Mafiascum.net

Yoink.

In post 472, MathBlade wrote:Hey working right now will read later.

Can someone say who they absolutely want in the coalition please? Only one name allowed no naming yourself.

Pavowski.

pav

who i dont want in is ssbm and yessir no replace will convice me a man convice agesnt his will . will death tunnel.

In post 478, cyrus62 wrote:who i dont want in is ssbm and yessir no replace will convice me a man convice agesnt his will . will death tunnel.

Interesting. I am curious as to why.
This also doesn’t answer who you do want in your coalition.

Would you accept any coalition that did not have me and Kyo?

This is an odd way of dodging my question. There’s a reason I am asking it like this.

In post 479, MathBlade wrote:

In post 478, cyrus62 wrote:who i dont want in is ssbm and yessir no replace will convice me a man convice agesnt his will . will death tunnel.

Interesting. I am curious as to why.
This also doesn’t answer who you do want in your coalition.

Would you accept any coalition that did not have me and Kyo?

This is an odd way of dodging my question. There’s a reason I am asking it like this.

Ignore the not answering sorry
Phone cut off the Pav post

Here’s a thought I had about the setup while my build loads:

Aim for a coalition of 5 town.
But we should also vote for the last Townie of the 5 in that coalition for elimination.

Reason being is that if it’s all 5 town we win so we don’t care if we elim a townie
But if we don’t win then we narrow the scum to 1 in 4 or 2 in 4 at day start.

This forces scum to shoot in the PoE outside the towniest we already declared or have a 1 in 3 or 2 in 3 shot of elimming scum.

Agree or disagree and thoughts?

In post 481, MathBlade wrote:Here’s a thought I had about the setup while my build loads:

Aim for a coalition of 5 town.
But we should also vote for the last Townie of the 5 in that coalition for elimination.

Reason being is that if it’s all 5 town we win so we don’t care if we elim a townie
But if we don’t win then we narrow the scum to 1 in 4 or 2 in 4 at day start.

This forces scum to shoot in the PoE outside the towniest we already declared or have a 1 in 3 or 2 in 3 shot of elimming scum.

Agree or disagree and thoughts?

I tentatively endorse this plan.

Agree that we aim for a coalition of five Town.
Agree that we eliminate inside the Coalition if it fails.

Not sure if you were advocating for setting up a hammer before the Coalition passes (so that it processes instantly in the event of a Coalition failure); if you were, I'd disagree with that. We still want a chance to get reactions from people both inside and outside the Coalition if it fails, and I don't see the gain in passing this up.

In post 483, Farren wrote:Agree that we aim for a coalition of five Town.
Agree that we eliminate inside the Coalition if it fails.

Not sure if you were advocating for setting up a hammer before the Coalition passes (so that it processes instantly in the event of a Coalition failure); if you were, I'd disagree with that. We still want a chance to get reactions from people both inside and outside the Coalition if it fails, and I don't see the gain in passing this up.

Did I misread the setup in that we have a coalition and then elim happens the same time of the coalition?

I am not advocating for an immediate hammer should it happen. Ideally if it fails we get communication time.

I personally do not care if I am on or off the coalition. While the instant win is nice I find it’s kinda scummy to demand to be on the coalition due to scum needing at least one person on it.

In post 484, MathBlade wrote:

In post 483, Farren wrote:Agree that we aim for a coalition of five Town.
Agree that we eliminate inside the Coalition if it fails.

Not sure if you were advocating for setting up a hammer before the Coalition passes (so that it processes instantly in the event of a Coalition failure); if you were, I'd disagree with that. We still want a chance to get reactions from people both inside and outside the Coalition if it fails, and I don't see the gain in passing this up.

Did I misread the setup in that we have a coalition and then elim happens the same time of the coalition?

I am not advocating for an immediate hammer should it happen. Ideally if it fails we get communication time.

I personally do not care if I am on or off the coalition. While the instant win is nice I find it’s kinda scummy to demand to be on the coalition due to scum needing at least one person on it.

I think we *could* pre-hammer somebody but I agree that I don't love that idea.

It may not change anything, but discussion between a failure and a hammer would be nice.

What I find interesting is a lot of one word answers to my question rather than actively advocating for why the player they picked should be on the coalition without explanation. Not sure what it means yet but that seems telling.

Pedit: Agreed. I will ask redtea after work about what happens to the elim after the coalition fails and if we get discussion time or not.

If we do we might want to Ram through a coalition ASAP of initial townreads and see if we win. If we don’t then the excluded 4 players are at least 3 town if not all 4.

So means we have a deep wolf in our initial impressions.

Yes instantly winning is good but I don’t think that should be the goal.

My point of this is it’s more important that a coalition resolves than it being the coalition you exactly want.

Not being given a split at all is worse than having it fail because then it’s a 7v2 mountainous and that’s brutal.

In post 484, MathBlade wrote:Did I misread the setup in that we have a coalition and then elim happens the same time of the coalition?

I am not advocating for an immediate hammer should it happen. Ideally if it fails we get communication time.

Elimination happens on D1 as soon as there's a hammer, unless the Coalition hasn't formed yet. (pretty sure that's right - regardless, we don't want to be casting any hammer votes pre-Coalition if it's wrong either.)

And I'm positive that we will have discussion time as long as we don't hammer anyone - and have time left on the clock. The clock doesn't reset on a Coalition failure, so we won't want to wait to the last minute to approve a Coalition.

PEdit> and yes, under no circumstances do we want to *not* make a Coalition. Better to have one fail than skip it entirely.

In post 487, MathBlade wrote:My point of this is it’s more important that a coalition resolves than it being the coalition you exactly want.

Not being given a split at all is worse than having it fail because then it’s a 7v2 mountainous and that’s brutal.

100% concur with this but we are in no danger of not forming a coalition at this point. Lots of time, yet

In post 488, Farren wrote:

In post 484, MathBlade wrote:Did I misread the setup in that we have a coalition and then elim happens the same time of the coalition?

I am not advocating for an immediate hammer should it happen. Ideally if it fails we get communication time.

Elimination happens on D1 as soon as there's a hammer, unless the Coalition hasn't formed yet. (pretty sure that's right - regardless, we don't want to be casting any hammer votes pre-Coalition if it's wrong either.)

And I'm positive that we will have discussion time as long as we don't hammer anyone - and have time left on the clock. The clock doesn't reset on a Coalition failure, so we won't want to wait to the last minute to approve a Coalition.

PEdit> and yes, under no circumstances do we want to *not* make a Coalition. Better to have one fail than skip it entirely.

Cool then sounds like an I derped on rules reading thing.

Now on the last VC it’s kinda hard to read but it looks like no one has been added to the coalition yet right?

I am expressing intent to vote for every person who has the highest amount of votes to be in the coalition after work.

Based on what has happened so far I am thinking this might shake up stuff and then we can see who doesn’t want that group to go and why.

In post 489, Pavowski wrote:

In post 487, MathBlade wrote:My point of this is it’s more important that a coalition resolves than it being the coalition you exactly want.

Not being given a split at all is worse than having it fail because then it’s a 7v2 mountainous and that’s brutal.

100% concur with this but we are in no danger of not forming a coalition at this point. Lots of time, yet

We do but then only a few days for elim.

I’d rather win or fail as fast as possible then more time if we are wrong for an elim.

In post 490, MathBlade wrote:

In post 488, Farren wrote:

In post 484, MathBlade wrote:Did I misread the setup in that we have a coalition and then elim happens the same time of the coalition?

I am not advocating for an immediate hammer should it happen. Ideally if it fails we get communication time.

Elimination happens on D1 as soon as there's a hammer, unless the Coalition hasn't formed yet. (pretty sure that's right - regardless, we don't want to be casting any hammer votes pre-Coalition if it's wrong either.)

And I'm positive that we will have discussion time as long as we don't hammer anyone - and have time left on the clock. The clock doesn't reset on a Coalition failure, so we won't want to wait to the last minute to approve a Coalition.

PEdit> and yes, under no circumstances do we want to *not* make a Coalition. Better to have one fail than skip it entirely.

Cool then sounds like an I derped on rules reading thing.

Now on the last VC it’s kinda hard to read but it looks like no one has been added to the coalition yet right?

I am expressing intent to vote for every person who has the highest amount of votes to be in the coalition after work.

Based on what has happened so far I am thinking this might shake up stuff and then we can see who doesn’t want that group to go and why.

There's no such thing as "adding someone to the coalition". The coalition is formed when 5 people vote for the same coalition of 5.

In post 490, MathBlade wrote:Cool then sounds like an I derped on rules reading thing.

Now on the last VC it’s kinda hard to read but it looks like no one has been added to the coalition yet right?

I am expressing intent to vote for every person who has the highest amount of votes to be in the coalition after work.

Based on what has happened so far I am thinking this might shake up stuff and then we can see who doesn’t want that group to go and why.

There's no official "This person is definitely in the Coalition" status. There's just us all submitting slates of up to five candidates.

If five people submit the exact same slate of five people, that becomes the Coalition.

PEdit> Basically what Pavowski said. I can add someone to *my* Coalition, but not to *the* Coalition.

In post 491, MathBlade wrote:

In post 489, Pavowski wrote:

In post 487, MathBlade wrote:My point of this is it’s more important that a coalition resolves than it being the coalition you exactly want.

Not being given a split at all is worse than having it fail because then it’s a 7v2 mountainous and that’s brutal.

100% concur with this but we are in no danger of not forming a coalition at this point. Lots of time, yet

We do but then only a few days for elim.

I’d rather win or fail as fast as possible then more time if we are wrong for an elim.

Gotcha, yeah that's not a bad idea. Doesn't necessarily have to happen today but hopefully by early next week

Ugh that’s…confusing lol.

I volunteer to be out of the coalition then unless someone wants me in it. Apparently if Cyrus is town my slot done goofed somehow so I don’t mind being outside of it. Then we have it down to 8 unless someone actively wants me in it.

In post 495, MathBlade wrote:Ugh that’s…confusing lol.

I volunteer to be out of the coalition then unless someone wants me in it. Apparently if Cyrus is town my slot done goofed somehow so I don’t mind being outside of it. Then we have it down to 8 unless someone actively wants me in it.

(This is town btw unless we already done goofed and have scum in there)

In post 464, redtea wrote:Pavowski - (9)
cyrus62 - (9)
Save The Dragons - (7)
Nathann - (3)
Farren - (3)
yessiree - (2)
Hakai - (4)
ssbm_Kyouko - (2)
Enchant - (0)

Since this list, Nathann and I have been healed once each - so Mathblade's proposed Coalition based on what he said earlier would be cyrus, Pavowski, Save The dragons, and two of (me / Nathann / Hakai).

In post 496, Pavowski wrote:

In post 495, MathBlade wrote:Ugh that’s…confusing lol.

I volunteer to be out of the coalition then unless someone wants me in it. Apparently if Cyrus is town my slot done goofed somehow so I don’t mind being outside of it. Then we have it down to 8 unless someone actively wants me in it.

(This is town btw unless we already done goofed and have scum in there)

I thought you said we didn’t have a coalition ergo no one is in anything?

In post 497, Farren wrote:

In post 464, redtea wrote:Pavowski - (9)
cyrus62 - (9)
Save The Dragons - (7)
Nathann - (3)
Farren - (3)
yessiree - (2)
Hakai - (4)
ssbm_Kyouko - (2)
Enchant - (0)

Since this list, Nathann and I have been healed once each - so Mathblade's proposed Coalition based on what he said earlier would be cyrus, Pavowski, Save The dragons, and two of (me / Nathann / Hakai).

Yup. Pretty much assuming this post is factually accurate what I would do. Then can see if there’s scum in the majorly townread players or not.