Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:49 pm
At least as I see it, scum are more concern about keeping themselves alive so they respond to pressure more defensively.In post 46, Spangled wrote:Why is defensive scum-indicative, necessarily? Never actually had someone explain this to me.In post 30, Gamma Emerald wrote:Actually how though.In post 27, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:Same thing goes for you.In post 24, Gamma Emerald wrote:Okay this feels like an overreactionIn post 23, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:Could you maybe try playing the game and stop following the solve the setup philosophy?
VOTE: LUV
Don't recall you being this defensive.
Fair enough; makes sense. Really not sure it’s enough to call LUV scum over, but you do you, I guess.In post 52, Gamma Emerald wrote:At least as I see it, scum are more concern about keeping themselves alive so they respond to pressure more defensively.In post 46, Spangled wrote:Why is defensive scum-indicative, necessarily? Never actually had someone explain this to me.In post 30, Gamma Emerald wrote:Actually how though.In post 27, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:Same thing goes for you.In post 24, Gamma Emerald wrote:Okay this feels like an overreactionIn post 23, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:Could you maybe try playing the game and stop following the solve the setup philosophy?
VOTE: LUV
Don't recall you being this defensive.
it was a completely arbitrary and random vote, but having thought about it, it's far more useful to see who people are townreading and want in the coalition from the start rather than to just treat it like RVSIn post 51, Spangled wrote:Hey, Hectic, what made you decide on that specific coalition to vote for?
Why me, why NC 39, etc.?
In post 51, Spangled wrote:Hey, Hectic, what made you decide on that specific coalition to vote for?
Why me, why NC 39, etc.?
I figured as much. This is like the opposite of Overkill 2, where my slot had 3 votes before I even made a single post but in that case, it wasn’t actually RVS.In post 54, Hectic wrote:it was a completely arbitrary and random vote, but having thought about it, it's far more useful to see who people are townreading and want in the coalition from the start rather than to just treat it like RVSIn post 51, Spangled wrote:Hey, Hectic, what made you decide on that specific coalition to vote for?
Why me, why NC 39, etc.?
so:
HURT: Alchemist21, EspressoPatronum, NC 39, Spangled
I mean it’s not really rocket science. If we have a coalition that fails, there’s obviously at least one scum in it. But why waste D1 doing that, when it makes far more sense to heal the majority’s top town reads? It’s in our interest for the coalition to succeed on D1, so it makes sense to not be hasty.In post 19, Hectic wrote:is it considered a deep wolf if they're just in the top 5 town reads?In post 10, Alchemist21 wrote:HEAL: Alchemist, RC most awesomest, NC 39, Gamma Emerald, EspressoPatronum
That’s myself plus the 3 slots I believe to be the strongest slots coming into the game plus Espresso since I liked their entrance.
I think the Coalition should be the 5 strongest/Towniest players not just for the obvious reasons of the D1 wincon but also as a weak investigational tool if it fails - if the Coalition fails we know there’s a deep wolf in a group where we might not otherwise suspect scum to be.
regarding the investigation potential, it is useful for knowing there's at least 1 scum in the group, i don't we can even be too confident that there can't be two scum in the 5 we agree on, so the utility isn't actually that useful
Beyond scumreading LUV, got early townreads on Alchemist and Espresso, and kinda suspect RCMAIn post 53, Spangled wrote:Fair enough; makes sense. Really not sure it’s enough to call LUV scum over, but you do you, I guess.In post 52, Gamma Emerald wrote:At least as I see it, scum are more concern about keeping themselves alive so they respond to pressure more defensively.In post 46, Spangled wrote:Why is defensive scum-indicative, necessarily? Never actually had someone explain this to me.In post 30, Gamma Emerald wrote:Actually how though.In post 27, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:Same thing goes for you.In post 24, Gamma Emerald wrote:Okay this feels like an overreactionIn post 23, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:Could you maybe try playing the game and stop following the solve the setup philosophy?
VOTE: LUV
Don't recall you being this defensive.
Do you have any reads yet Gamma?
this felt a little like plactating RC.In post 14, Alchemist21 wrote:I promise if it fails I won’t immediately point fingers at your slot because I know how you feel about people lynching you just based on your reputation as a strong scum player.
this is pretty yuck.In post 17, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:A-fucking-men!In post 12, RC most awesomest wrote:can I, without giving a long winded explanation of why these kinds of posts even made ironically throw me off and make me dislike the game, ask everyone who wants to win as town to not do this
him greeting the thread in null. Why do you feel like sticking up for the guy?In post 44, Spangled wrote:Dude, he did two things: greet the thread as he literally almost always does, and agreed with someone who disagreed with you... OMGUS, or just a lack of willingness to meta someone? A combination, perchance?
y?
NSG seems a little I'd say overzealous, in a not genuine way. Trying too hard is probably the best way to put it.In post 62, Hectic wrote:why do you suspect RCMA, Gamma? i thought his reaction to my heal vote was a little over the top, but i've never played with him before so i'm not sure
In my experience this is correct.In post 58, NC 39 wrote:I was telling Nero that we need to keep an eye on nsg because if she posts, that hydra is more likely to be town. Apparently scum!nsg flakes, so I’m leaning town on RC/nsg hydra for now.
scumhunting and stuff like 46