstral, Keychain, KawaiiKame, Bingle

i strongly oppose these 3 people being in the coalition and would like anyone who currently has them in their coalition to explain their reasoning

[Eiralox]

patchwork, kawaii, Not_Mafia, Bingle then?

exclude Not_Mafia cause probability vector, that leaves three.

Bingle better than excluded Um, Dunn, Key?

My reasoning re: coalescing is very simplistic right now and subject to change, just trying to sus where people's minds are

[Eiralox]

northside my Um read mostly has to do with your crystal ball post and them liking it, off the bat. both ya'll felt organic town there. but as i said, surface level for now.

[Dunnstral]

northsidegal, what shifted your read on me?

[Bingle]

i strongly oppose these 3 people being in the coalition and would like anyone who currently has them in their coalition to explain their reasoning

Already mentioned the read on Dunn. I have also been feeling better about Umlaut recently, and wouldn't strenuously object to his inclusion. I think if he's scum it's likely to be with Dunn or you and I don't think either Dunn or you is likely scum at the moment.

Honestly kind of surprised that I'm not in the top 5, given that I feel I'm being fairly townread atm.

Is your exclusion of Kame from this list because you're feeling better about them or because they don't have the votes that you feel the need to voice your concern?

[Eiralox]

Interesting.(@northsidegal)

For scum it's optimal to have one in and one out. Northside is almost universally chosen, as am I. What motivation for northside to drive narrative towards exclusions, if they're scum and already so to say coalition locked?

Regardless of um, dun and key alignment I'm seeing the above as a pretty townie move by nsg and I'm happy with my heal.

Let's say I believe you northside. Remove um, maybe add patch. Basically n_m's list. Then with n_m inclusion I have to add either bingle or kawaii. I'd like your thoughts on my choices. Let's say I go all the way and sheep N_M. Means I heal key, and either um or patch depending on where N_M chooses.

Do you think N_M's list is feasible, if you and key are tvt?

[Umlaut]

Umlaut I desperately want you to be town since you're in sync with my thoughts on everything except bingle but that also makes it so hard to read you

Where are you on Bingle right now?