Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:40 am
Vote count 1.21
with 9 votes in play, it takes 5 to make a decision. day 1 ends in (expired on 2020-07-07 13:00:00)
Page 34 of 107
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:43 am
it depends
the "this sounds weird" sold it
the "this sounds weird" sold it
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:44 am
Spoiler:
I want it known that I am exercising a great degree of restraint in recognising that the way Sleeper is sucking up to me here is probably NAI for him. From anyone else this would hella ping me as hard buddying.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:44 am
His early game posts saying he'll lynch himself if his co is wrong felt fine to me. I'm still debating on my 5th of him/others but the other 4 I feel fine about (well 3 if you don't count myself)In post 822, Deimos27 wrote:You've healed Don. Which of their posts do you think are town-AI?
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:48 am
That resonates so much with my first impression that I consider it a strong towntell.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:49 am
I didn't comment on it cause I didn't know how to rationalize it, but the part I liked the most tonally was the "this sounds weird"
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:51 am
HURT: Koba
I gotta think about this Koba/Pooky situation harder.
I gotta think about this Koba/Pooky situation harder.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:55 am
yall actually busy while i was at work. Nice to see. Deimos i have questions for you when i get around to dissecting your recent content. Something you said interested me.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:56 am
I'm sorry i cant deliver a 2/2 solve right away and have suspicions about more slots than there is scum );In post 801, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:It's illogical because the default strategy for scum is one-on one-off.In post 798, Deimos27 wrote:That isn't intrinsically illogical. It depends on the 3 players, and the reasoning for why they are being suspected.
If you switch 3 suspicious people on-coalition for 3 off-coalition people, even if you are right about one of those three people you switched off - you end up with their scumbuddy instead and end up in the hot seat when the coalition fails
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:01 am
i think a certain pair of people have been engaging in scum theater btw ! While its probably a dumb theory it matches up with the read i made last night on the table
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:18 am
I disagree here. Both of us are town. I have just given up trying to convince Pooky as they refuse to reason with me logically. Although I will give them at least a nice longpost about my reasoning why what he claims is illogical is logical from my point of view in terms of wanting to criticize coalitions. (and also my general frustration with no reasoning given)In post 748, DonCorleone wrote:I am inclined to say that there is one scum at most in (pooky, koba)
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:25 am
No it doesntIn post 807, Deimos27 wrote:Ok you're actually right I missed the fact that replacing three mathematical guarantees including the second scum, if there was only one originally.In post 801, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:It's illogical because the default strategy for scum is one-on one-off.In post 798, Deimos27 wrote:That isn't intrinsically illogical. It depends on the 3 players, and the reasoning for why they are being suspected.
If you switch 3 suspicious people on-coalition for 3 off-coalition people, even if you are right about one of those three people you switched off - you end up with their scumbuddy instead and end up in the hot seat when the coalition fails
that's logically incorrect. 9-5=4
1 scum + 2 town can be replaced by 3 town
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:27 am
I think you missed the bit where I said “at most”In post 835, DkKoba wrote:I disagree here. Both of us are town. I have just given up trying to convince Pooky as they refuse to reason with me logically. Although I will give them at least a nice longpost about my reasoning why what he claims is illogical is logical from my point of view in terms of wanting to criticize coalitions. (and also my general frustration with no reasoning given)In post 748, DonCorleone wrote:I am inclined to say that there is one scum at most in (pooky, koba)
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:31 am
Oh I was thinking 9-6 by excluding you for some reason.In post 836, DkKoba wrote:No it doesntIn post 807, Deimos27 wrote:Ok you're actually right I missed the fact that replacing three mathematical guarantees including the second scum, if there was only one originally.In post 801, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:It's illogical because the default strategy for scum is one-on one-off.In post 798, Deimos27 wrote:That isn't intrinsically illogical. It depends on the 3 players, and the reasoning for why they are being suspected.
If you switch 3 suspicious people on-coalition for 3 off-coalition people, even if you are right about one of those three people you switched off - you end up with their scumbuddy instead and end up in the hot seat when the coalition fails
9-5=4
1 scum + 2 town can be replaced by 3 town
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:36 am
Now. So I can lay this to rest finally.
So I sub into the game. I see a coalition going. Great. I skim through and see issues with multiple people on said coalition. I feel that there has been 0 critical analysis of people. This is bad! If its right, hey, its a free W but at that point we just rolled a die and went with the first result. I proposed my own second coalition with people I was more confident about. And I wanted to get reasoning from people on why they thought theirs was solid. If you think I'm reading the coalition and assuming a specific number of scum then thats your first wrong assumption about me. I was going from the ground up and reading independently. I assumed Pooky was capable enough to be able to explain his own reads as town, which after examining meta proved wrong. So I was majorly suspicious of him at this point. It's annoying that they still refuse to engage about reasons on why they think their coalition is right and even lied about it but I'm not about to toss a game with a hardtunnel.
I want the coalition to go through to be one that once its set, we at least have good information going into the rest of D1 should it fail. just letting a RVS coalition go through with no conflict is just... extremely anti town. I gained plenty of info on slots from my own pushes.
There's just something that does bother me is that during all that I wasn't asked a single time to explain my own coalition. Because I was waiting to see if anyone was actually interested in my reasoning. And at the end of the day, town makes mistakes too and assuming someone does something that is illogical from your point of view is automatically scum is bad play. Engage with me and discuss my motives! I shouldn't have to do this out of frustration at the game state. Like if you think I am scum I am paddling upstream really hard with the angle I took.
So I sub into the game. I see a coalition going. Great. I skim through and see issues with multiple people on said coalition. I feel that there has been 0 critical analysis of people. This is bad! If its right, hey, its a free W but at that point we just rolled a die and went with the first result. I proposed my own second coalition with people I was more confident about. And I wanted to get reasoning from people on why they thought theirs was solid. If you think I'm reading the coalition and assuming a specific number of scum then thats your first wrong assumption about me. I was going from the ground up and reading independently. I assumed Pooky was capable enough to be able to explain his own reads as town, which after examining meta proved wrong. So I was majorly suspicious of him at this point. It's annoying that they still refuse to engage about reasons on why they think their coalition is right and even lied about it but I'm not about to toss a game with a hardtunnel.
I want the coalition to go through to be one that once its set, we at least have good information going into the rest of D1 should it fail. just letting a RVS coalition go through with no conflict is just... extremely anti town. I gained plenty of info on slots from my own pushes.
There's just something that does bother me is that during all that I wasn't asked a single time to explain my own coalition. Because I was waiting to see if anyone was actually interested in my reasoning. And at the end of the day, town makes mistakes too and assuming someone does something that is illogical from your point of view is automatically scum is bad play. Engage with me and discuss my motives! I shouldn't have to do this out of frustration at the game state. Like if you think I am scum I am paddling upstream really hard with the angle I took.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:36 am
In post 838, Deimos27 wrote:Oh I was thinking 9-6 by excluding you for some reason.In post 836, DkKoba wrote:No it doesntIn post 807, Deimos27 wrote:Ok you're actually right I missed the fact that replacing three mathematical guarantees including the second scum, if there was only one originally.In post 801, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:It's illogical because the default strategy for scum is one-on one-off.In post 798, Deimos27 wrote:That isn't intrinsically illogical. It depends on the 3 players, and the reasoning for why they are being suspected.
If you switch 3 suspicious people on-coalition for 3 off-coalition people, even if you are right about one of those three people you switched off - you end up with their scumbuddy instead and end up in the hot seat when the coalition fails
9-5=4
and also you have to account for the fact that I myself am 100% confirmed town from my own point of view
1 scum + 2 town can be replaced by 3 town
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:37 am
fuck i messed up it. meant to say under the quote that
"and also you have to account for the fact that I myself am 100% confirmed town from my own point of view"
but it ended up in the quote
"and also you have to account for the fact that I myself am 100% confirmed town from my own point of view"
but it ended up in the quote
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:38 am
ok fair enoughIn post 837, DonCorleone wrote:I think you missed the bit where I said “at most”In post 835, DkKoba wrote:I disagree here. Both of us are town. I have just given up trying to convince Pooky as they refuse to reason with me logically. Although I will give them at least a nice longpost about my reasoning why what he claims is illogical is logical from my point of view in terms of wanting to criticize coalitions. (and also my general frustration with no reasoning given)In post 748, DonCorleone wrote:I am inclined to say that there is one scum at most in (pooky, koba)
as much as I disliked pooky's play so far I don't want them marked as scum. similarly to votato's slot, as votato's behavior has been similar. I have those 2 slots as locktown, as much as I hate to say it.Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:39 am
I asked you about Aldus at least, but thanks for the reminder. Did you ever respond to this?In post 441, Deimos27 wrote:So alduskkel isIn post 432, DkKoba wrote:actually no I have alduskkel now because of PoE LOL
ya my scum PoE is Deimos, Pooky, and Doninyour coalition by PoE, while scum is in Deimos/Pooky/Don by PoE?
These make me really confused about which of your reads are PoE and how. You have three candidates for scum — if alduskkel hasn't cleared themselves yet for you, why not make it four?
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:41 am
In post 843, Deimos27 wrote:I asked you about Aldus at least, but thanks for the reminder. Did you ever respond to this?In post 441, Deimos27 wrote:So alduskkel isIn post 432, DkKoba wrote:actually no I have alduskkel now because of PoE LOL
ya my scum PoE is Deimos, Pooky, and Doninyour coalition by PoE, while scum is in Deimos/Pooky/Don by PoE?
These make me really confused about which of your reads are PoE and how. You have three candidates for scum — if alduskkel hasn't cleared themselves yet for you, why not make it four?
this read is outdated I've since moved on. But I had thought alduskkel was towny but just I found the rest of my coalition choice to be stronger.(i.e. if i had a coaliton of 6 at the time id have included him on it.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:42 am
Koba you're pretty close to a winning coalition if you still tr Sleeper and you think Pooky/votato are locktown.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:43 am
In post 761, Deimos27 wrote:I think Koba reversing his read on Pooky is a towntell. Don't see any really good scum motivation. If anything, I think scum would double down while licking their lips after getting that chain of non-responses from their tunnel.
In post 769, Deimos27 wrote:I'm paranoid enough of Pooky and DC to replace them for Koba and Tux
Can you elaborate?In post 786, SleeperSoul wrote:I will say that Koba's style kind of reminds me of a way more oblivious and stubborn version of myself.... so that sort of comes accross as town. But I'm having trouble reading them. They just seem super ticked off in general. NAI
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:43 am
whoops didnt mean to quote all 3 posts. i had other plans for the other 2 quotes only meant the last one
only meant the last onePosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:45 am
HEAL: Pooky just to be clear
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:47 am
If your grand plans include me being scum, I'm sorry to disappoint.