Do you honestly believe this? That mod would on purpose word the roles/flavour/PM's one general in certain way so town could use it to hunt mafia?
People using this and obsessing over slight nuances are the reason why many games, as yogs mentioned about MU, go with very bland stock PMs and post it in OP but it makes the game more colourful.
Because of how it was dissected here back in the past, when I hosted my own game I was afraid of it and either posted very basic "You are VT, go hunt mafia." or made every PM including the wording of the same roles different so it would bite town in the ass if they tried to use it to their advantage.
It is something I don't appreciate and don't want to win this game.
We've lost doctor only because of his behaviour and possible cop is outed for the same reason, it's all part of the game. Is that why we should be trying to break the game?
Scene tried to break it so we should break it different way to balance it out?

If only it was true.

So you basically think it is better to lynch him today even if he is town cop?

Given the probability that he really is Town Cop, I think it's better to lynch him toDay.

I'm with yogs and Vitek on this one. It's for this reason that I added rule 12 for my last Harry Potter game.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/harry_potter_and_gog_mafia_64
12. You may discuss the (paraphrased) flavour of your role PMs, or any technical details that are related to gameplay, but you may not discuss technical minutae that are not gameplay related. For example asking someone if their PM mentions them allowing to target themselves is OK since it's gameplay related. However asking for the exact spelling of their role, or the timestamp at which PM was received is not.

I added it after a previous game scene asked blotunga if his PM said "Vanilla Town" or "Vanilla Townie", which is funny because it was an open setup and all PMs were available to everyone that game anyway.

The fact that we lost a Doc and outed a "Cop" (if true) is irrelevant. If a team scores an own goal then gets a player red-carded for insulting everyone, it doesn't mean the referee should allow them to score offside goals to compensate.

I already repeated the obvious meaning of what I wrote. Whoever wants to twist my words and bend them sideways so that they suit their fancy, is free to do so. As it is a notion "carved from the carver's brain", I cannot do anything to help them if they insist, or pretend, to be reading it that way.


So who started this? Oh, yes, who else. Never mind. Read above.

But we're playing in a game where offside goals aren't against the rules to begin with. They're just found distasteful to some.

It's a really unhelpful attitude this "If I am misunderstood it is the fault of the interpreter,"

As I understand it this is how it what you're saying carradice - am I right?

(The following dialogue is [interpolated])

Carradice: This claim is long overdue [as in : I was due to claim several hours ago but I was putting it off hoping to avoid it]

ZFR: You say your claim is long overdue [as in the role follows a pattern from previous games] but that makes no sense

Carradice: That's not what I meant


^
Is that right carradice?

Nope. That is not what I am saying.

I am replying to LIFT when he says that he was waiting for an answer. I merely stated that I have already repeated and explained the obvious meaning that I wanted to give to my words. If anyone wants to twist them in order to attain some meaning of their fancy. what can be done about it? Should I repeat the meaning infinitely? Just refer to what I wrote, there is nothing else to it.


Like, should I repeat infinitely that your "finding" was an out of context quote from my first game, and that the one time when I was actually scum, I PLAIN REFUSED to claim a role? But that big chunk of evidence, you carefully avoided, since it did not fit your narrative.

Can you link us back to where you repeated and explained the obvious meaning? because Lift wasn't the only one who missed your explanation, sorry.



What do you want me to say? "oh right, seeing as carradice once refused to claim a role as scum that must mean every time he claims a role he is town"?

The two should not be compared - the game where you refused to claim was an open-setup. Your options were very limited, you did not have the opportunity for high-risk high-reward claims.

Thinking about it the evidence kind of does fit the narrative: You did refuse to claim this time too, until the last hour.


I should have addressed this at the time you said it, but I must have gotten distracted, sorry.

Where? Can you point to a post.

A post that explains why after JOAT, Jester, Redirector, a Cop is long due.

If you were playing the game of football where offide goals were allowed but part of the players would consider them distatestful and would have nothing to do with them, would you just disregard them and score them even if you were ruining fun for your mates with them?

I actually mostly get where you are coming from but it still feels wrong.

No, no, no.
You said it was long due if one looks at alignment or roles of in your previous games. Not that it was long due in this one:

Now you are trying to spin it different way but it is quite obvious what you meant.

By meantioning vanilla he meant that if one was to remember alignments and roles from your previous games VT would be the thing one could consider long due for you.
But I think you know it and are not understanding it on purpose.

I was iffy about lynching possible cop but you are too scummy to be given free pass based on your claimed role.
Vote Carradice.

Probably not which is why I told Yogsloth to do what he wants ;p

And yes, if it is post 931 that explains the obvious meaning of your words, then vitek's right: that clearly cannot be what you meant by

"You can consider this anyway: those who were with me in the last three games, do you remember the alignments and roles that I was getting? This one was long due..."



So what does that all mean?

That I explained as well. But of course you will not pay attention to that, will you?

You're right, fair enough.

However it's one of such "basic" rules, that I'd assume it's on by default, unless the host explicitely allows it (because he balanced the game around it).

But I won't comment any further. I think it's best to take it post game.

I am trying to pay attention to it, but you are not helping. I know it is something of an imposition to you, but would you kindly help me but referring me to where you explained?