I never saw much from Carradice to think he was mafia.

He's very different to how he played in his first game - but he's not out of character for himself. It just feels like he's not really playing the mafia game.
It might be a scumtell, or it might be turning up late and getting into arguments and not really feeling settled in the game.

When I saw his claim I first thought "no"

he did leave it very late... I put him at 2 votes from majority, something like 7 hours from deadline and asked for a claim, and he posted since that without claiming...

the claim looks bad.


I don't know. I'm just leaving work now I'll get on when I get home.

Carradice? After seeing scene's flip, I doubt the veracity of his claim. I believe there is an above average chance he is Mafia.
If he is Town, it will get rid of a distraction.

So, how did it go? Did that happen at all?



















^_^


I guess no.

lmao, as if I would remember what this was

Did I moderate it?

You have the same GOG Mafia admin thread I do, you go find it

unless it was this one

Yeah ok I think it was that one

lol that was so much fun to write

anyway


I know I'm sucking, I've barely spent any time here, but I'm Town... just not able to lead at the moment

I will read Joe next as promised

Again, can you please stop? It's getting annoying.

Why not doing an exercise?

If you remove the posts where I am getting into arguments as non meaningful, why not removing the posts where the only think that is being discussed is Carradice's scumminess, as non meaningful?

You might be surprised. Like, from #778 to #802 is appears to be the only matter happening in the game.

Who are discussing anything else? Who are one-trick ponies?

Who pretend to leave the subject (or to be thinking about leaving the subject), only to return to it?

I wrote it since the beginning of D-2. Proceed as you like. It seems that the only think that you are giving me to discuss is the same thing. Get done with that already.

At least Lift has tried mentioning a different subject. In the post-doc, no one but him has done so.

ZFR
Vitek
Dedo
Trent
Carradice
Lift
Joe

From those I remove Lift and Carradice.

ZFR
Vitek
Dedo
Trent
Joe

So, what are each one's reason for sustaining a single note, and not offering anything else? Surely there is a different answer for each.

Then, who are to apear:

Flocke
Micro
Yogsloth

What have they been doing? What are the matters they post about? Again, different answers. From there, I remove Micro.

Flocke
Yogsloth




My two cents.

And yes, this is what you give me to work with (1), so here you are. This and role discussion, which I do not want to partake in. Next it will be PM discussion (do not count on me for that).

Provide something else to discuss, so that it does not sound like I am defending. Which to Joe seems like not playing. Move along, give the player preventing the cop checks another target, and so on.

I will be back when there is something interesting, post-doc, to discuss. For discussing the mono-theme there is no need that I partake in it.



(1) Garbage in, garbage out. Or maybe recycling garbage into something useful.

The answer to a clear, pertinent question posed in a civil manner.


Noted.


Let us try again: @ZFR, did you proceed with the research that you declared to be about to perform? Yes, the one that was granting you townie points for seemingly working to solve the game and stopping with the tunnelling.

(The line above is not a vote)



How simple it might have been to reply "I still did not get to it". Or even "I changed my mind".

Do you not see the difference between asking:

"Did you have time to ISO Joe as you said you would yesterday"?

And

"So how did it go? Did it happen at all?

(multiple blank lines)

^_^

I guess no"

??

Yes, the first one inquires without any knowledge on the matter. The second takes into account a context where no trace of said research is to be found and, instead, tunnelling is resumed. The worst that can be said about it is that it sports a modicum of irony. Still, it is a civil question. It does not mean that it needs to be a comfortable question. And yes, it was pertinent and it deserved a civil answer, instead of snapping back to something akin to "do not reply to my posts".

That's not what I wrote.

I asked you not ask questions in such a manner

But whatever.

This is what I got from #433. So yes, context.


If you put it this way now, sure. My questions to you will be devoid of irony.

(I hope the rest of the crew do not mind a little humour now and then).

I would rather not BE at MYLO. Therefore, I would rather go after the scummiest player first and NOT after the mere 'potential distraction'. Going after the distraction first reads like a bogus argument and makes you look quite scummy.

THAT is quite an interesting find. So Carradice is willing to make risky claims if he sees big potential benefits. Yes, I do see the similarity and that makes it a bit more credible, that Carradice's claim was false. Still, based on his voting behaviour, I would like to go for Yogs first and see what Carradice reports Tomorrow, if he survives.

Not only. He is citing Carradice's defensiveness. But ZFR raised the argument 'A Cop is unlikely because Town would have too much power'. Which is pure role speculation. And yet trent agreed with ZFR, even though he put the focus on 'having re-read Carradice'.

Obviously.

Independend of the manner of the question, your answer would interest me too. Did you re-read Joe with a Carradice=Town mindset? And what conclusions did you draw.


On to whom to vote for: I agree that it is possible that Carradice faked his claim. But I don't agree on 'removing a distraction' first, when we have a good lead of someone who voted based on not only one but three false, possibly made up reasons. @ZFR: you agree that that is scummy. So why place the policy lynch (that's what 'removing a distraction' is) higher than the actual scum-hunting lynch? Why not lynch Yogs first?
If Yogs is scum, we rejoice (and take a very hard look at you and trent, since you appear to try to prevent a train on him)
If Yogs is Town AND Carradice survives, Carradice is a valid lynch target tomorrow.

Conversely, @all, if the majority prefers to lynch Carradice today and he flips Town, then we need to lynch one out of Yogs, ZFR, Trent tomorrow. Because if Carradice is Town, Scum has to be among those three.

I said already, I'm not going after the distraction. I'm going for the more scummy player. After scene's flip, I have less reason to believe Carradice's claim. the fact that he's a potential distraction is a nice bonus.

Sorry, no. I didn't have the time. I'll try and do it later.

Let me ask you, do you think yogs is the scummiest player because of that one post he made when he voted scene?

Don't you think that for someone, who's played many times on MU where random is used to determine lynch in ties, might have missed the fact that in this game ties are treated differently? Especially given the fact that this person subbed mid-late D1 and wasn't there when the tie-nolynch discussion took place (short as it was - it's just GR and Carradice asking the question and Pooka or someone answering. Not difficult to miss when somone's subbing in).

Yes, I am basing my scummy read mostly on that one post. Yogs didn't contribute much before that post, apart from 'trent looks OK' and 'ZFR looks OK', but that's excusable since he had just stepped in and had to catch up. He hasn't contributed much since that post either, apart from promising to re-read Joe. Just like you. And yes, it is entirely reasonable that he assumed that a tie would be broken randomly. However, that was only one error out of three in that post. A fact which you chose to ignore. Read the post again. I bolded some things for emphasis:

So, 1.) yogs not just assumes that a tie would be broken randomly. He confidently claims that a no-lynch was impossible by the rules. Which proves that he didn't read the rules, but still he tried to use them as argument against Scene. Even when stepping in, the rules are the first thing one should read. Before catching up. Not reading rules is a thing that Scene is known for. Not an experienced player like yogs.

2.) his second accusation is just a repeated question why Scene voted SPF. A question that Scene answered. In the post that yogs quoted. That's really hard to miss and shows again that Yogs wasn't paying attention in the least.

3.) his third accusation is 'where is your vote now?' - when Scene had voted quite noticably in his very first post of the Day. If an experienced player like yogs makes a case against a suspect, wouldn't you expect that he actually reads the posts of the player he investigates? But yogs clearly didn't read Scene's posts.

... so, he wasn't investigating Scene. He was just voting him because it was convenient and Scene always is an easy target. This amount of negligence and oversight is beyond 'he just stepped in an doesn't have enough time'. This shows a lack of interest and a pretense of arguments that just aren't there.


So yes, that one post is where yogs slipped, going after the seemingly easy target. And the rest of his posts does nothing to make him look townier. If you disagree, please explain how 'Yogs uses to play on MU' is an excuse for not reading the posts of the player he investigated and voted for.