Mafiascum.net

Actually I think it's safe to assume that emps likely isn't a scum PR since he's not all that resistant to his lynch as well as him claiming VT.

In post 1074, AaronFrost wrote:

In post 1066, the worst wrote:sorry to remain contrarian but it's simply not worth withholding your roleblock target.

At the very least he should probably crumb it

crumbing it in this context will be easier for two scum (two minds > one) to pick apart than any one townie; if it's obscure enough it's probably just lost to the ages if uncrowned dies and if it's earnest enough scum are more likely to catch it than town.

what uncrowned has suggested is, basically, optimal.

EV = expected value

that's right, thanks. i thought it was expensive vol-au-vents. i will forget that again, i promise.

easy mistake to make tbh, happens to the best of us

I often confuse it for "explosive vomiting", another one of my favourite foods

and NOT to be confused with expensive vomiting, or exploding vol-au-vents. god forbid.

In post 1082, Datisi wrote:VC

datisi with the vigilant checkers!

with the violent corndogs!

...shit
you're good.

but maybe I want to be

you've got my number right?

so is there any reason for me to not put emps at L-1 now? seems like we've discussed everything there is to discuss and now we just need to see what happens

I'm .

i have no idea what that means

never mind i just got it

you're ready

I'm red e!!!
Sorry I'm pretty droll when playin hard is low reward

In post 1059, Uncrowned wrote:Emps think it's HH or LAMIST?

Can we gather anything from this? Does anyone know if Emps is the type to try and distance?

In deathcars he shaded nearly every slot, including his partner I believe. But didn't he just play like 5 scum games? Idk how his play progressed/remained same through all that.

-eth0s

In post 1066, the worst wrote:sorry to remain contrarian but it's simply not worth withholding your roleblock target.

I agree. Also a no nightkill is good for us even if it's framing a rb'ed target, right?

-eth0s

In post 1068, the worst wrote:actually aldus has the good point

it's strictly optimal to say, for example

if emps flips scum i'm blocking mena
if emps flips town i'm blocking in {tw, aldus}

I gave some pretty extensive conditional targets and you said it was bad :/

Can you tell me why you felt that way since you seem to agree a conditional target announcement is a good idea?

In post 1094, JJJ wrote:

In post 1066, the worst wrote:sorry to remain contrarian but it's simply not worth withholding your roleblock target.

I agree. Also a no nightkill is good for us even if it's framing a rb'ed target, right?

-eth0s

Exactly /o/

HH wrote:

In post 1068, the worst wrote:actually aldus has the good point

it's strictly optimal to say, for example

if emps flips scum i'm blocking mena
if emps flips town i'm blocking in {tw, aldus}

I gave some pretty extensive conditional targets and you said it was bad :/

Can you tell me why you felt that way since you seem to agree a conditional target announcement is a good idea?

Did I? I might have misunderstood ya could you quote me?

Either way it was kinda sour of the moment - I think letting Uncrowned operate on his own initiative is probs wise if emps actually greens

Is there anything left to go over this phase?

In post 1096, the worst wrote:

In post 1094, JJJ wrote:

In post 1066, the worst wrote:sorry to remain contrarian but it's simply not worth withholding your roleblock target.

I agree. Also a no nightkill is good for us even if it's framing a rb'ed target, right?

-eth0s

Exactly /o/

HH wrote:

In post 1068, the worst wrote:actually aldus has the good point

it's strictly optimal to say, for example

if emps flips scum i'm blocking mena
if emps flips town i'm blocking in {tw, aldus}

I gave some pretty extensive conditional targets and you said it was bad :/

Can you tell me why you felt that way since you seem to agree a conditional target announcement is a good idea?

Did I? I might have misunderstood ya could you quote me?

Either way it was kinda sour of the moment - I think letting Uncrowned operate on his own initiative is probs wise if emps actually greens

I thought you said my idea for who emps should rb was a 5-6 out of 10 idea

In post 1098, JJJ wrote:

In post 1096, the worst wrote:

In post 1094, JJJ wrote:

In post 1066, the worst wrote:sorry to remain contrarian but it's simply not worth withholding your roleblock target.

I agree. Also a no nightkill is good for us even if it's framing a rb'ed target, right?

-eth0s

Exactly /o/

HH wrote:

In post 1068, the worst wrote:actually aldus has the good point

it's strictly optimal to say, for example

if emps flips scum i'm blocking mena
if emps flips town i'm blocking in {tw, aldus}

I gave some pretty extensive conditional targets and you said it was bad :/

Can you tell me why you felt that way since you seem to agree a conditional target announcement is a good idea?

Did I? I might have misunderstood ya could you quote me?

Either way it was kinda sour of the moment - I think letting Uncrowned operate on his own initiative is probs wise if emps actually greens

I thought you said my idea for who emps should rb was a 5-6 out of 10 idea

Who unc should rb*
Ugh
-eth0s