In post 386, skitter30 wrote:a) am i actively scummy to you atm or just exhibiting a 'very gaping absence of a townread'?
The latter.
You do not strike me as the type of player who wolfs heavily as a wolf. You have a lot of probing and potent content (I hope that these acronyms are not offensive to humans, and articulate my point!). This comes from town more often than it comes from scum, on principle. But I do not believe that you have produced any content which is difficult to produce as scum. There is also not a lot of content which forces towny avenues of conversation, or nuanced sorting conversations to develop. Your contributions feel as though you are floating; floating well, but floating nonetheless.
Though this is interesting. Although we occupy differing positions in each others' lists of reads, the more detailed functions of our reads on each other are fairly similar!
That is prompting me to allocate more memory to sorting you soon. I believe if we are both aligned with the town, there is a middle ground for us to find.
skitter30 wrote:how are you reading gamma?
I believe that Gamma is town more often than scum.
This is not a strong read...and his continued absence is not assisting with it.
skitter30 wrote:is this for the case where the coalition fails?
Yes.
As a caveat: It would be unwise to create a coalition on the basis that the coalition will always fail. (In other words, I will be including players I townread)
But it is sheer madness to put unsortable players into the coalition. Keeping them outside of the coalition increases the probability they will be solved via night kill if town dramatically, and creates a less urgent basis for sorting them.
So I will always solve as though the coalition will fail, but I will not be working towards a coalition which I expect to fail.
DVa is very unlikely to form part of any final coalition I approve.
I will ensure an update is issued promptly if this stance changes.