In post 5642, Ankamius wrote:Oh the 9 to lynch cutoff was something I actually wasn't aware of
Then yes, coins outright do not matter.
No, it meant that:
If fire left, if vedith left, if rc left, if you left, or the first lynch was a mislynch, then the 8 coin male could instantly hammer because the threshold would have changed.
I would still flip the question though.
In what circumstance do the coins not just make the setup less fun? How is spending 8 days with no votes, and then going into a gamephase where you either don't vote or risk an instant hammer, fun?
It's a mountainous where VCA is unreadable at that point...
Unfortunately one frustration of this setup is that read accuracy based on pt interactions cannot be evaluated... really the pts in that regard almost exclusively help scum in pocketing attempts. If you say Nancy is town based on PT interactions, then it is hard to evaluate that objectively. I notice that the town pts tended to have a lot more shitposting, or just nothing, whereas all the scum were highly motivated to appear solvey. I guess the PTs are exclusively there to accelerate and amplify scum pocketing attempts. I think Witches Ball went more smoothly because there was no need to continue solving after the PTs were created.
This is also what happens when endgame pairings in the previous run are generated based on personality conflicts.
Create a town strategy of endgaming based on hostility, and you create a strong incentive to create a hostile gamestate as a means of advancing the scum wincon.
I don't actually think it's beneficent to continue that squabble, but if you don't want replace outs to be used as a form of emotional manipulation, why did you not insist she leave the game in pre-dance when she bolded the request? I feel like you're blaming her for coming back into the game when she had tilt replaced out. I don't think tilt replace outs can be prohibited since all that would do is make people lie more about why they're replacing out, mostly what this shows is that replace outs should simply be seen as NAI. And saying you're blacklisting her because she won a game using a form of emotional manipulation that you enabled by allowing her to remain in the game after the replacement request is confusing to me.
Like, we can all agree that there should be fewer replacement requests, that there should not be tactical replacements, that people should keep their cool more and not tiltreplace out. But as someone who looked at the replacement request and did not townread her for it but thought she was town for other, also incorrect reasons, this seems like you're blaming the scum winner for winning because some of the town townread her for shitty reasons.
I guess if you want a consistent policy on replace outs, say that A) Replacement request should be made by PM, not made in thread, B) Replacement requests are final and C) Players should stop posting as soon as they initiate a replacement request. Generally, the rules are in place right now because sometimes people get heated and say they want to replace out but then change their minds. Which--as far as I can tell--is exactly what happened this game. She did not threaten to replace out as a form of gaining towncred; she intended to replace out because of tilt.
I actually don't even know if I should post this, I partly don't want to touch this conversation with a ten foot pole, but I also think it's unfair to Gamma and DT to imply that town lost this because Nancy's slot was "compromised" when I don't think that really reflects what happened in this game.
I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish at this point Nancy, I think it's safe to say you don't want to sign up for future FakeGod games, and he seems to be pretty done with this conversation, so while it's a shame that there's so many negative feelings in the post-game, it'd probably be best to just move on.
5741 is a pretty great example of how not to apologize if you want people to move on, but it is a great example of how to start a fight with your players in the post-game.