Mafiascum.net

In post 496, Pavowski wrote:(This is town btw unless we already done goofed and have scum in there)

Well placed scum, at that.

In post 498, MathBlade wrote:

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?

I'm just saying, informally, among the people who seem likely to be in it at this moment

Yeah. Realistically, cyrus and Pavowski are going to be in whatever ends up forming. Save The Dragons is almost certainly going to be in it as well. The last two slots are more open to debate.

In post 499, MathBlade wrote: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.

One thing to note: those numbers also include your predecessor's Coalition choices.

In post 502, Farren wrote:Yeah. Realistically, cyrus and Pavowski are going to be in whatever ends up forming. Save The Dragons is almost certainly going to be in it as well. The last two slots are more open to debate.

Interesting what makes you say that? I am not for or against that having not read but I find it odd that is already hard locked considering you’re not in it.

In post 503, Farren wrote:

In post 499, MathBlade wrote: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.

One thing to note: those numbers also include your predecessor's Coalition choices.

Okay noted so?

In post 505, MathBlade wrote:Okay noted so?

Do you think that matters?

In post 506, Farren wrote:

In post 505, MathBlade wrote:Okay noted so?

Do you think that matters?

Not really. I am going to verify what was said was true then vote.

My votes will move accordingly based on who is the most popular for the coalition.

Whether my predecessor agreed or disagreed with that approach is irrelevant.

I am not looking to insta win I am looking for the scenario most advantageous long term for us.

I find it very unlikely public agreement will happen between 5 people who are town and believe they are town.

I fully expect the coalition to fail but if it wins happy times.

It's not what your predecessor thought of the approach that matters here.

It's more: are you considering your predecessor's opinions towards the consensus when calculating what the consensus is?

In post 507, MathBlade wrote:

In post 506, Farren wrote:

In post 505, MathBlade wrote:Okay noted so?

Do you think that matters?

Not really. I am going to verify what was said was true then vote.

My votes will move accordingly based on who is the most popular for the coalition.

Whether my predecessor agreed or disagreed with that approach is irrelevant.

I am not looking to insta win I am looking for the scenario most advantageous long term for us.

I find it very unlikely public agreement will happen between 5 people who are town and believe they are town.

I fully expect the coalition to fail but if it wins happy times.

It's for this reason I don't want us to go from 5 separate vote-sets to 5 identical ones in rapid succession. We should take our time.

That said, Cyrus and I have an identical set right now, and a couple others have several people in common.

In post 508, Farren wrote:It's not what your predecessor thought of the approach that matters here.

It's more: are you considering your predecessor's opinions towards the consensus when calculating what the consensus is?

I was yes because I don’t have any reads right now and I figured that would (in combination with reading) get the purest reads possible. I am better with mechanics than reads so I was going to. Include my predecessors.

In post 509, Pavowski wrote:

In post 507, MathBlade wrote:

In post 506, Farren wrote:

In post 505, MathBlade wrote:Okay noted so?

Do you think that matters?

Not really. I am going to verify what was said was true then vote.

My votes will move accordingly based on who is the most popular for the coalition.

Whether my predecessor agreed or disagreed with that approach is irrelevant.

I am not looking to insta win I am looking for the scenario most advantageous long term for us.

I find it very unlikely public agreement will happen between 5 people who are town and believe they are town.

I fully expect the coalition to fail but if it wins happy times.

It's for this reason I don't want us to go from 5 separate vote-sets to 5 identical ones in rapid succession. We should take our time.

That said, Cyrus and I have an identical set right now, and a couple others have several people in common.

Nah I don’t think we should.

I think instantly winning is a pipe dream and the more time we have for an elim the better.

In post 510, MathBlade wrote:I was yes because I don’t have any reads right now and I figured that would (in combination with reading) get the purest reads possible. I am better with mechanics than reads so I was going to. Include my predecessors.

Good answer. Thank you.

In post 511, MathBlade wrote:

In post 509, Pavowski wrote:

In post 507, MathBlade wrote:

In post 506, Farren wrote:

In post 505, MathBlade wrote:Okay noted so?

Do you think that matters?

Not really. I am going to verify what was said was true then vote.

My votes will move accordingly based on who is the most popular for the coalition.

Whether my predecessor agreed or disagreed with that approach is irrelevant.

I am not looking to insta win I am looking for the scenario most advantageous long term for us.

I find it very unlikely public agreement will happen between 5 people who are town and believe they are town.

I fully expect the coalition to fail but if it wins happy times.

It's for this reason I don't want us to go from 5 separate vote-sets to 5 identical ones in rapid succession. We should take our time.

That said, Cyrus and I have an identical set right now, and a couple others have several people in common.

Nah I don’t think we should.

I think instantly winning is a pipe dream and the more time we have for an elim the better.

Way I figure it, we get it close to a coalition and leave it for 24, 48 hours, see who gets squirmy

No sense not trying for the d1 win.

Scum could try to quickhammer in that case, that'd be fun

HURT: pav so dislike this

In post 513, Pavowski wrote:

In post 511, MathBlade wrote:

In post 509, Pavowski wrote:

In post 507, MathBlade wrote:

In post 506, Farren wrote:

In post 505, MathBlade wrote:Okay noted so?

Do you think that matters?

Not really. I am going to verify what was said was true then vote.

My votes will move accordingly based on who is the most popular for the coalition.

Whether my predecessor agreed or disagreed with that approach is irrelevant.

I am not looking to insta win I am looking for the scenario most advantageous long term for us.

I find it very unlikely public agreement will happen between 5 people who are town and believe they are town.

I fully expect the coalition to fail but if it wins happy times.

It's for this reason I don't want us to go from 5 separate vote-sets to 5 identical ones in rapid succession. We should take our time.

That said, Cyrus and I have an identical set right now, and a couple others have several people in common.

Nah I don’t think we should.

I think instantly winning is a pipe dream and the more time we have for an elim the better.

Way I figure it, we get it close to a coalition and leave it for 24, 48 hours, see who gets squirmy

No sense not trying for the d1 win.

Sounds fine to me. Just I would say leave it for no more than 48 for discussion time. If someone doesn’t object within prod range they don’t care enough to. (Exception if anyone is VLA we look at their posting and see if they would)

In post 515, cyrus62 wrote:HURT: pav so dislike this

Why do you dislike what’s going on?

.

I am kinda thinking Cyrus might be scum here.

I don’t see a reason for objection here unless I am missing something?

In post 519, MathBlade wrote:I am kinda thinking Cyrus might be scum here.

I don’t see a reason for objection here unless I am missing something?

Do you mean for the thread at large or for this latest development?

In post 520, Pavowski wrote:

In post 519, MathBlade wrote:I am kinda thinking Cyrus might be scum here.

I don’t see a reason for objection here unless I am missing something?

Do you mean for the thread at large or for this latest development?

This latest development. I just clocked out and plan on reading but I don’t see why Cyrus removes Pav from their coalition and then when I ask why doesn’t explain. The only thing we’ve done is explain a plan for the coalition and I see nothing objectionable from Pav.

It’s cool if Cyrus disagrees and explains why but I see nothing meriting you from it.

So I find Cyrus sus for doing so.

In post 522, MathBlade wrote:It’s cool if Cyrus disagrees and explains why but I see nothing meriting you from it.

So I find Cyrus sus for doing so.

Meir it if removing you from it*

It's kinda what I thought might happen if we did what I said in 513

Only way ahead of schedule