In post 2521, Mightyena wrote: I would have started with debating the Gore/Loud double scum idea, because I think that's definitely where it made no sense objectively
I feel like I tried that?
Spoiler:
In post 1817, Zangoose wrote:Why is the logic fallacious? I think it made sense and tracks with how Gorebyss has been acting in-thread since. If it's fake, I think it's pulled off pretty convincingly. How is the highlighted bit related to her stance on Loudred? I didn't think the post as a whole including the part about you was particularly convincing, but town can make plenty of bad posts/cases.In post 1795, Anorith wrote: I went back to review how the Gorebyss reads developed after she posted that preflip associative wall.
Volbeat immediately said it, you said you needed more time then a few pages later agreed with his premise. I have no issue with the first person, but I think you are pivotal in perpetuating that read that I found to be built on fallacious logic despite seemingly taking the time to consider it. While yes, I see what you are saying about her as town is the simplest answer,.I do not think that post holds up as well with consistency of her scumread on me despite any actual sort of action there
I think with two town that are loud and arguing with each other, it is much easier to be the second/third voice for scum instead of the initial to see the lay of the land, and I believe your delay allows you that time gap.
It is by no means concrete, and as I said I am in flux between these two worlds. That is why I want to see this flip. If there ever is a world where Gorebyss/Loudred is S/S, both you and Volbeat are due increased scrutiny. If just one is scum, then maybe it is the world expressed in my last post.
I don't think Gorebyss/Loudred is ever S/S here - if that were the case then the posturing around leaving and scumread on Loudred while he's already under some pressure are even worse. Bussing your own lover is surely a strictly -EV play, and I don't think you derive enough WIFOM plausible deniability to make up for that, particularly not when your pair is under scrutiny.
It all hinges on how their alignments shake out. As I said in my last post, if we assume that my pair is T/T and that Seviper/Spinda is not S/S, then we know that 6/7 or 7/7 of the last people standing were town. FYPOV, you would know your pair is town as well. That turns to 8/9 or 9/9, so scum are in the middle somewhere. I don't think that Wynaut is in a double scum pair, nor do I think Mightyena/Clops would claim to have used their PT so little despite claiming wanting to work together if they were double scum. That leaves Volbeat/Crawdaunt and Gorebyss/Loudred. I have a strong townread on Volbeat. That makes me want to flip Gorebyss/Loudred and see how it shapes out, as it seems town is bookending things.
I don't think we need to have an S/S pair in those. I think 1 in Seviper/Spinda, 1 in Dusclops/Mightyena, 1 in Crawdaunt/Volbeat works for me, and then 1 in Wynaut/Delcatty, Gorebyss/Loudred, and Anorith/Wailmer, which I'm falsely clearing. I think that distribution feels fine from the timing of pair formation, too. Figuring out which of those 3 pairs I'm misclearing is something I'm having some issue with, but I don't particularly want to lim from that set today.
The other thing to look at is by the time Gorebyss triple proposed, we had: You/Lairon
Volbeat/Crawdaunt
Wynaut/Delcatty
And of the rubies left remaining at this point (Wailmer, Spoink, Shedinja, Spinda, Mightyena, Loudred), the first 3 were not only left off the list, but all either flipped or extremely likely town. Obviously, there is no guarantee there HAS to be scum in this, but any group of 6 in a size game of 17 is incredibly likely to contain scum IMO.
Does this make sense? I can expand on the last thought later, I just have to run atm.
I see what you're saying, but I don't find appeal to probability arguments like this too convincing, because there are many different ways to construct groups of 6. If my maths is right, choosing 6 out of 17 is about 14% = 1/7 chance to be all town. So if you choose 7 different ways of coming up with a group of 6 that has some game relevance, one of them is likely to be all town. (Particularly if we construct groups that already have flipped town players in it.) That reminds me a bit of that flavour of VCA where people just assume that there must be at least 1 scum on the wagon and 1 scum off the wagon for every wagon of a certain size, which I rarely find useful.
Of this concrete list, I think Spinda and Mightyena have a decent chance at flipping red. But it also wouldn't particularly violate my game sense if they did all end up being town. Ruby could easily just contain 1 scum, in which case this feels very easy for me to believe.
I also engaged with his original case on Loudred, which I replied to point by point, and he didn't respond to that further.
Spoiler:
In post 2018, Zangoose wrote:In post 1941, Loudred wrote:I would just like to put on record that I think this is scum indicative for Anorith and that i hope that one day someone realizes that. Presumably after me and Gorebyss die at the end of this day phase and flip T/T.In post 1599, Lairon wrote:This being ignored and Anorith choosing to "stand by" his Loudred case after point 3 being quite solidly taken down by I forget who is not really working for me as far as the bat transferral aspect.In post 1429, Lairon wrote: Is there more to the case, Anorith? This doesn't seem to me like a hill worth dying on, yet here you are dying on it.
Also who was the one taking down point 3 I couldn't find that (even though I found a reference to "standing by" the read).
Pedit: vote Anorith with me and you won't regret.
These were my thoughts about the 3 points that Anorith made:
Spoiler:In post 1382, Zangoose wrote:In post 1349, Anorith wrote: 1) Gorebyss made a post which proposed to three separate people. Spinda, mightyena, Loudred. Spinda responded to it but was clearly debating, then Loudred immediately jumped to claim it. It has been retroactively claimed that it was to avoid pairing with scummier players, but was introduced originally as only being done for his own survival.
To me, this feels like a legit sentiment + reflection about when to accept:
In post 454, Loudred wrote: For the record, I would not have hastily accepted the proposal if there were more sapphires than rubies. But the fact that there are more rubies means that as a ruby I should basically just accept any proposal that leans town. Or I guess accept proposals that are from someone scummy if I want to team with scum and then leave. Which in retrospect maybe was a better tactic, considering the fact that I am not widely townread and also wouldn't mind dying early due to not being confident I can successfully navigate f6 or f4.
I do think just accepting all proposals is probably correct play for most town, even if it's survivalistic. If you deviate away from that too much, it just makes it more likely the leftover is town. Exceptions are the IC, and probably any other Ruby mons that are heavily townread and not at risk at going unmatched, who should both proactively seek out strong town pairings.
Rejecting proposals is interesting, I'll need to dig into those examples in some detail, but overall I wouldn't heavily townread that.In post 1385, Zangoose wrote:In post 1349, Anorith wrote: 2) I made a post complaining about the game being inactive when I wanted stuff to be active, and Loudred made a post that read to me as “Darn, if only I was around when everyone else was you guys would see I’m town!” Mightyena said he “blew up his spot” as scum as justification for a townread, but I don’t think it counts if it was prompted and used as an excuse.
What does scum!Loudred have to gain from 777? Even if that sentiment was lamenting that it's harder for them to get townread because they miss the periods where people are interacting live, I feel like that can still be a town sentiment. I like being townread as town, and get frustrated if I feel like game circumstances aren't allowing for that. I think as scum, this is either some kind of overconfident lamenting that Loudred thinks their scum-game is good enough that if they could only react real-time, they'd be lock town, or it's subtly trying to get people to reframe their scumreads on him relative to his inability to interact with folks in real time.
If it's the latter, I'm with Mightyena that that would be a silly thing for scum to say, because I think it's pretty well-known that many scum deliberately have activity profiles like that because they struggle with crafting convincing posts in real time, so scum!Loudred drawing attention to that seems a bit counter-productive. Definitely possible he just blundered there, but I'm not convinced.In post 1387, Zangoose wrote:In post 1349, Anorith wrote: 3) in that same interaction, I asked Loudred how many scum he thought were in the final 3 (Shedinja, Spoink, Cacnea) and he answered explicitly 0 or 2, excluding 1 entirely as an option. This felt like TMI to me and also bothered Spinda.
This is not how I read it.
In post 779, Loudred wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if it's 2. I might be slightly surprised if it's 0. How about you?
To me this reads like the default/average he's working from is 1, and then saying whether he'd find deviations in either direction surprising or not. It's not phrased particularly well, but I interpret this as p(1)>p(2)>p(0), but p(0) still being fairly plausible. Saying that this is TMIing that there's not exactly 1 scum in there feels like a bit of a stretch to me.
You're probably correct that by the end I was more trying to discredit his solve than hoping to convince him, but I don't think it's fair to say I didn't try. (Also he surprise pikachu'd me, I don't think I was going to be the one to get through to him.)
