Game Ranked EastEnders Mafia

[Dalton]

@xenos5 Not surr who you plan to shoot if OLU gets lynched - Phen0m, or any low activity bar Retro, is a good shout.

Out of interest, why not Retro?

(There's probably a claim I don't know about but curious if not the case)

 

[Alco]

Out of interest, why not Retro?

(There's probably a claim I don't know about but curious if not the case)

Retro's Oneiros' replacement, right?

He (Oneiros) claimed miller iirc, so I wouldn't go there.

 

[Ratchet]

Out of interest, why not Retro?

(There's probably a claim I don't know about but curious if not the case)

Oneiros claimed Miller, Retro subbed in for Oneiros. I'm told Oneiros would never fake claim Miller, hence why I'm treating Retro as pseudo lock town.

I found nothing in her play that was objectionable anyway from what little there is, and her being alive can be excused due to the lack of presence, so ultimately I'm fine with that read.

 

[Dalton]

Of?

I've mostly skimmed - one question I do have to ask you - you requested a case, as if that were the minimum required to formalise my suspicion of you. Can you explain to me why you believe your play demands that level of evidence as a minimum? Because you seemed to acknowledge that you have been, on the whole, absent and not engaged, which you excused with Corona Virus. I ask this because you haven't required a case to vote or "push" anyone yourself, so I'm not clear as to why you need one when it concerns you.

By the by, if you want a full case, you're not getting one. I think there have been several contentionable posts you've made, and the defence for these has come from third parties claiming "that's just Lethal". It's not really a defence at all, so in the absence of that, what am I left with?

I think the "That's just Lethal" thing is a bit disingenuous.

In previous games, it has been pretty easy to pick out when Lethal is really being wonky, and when he's faking it.

He's an incredibly easy slot to read for anyone who has played a significant number of games with him - because he has to try fake his "just Lethal" things as scum and he's not very good at doing it.

 

[Alco]

I don't think Lethal's scum at all this game and I was right about him last time also.

 

[Dalton]

Retro's Oneiros' replacement, right?

He (Oneiros) claimed miller iirc, so I wouldn't go there.

Oneiros claimed Miller, Retro subbed in for Oneiros. I'm told Oneiros would never fake claim Miller, hence why I'm treating Retro as pseudo lock town.

I found nothing in her play that was objectionable anyway from what little there is, and her being alive can be excused due to the lack of presence, so ultimately I'm fine with that read.

Fair to both.

I'm a little uncertain of the last point from you though, Ratchet, as this could be extended to several inactives.

For example, since I've arrived, have you found anything objectional in my play? And could you not excuse me being alive due to a lack of presence (scum foreseeing a modkill/noting that I'm gonna be less informed when I eventually do play)?

 

[Ratchet]

I think the "That's just Lethal" thing is a bit disingenuous.

In previous games, it has been pretty easy to pick out when Lethal is really being wonky, and when he's faking it.

He's an incredibly easy slot to read for anyone who has played a significant number of games with him - because he has to try fake his "just Lethal" things as scum and he's not very good at doing it.

Its
It's not disingenuous - I've said I respect the meta on him, but it's not absolute. I point you to Death Note and Fang's game as examples of the meta resulting in misreading him. My point is Lethal has made a few posts, here and there, that are scummy in their own right (or just poor logic/poorly thought out if I'm being charitable) that has been swept away due to this, and I don't think it's very valid to stand up Day 4.

 

[Ratchet]

I'm a little uncertain of the last point from you though, Ratchet, as this could be extended to several inactives.

For example, since I've arrived, have you found anything objectional in my play? And could you not excuse me being alive due to a lack of presence (scum foreseeing a modkill/noting that I'm gonna be less informed when I eventually do play)?

No, but the last point isn't supposed to stand on it's own- it's there in support of the Miller claim because that's why I haven't re-evaluated the slot/flipped my read as the game has gone on. It wasn't presented as an isolated point either so I don't know why you would treat it that way.

 

[Dalton]

Its
It's not disingenuous - I've said I respect the meta on him, but it's not absolute. I point you to Death Note and Fang's game as examples of the meta resulting in misreading him. My point is Lethal has made a few posts, here and there, that are scummy in their own right (or just poor logic/poorly thought out if I'm being charitable) that has been swept away due to this, and I don't think it's very valid to stand up Day 4.

I just don't understand why someone like you, who is clearly a logically-inclined player, wants to hammer in on poor-logic posts from a player who has a history of poor logic.

Like, if you think the posts sound fake, then that's different, but that doesn't seem to be your angle here.

 

[Ratchet]

Which is to say, by itself that point isn't very compelling, when coupled with the Miller claim it's good enough for me.

 

[Lethal]

Of?

I've mostly skimmed - one question I do have to ask you - you requested a case, as if that were the minimum required to formalise my suspicion of you. Can you explain to me why you believe your play demands that level of evidence as a minimum? Because you seemed to acknowledge that you have been, on the whole, absent and not engaged, which you excused with Corona Virus. I ask this because you haven't required a case to vote or "push" anyone yourself, so I'm not clear as to why you need one when it concerns you.

By the by, if you want a full case, you're not getting one. I think there have been several contentionable posts you've made, and the defence for these has come from third parties claiming "that's just Lethal". It's not really a defence at all, so in the absence of that, what am I left with?

So you have fuck all and have been shading my name to try and appear like you're doing something without fully committing.

I've got enough posts and interactions that you could try something more than "several contentionable posts" here bud.

Noted.

 

[Ratchet]

I just don't understand why someone like you, who is clearly a logically-inclined player, wants to hammer in on poor-logic posts from a player who has a history of poor logic.

Like, if you think the posts sound fake, then that's different, but that doesn't seem to be your angle here.

I'm not really seeing better alternatives. I broke down earlier as to where my PoE was, and if I take away the meta defence (as it isn't so compelling) I don't have a single reason to think he's town. My vote was there to prompt a claim - he hasn't done that either. It's not just that he's made a few bad posts and the rest of his play is fine, which would be entirely different. It has been lacking, so yeah by all means, I'm content to pursue that direction.

 

[Dalton]

No, but the last point isn't supposed to stand on it's own- it's there in support of the Miller claim because that's why I haven't re-evaluated the slot/flipped my read as the game has gone on. It wasn't presented as an isolated point either so I don't know why you would treat it that way.

I know it isn't meant to stand on its own, and that's my point.

The miller thing amply answered what I had asked - so you adding in the stuff about not scumreading Retro felt unnecessary.

Over-answering is something I tend to associate with scum beacuse scum are more worried about being accused of poor reasoning for their reads.

Not saying you're necessarily scummy overall but it is a point I feel is worth making.

 

[Ratchet]

So you have fuck all and have been shading my name to try and appear like you're doing something without fully committing.

I've got enough posts and interactions that you could try something more than "several contentionable posts" here bud.

Noted.

You didn't answer my question at all. Why do you deserve a standard of evidence that you don't even hold yourself to?

 

[Alco]

Gonna go ahead and say I like the Acey baby these last couple of pages.

 

[Ratchet]

I know it isn't meant to stand on its own, and that's my point.

The miller thing amply answered what I had asked - so you adding in the stuff about not scumreading Retro felt unnecessary.

Over-answering is something I tend to associate with scum beacuse scum are more worried about being accused of poor reasoning for their reads.

Not saying you're necessarily scummy overall but it is a point I feel is worth making.

Oh, well, shrug I guess. You guys treat Miller claims as IC's, I certainly don't.

 

[Dalton]

I'm not really seeing better alternatives. I broke down earlier as to where my PoE was, and if I take away the meta defence (as it isn't so compelling) I don't have a single reason to think he's town. My vote was there to prompt a claim - he hasn't done that either. It's not just that he's made a few bad posts and the rest of his play is fine, which would be entirely different. It has been lacking, so yeah by all means, I'm content to pursue that direction.

"If I take away the meta defence"
That's a big if, as with Lethal I would contend it is compelling.

 

[Lethal]

I'm not really seeing better alternatives. I broke down earlier as to where my PoE was, and if I take away the meta defence (as it isn't so compelling) I don't have a single reason to think he's town. My vote was there to prompt a claim - he hasn't done that either. It's not just that he's made a few bad posts and the rest of his play is fine, which would be entirely different. It has been lacking, so yeah by all means, I'm content to pursue that direction.

Uh you might want to check that again, chief. If you're gonna throw shit around, try seeing if it's solid or diarrhoea first

You didn't answer my question at all. Why do you deserve a standard of evidence that you don't even hold yourself to?

I've outlined my case on Dragon & Ekko, and you have bumbled your way out of providing anything regarding me. "I have no reason to read him town." "I don't buy the meta defence." What a load of shit lmao.

 

[Grammaton]

Has anyone answered my question about TAT apparently making a completely pointless shot?

 

[Lethal]

I mean if you can't come up with something from 132 posts, then you're talking out of your arse looking for an easy follow wagon or something. If you legitimately believe you have something, you'd make more of an effort.

I mean, again, WIFOM would suggest your cowardice of confronting Poyser led to him being killed last night