Mafiascum.net

In post 2264, Blair wrote:

In post 2262, Dunnstral wrote:OK, so obviously I misinterpreted what the jailkeeper was doing, because that makes no sense

It doesn't actually matter if it was true or not (it wasn't, as even you attest now)

What matters is that you claimed you believed it was true while simultaneously claiming you received no result that night.

No one who received No Result would believe that.

In post 2259, Blair wrote:The follow up to that is: If Dunnstral were telling the truth, really was the Tracker, and really did receive "No Result" on Night 1, Dunnstral never would have believed that the Jailkeeper targeted the Rolecop, because he would know that was impossible.

In post 2252, Blair wrote:

Dunnstral claims to believe that Aloratom is the Jailkeeper, crumbled that they jailed Blair, and Blair roleblocked him, causing him to receive no result Night 1.

This is impossible.

Dunnstral claims it is possible because whenever the two roles conflict, Roleblocker resolves first. But the two roles aren't conflicting unless we target each other, which he is claiming did not occur.

In post 2251, Blair wrote:

In post 2223, Dunnstral wrote: I'll just leave you with this.

In post 2, Elmo TeH AzN wrote:

Mafia Roleblocker

action takes precedence over a

Town Jailkeeper

action should that apply.

"Should that apply."

Nauci is actually right. Natural Action Resolution, and all other forms of night action order resolution, only apply in situations where two roles target each other or otherwise conflict.

So Roleblocker would resolve before Jailkeeper

if the Roleblocker and Jailkeeper target each other.

Not every single time a Roleblocker is jailed.

Dunnstral is essentially suggesting that Roleblockers are

immune

to Jailkeepers (because their action would always resolve first, no matter who they target).

I'm about 99% positive Roleblockers are not immune to Jailkeepers, so Dunnstral is lying here.

Nicely caught, Nauci.

In post 2246, Blair wrote:

In post 2244, Aloratom wrote:I still oppose a mass claim. I have yet to see from anyone the logic behind doing so.

The logic:

1. Everyone knows 100% there is scum between Blair/Dunnstral

2. This means town has a 50% shot at nailing scum by lynching between those two players. Waiting until tomorrow does not improve those odds.

3. Lynching between those two players today means that the non-Blair/Dunn players (i.e. the players deciding the lynch, since Dunn and I are voting each other) are 75% town. If we wait until tomorrow, the players deciding the lynch are only 67% town.

4. The more townies we have deciding this lynch, the better.

5. We have no mislynches left, so we need to make this count.

In post 2203, Blair wrote:

In post 2171, Nauci wrote:

In post 2119, Blair wrote:The fact that Dunn outright states he was gunning for me to claim before him and BM had already moved me up the list is interesting.

Interesting how? Isn't that NAI? Like, if Dunn isn't lying, that's exactly the order he'd want to catch you in a lie? A maneuver that you yourself are absolutely expert at? And BM would do that as scum but would also do that as town who scumreads you?

You're misinterpreting me here (check the context).

I wasn't suggesting that the correlation made Dunnstral more likely to be scum (I already know Dunnstral is scum, he cannot be more than 100% likely from my perspective). I was suggesting that Battle Mage was more likely to be his partner, since Battle Mage reorganized his preferred claim order to move me from near the bottom to second-from-the-top

before

Dunnstral claimed and made it clear that I should claim next. I'm suggesting it appears coordinated.

In post 2182, Blair wrote:@Nauci I notoriously hate this Newbie setup (I say as much every time it comes up) and I very publicly fumbled the setup analysis in that game you referenced. (Although my Day 1 wagon analysis was 100% accurate!)

So yes, you really did just witness me assessing the setup and trying to suss out which sub-setup we're in. I'm actually pretty proud of the fact that I was able to identify it based off of one fake claim with no flipped PRs.

As for your point that Dunn would know (if he weren't lying scum) about the Jailkeeper due to receiving no result, I guess so but scum could have no killed so you don't technically know that in that scenario.

More importantly, I think it's worth mentioning here that A) I was not operating from the mindset of actually believing Dunnstral in the first place and B) Dunnstral didn't even use this super obvious explanation himself when responding to that very question.

In post 2164, Blair wrote:Genuine scumslips are so rare nowadays - this is exciting!

In post 2161, Blair wrote:Now that I'm realizing that, this is interesting:

In post 2077, Dunnstral wrote:My slot targeted Formerfish night 1 - Received no result (implying a roleblocker or jailkeeper -> there has to be a jailkeeper because someone stopped a kill and it wasn't me)

It never occurred to Dunnstral that there could be a Doctor in the setup, because it never occurred to him that we could be in B3.

Because he's known we weren't in that column since Day 2.

In post 2155, Blair wrote:You'd still be confirmed scum to me, silly, but there isn't a power role in that setup that can know for sure that you're lying.

In post 2105, Blair wrote:No, Nauci, I'm town because Dunnstral tracked a VT.

I'm just pointing out, in addition to that, there is no scenario in which scum!Blair doesn't try to take another PR down with me here.

In post 2078, Blair wrote:VOTE: Dunnstral

I'm a VT genius. Read the thread next time before you fake claim.