Mafiascum.net

Unright - (chamber, Empking)
Tarhalindur - (ortolan, Slicey)
ZazieR - (Tarhalindur)
DeathNote - (Bogre)
Cobalt - (dramonic)
Empking - (Boxman)
chamber - (Snow_Bunny)
forbiddanlight - (ZazieR)
Yuko Ichihara - (forbiddanlight)
Seraphim - (Sajin)
chamber - (Unright)

Not voting: Cobalt, DeathNote, Pomegranate

With 16 alive it will take 9? to lynch.

Boxman wrote:Do you know EXACTLY what the Death Note does?

Exactly? No. Am I sure that it works off names? yes.

I don't see any reason to pressure chamber into fullclaiming at this stage. I assume death notes work by allowing you to kill someone if you know their character name?

This, for now.

FL, I don't know what to say of your avatar ._. You've used red for Batler, while the colour he uses is blue.

Battler had the perfect objection pose. It had to be done.

I prefer the witch side myself

Eva Beatrice fails though . You know why if you watched Episode 3

(Also, Ange-Beatrice should first show some powers before I'll judge her. But Beatrice was just awesome during the third game that I doubt she'll be better than her.)

Have you read episode 4 yet?

So for example, if your character name is Beatrice, you're from Umineko no naku koro ni. So that player would claim that he's from Umineko.

Or fakeclaim from it, kekekekekeke

(Sorry, I'm really proud of that one)

Likely aren't exclusively pro-town, but I doubt they are mafia. Based on what I know likely town with an awc.

Interesting...not sure I like it.

Exactly? No. Am I sure that it works off names? yes.

This is also odd, I think.

Okay, then. I can see that, if chamber is telling the truth, an origin claim would probably be safe. I'm still against it for the simple fact that we don't need to give information to the mafia this early.

Normally, I don't like bringing 3rd Party speculation into the game, but I seem to remember a similar situation arising in MS3, which Xyl was a player in. As I recall, there was a lot of cult speculation going on, and several people raised the idea of a mass origin claim being a cult win condition. I could see Xyl pulling something off like that in this game, really.

But that's enough of that. For now, I'd just say no origin claim because it gives unnecessary information to mafia.

I'm just going to go ahead and drop this piece of information now (I figured I was going to have to claim at least part of my role early regardless):

One of my abilities depends on role name to function (it's more complicated than that, but I'd rather not inform scum about exactly how it works). That ability isn't a kill per se... but it does have the potential to be hideously powerful if used correctly, and can kill under certain circumstances.

Hence the request for the origin claim - it's something I've never really punished for (the closest was Haruhi in Mind Screw 3, and Haruhi was designed more to piggyback on something I considered relatively beneficial to town than to punish origin claiming), it worked well in Mind Screw 1 and Mind Screw 2 (especially by generating early information), and it would increase the usefulness of my role moderately while hopefully minimizing the risk from the likely punishers (Death Notes and the like).

Even the request has had some useful benefits...

1) Empking is barning me again. I'll need to keep a weather eye on that... if Empking is scum here, I might actually have a usable scumtell on him.
2) Unright's chamber fishing does NOT look town, and I already had a role-based reason not to trust him.

tl;dr Tar has the death note.

Good job.

forbiddanlight wrote:tl;dr Tar has the death note.

Good job.

That's the problem - my ability ISN'T a Death Note. It's actually closer to role name cop.

There might be a second role name-dependent ability floating around.

Tarhalindur wrote:

forbiddanlight wrote:tl;dr Tar has the death note.

Good job.

That's the problem - my ability ISN'T a Death Note. It's actually closer to role name cop.

There might be a second role name-dependent ability floating around.

It's not at all similar to the Mystic Eyes in TrADTiMM...is it?

forbiddanlight wrote:

Tarhalindur wrote:

forbiddanlight wrote:tl;dr Tar has the death note.

Good job.

That's the problem - my ability ISN'T a Death Note. It's actually closer to role name cop.

There might be a second role name-dependent ability floating around.

It's not at all similar to the Mystic Eyes in TrADTiMM...is it?

Nope... as I said, it's not a Death Note (and the Mystic Eyes WERE a Death Note, albeit with benefits).

I'd say it's a completely new kind of ability, but I've had a similar ability sitting in my notes for a bit.

Now, can we get back to running up scummy Upright?

@Zaz: I'm not into mod-lynching

I'm not sure I like what you are claiming, Tar. For the time being I'm sitting.

Tarhalindur wrote: 2) Unright's chamber fishing does NOT look town, and I already had a role-based reason not to trust him.

Vote: Unright

Unright wrote:I'm against whatever Tar is for and for whatever he is against.

Do either one of you want to fill us in why you are at each others throats? Or are we supposed to pick sides on this issue just because of soft claimed role related reasons?



@Mod prods on Bogre and Cobalt.
Prods sent.

Re: Unright - Why is he scummy? Have you examined his meta at all?

I'm highly suspicious of Emp having had another look, looks like he's buddying to Tar.

Also,

Tar (104) wrote:1) Empking is barning me again. I'll need to keep a weather eye on that... if Empking is scum here, I might actually have a usable scumtell on him.

This works both ways. It could be a legitimate suspicion, or it could be Tar trying to get some distance on his scumbuddy Empking (and he then goes on to vote someone else).

Sajin wrote:Do either one of you want to fill us in why you are at each others throats? Or are we supposed to pick sides on this issue just because of soft claimed role related reasons?

We're neighbors. Nice, huh?

Tar's "I already had a role-based reason not to trust him" is based on a confirmation bias fallacy: that all neighbor pairs are town/scum. That's the foundation on which he's going to interpret everything I do as scummy.

Slicey wrote:

Pomegranate wrote:I don't find it scummy to vote for the mod.

Why? I think it is.

Why should it be scummy? I think of it as a null tell; I've generally seen that both town and scum vote for the mod. I doesn't mean much either way as far as I'm concerned.

Unright (113) wrote:Tar's "I already had a role-based reason not to trust him" is based on a confirmation bias fallacy: that all neighbor pairs are town/scum. That's the foundation on which he's going to interpret everything I do as scummy.

Why do you think he is suspicious of you whereas you're not so suspicious of him? Why isn't the neighbour-suspicion-relationship reciprocal?

Pomegranate wrote:

Slicey wrote:

Pomegranate wrote:I don't find it scummy to vote for the mod.

Why? I think it is.

Why should it be scummy? I think of it as a null tell; I've generally seen that both town and scum vote for the mod. I doesn't mean much either way as far as I'm concerned.

It's basically No Lynching. You're taking a gamble on whether or not the mod is a player, something you should not be doing Day 1. If there is reason to believe he is a player that will hinder the town, then we lynch him. But as of right now, we don't have that.

I'm not liking Tar still. I don't know why you would immediately not trust your partner.

Slicey wrote:

Pomegranate wrote:

Slicey wrote:

Pomegranate wrote:I don't find it scummy to vote for the mod.

Why? I think it is.

Why should it be scummy? I think of it as a null tell; I've generally seen that both town and scum vote for the mod. I doesn't mean much either way as far as I'm concerned.

It's basically No Lynching. You're taking a gamble on whether or not the mod is a player, something you should not be doing Day 1. If there is reason to believe he is a player that will hinder the town, then we lynch him. But as of right now, we don't have that.

I don't like it if the mod gets a serious number of votes on him, but I see it like a random vote: A vote or two is fine, but if a wagon forms for no apparent reason and the person hits L-1 or something, then it's a usually problem.

Random votes for the mod during the RVS are fine. Serious votes that aren't testing to see if you can vote for the mod aren't.

Slicey wrote:Random votes for the mod during the RVS are fine. Serious votes that aren't testing to see if you can vote for the mod aren't.

QFT

ortolan wrote:

Unright (113) wrote:Tar's "I already had a role-based reason not to trust him" is based on a confirmation bias fallacy: that all neighbor pairs are town/scum. That's the foundation on which he's going to interpret everything I do as scummy.

Why do you think he is suspicious of you whereas you're not so suspicious of him? Why isn't the neighbour-suspicion-relationship reciprocal?

There's some reciprocation. I'm just not taking it to the level of fallacy.

do you think his mistaken attitude towards you is scummy, a null-tell or a town-tell for him?

Unright, if I was attacking you solely for being a neighbor (and yes, he is one), I would have random voted you and noted the vote wasn't entirely random. It's a consideration, of course (my rule of thumb is that neighbors are moderately more likely to contain a scum than a randomly selected non-Neighbor player, but not enough so to vote on that alone)... but this is a Bastard game. I'm not going to conclude anything based on what I know of your role alone.

However, consider the following posts:

Unright wrote:I'm against whatever Tar is for and for whatever he is against.

Same fallacy you're accusing me of, as far as I can tell.

Unright wrote:

chamber wrote:I've said enough I think.

Uh, yeah. Let's totally ignore the BLATANT SOFT CLAIM.

vote: chamber

Spill, buddy.

FISH MOAR HARDER PLOX.

At this point in the game, those two posts, when combined with the fact that you *are* a neighbor, are enough for me to vote on.

Tar, I don't think it makes him more likely to be scum if he's neighbor's with you.

Unright wrote:I'm against whatever Tar is for and for whatever he is against.

Unright wrote:

ortolan wrote:

Unright (113) wrote:Tar's "I already had a role-based reason not to trust him" is based on a confirmation bias fallacy: that all neighbor pairs are town/scum. That's the foundation on which he's going to interpret everything I do as scummy.

Why do you think he is suspicious of you whereas you're not so suspicious of him? Why isn't the neighbour-suspicion-relationship reciprocal?

There's some reciprocation. I'm just not taking it to the level of fallacy.

Something tells me your taking it to at least the same, if not higher level of fallacy.

Your 2 quotes do not match up.