Mafiascum.net

In post 304, mastina wrote:

In post 147, jjh927 wrote:Also, Ginngie-
Did you get anything from RC saying you recognised Mastina or anything similar?

I don't think so.
If she did, it should have also been in my role PM; it was not.

In post 230, jjh927 wrote:Titus, the role makes plenty of sense and it's not a miller

Fun fact, Gamma's sig given my view on vote/lynch manipulation roles being equivalent to a vig is quite hilariously appropriate given my role.

In post 236, Innocent Children wrote:She fakeclaimed D3 IC iirc? but was in actuality mafia vig, so I would definitely think it’s wise to take hers and probably most early claims with a grain of salt.

While technically true, this is incredibly misleading.
I fakeclaimed D3 innocent child...as a N2 Vigilante. (And once D3 rolled around, I realclaimed my role. So no. Didn't lie. Told the truth!)
Given my stance on Vigilantes.
That in of itself was not a lie.
It was misleading, sure.
But my stance on vigilantes is that when they successfully shoot, they

are

conftown; they are proven to be town, and thus, proven innocent, just as if they were an innocent child. (Why this, in spite of my stance of roles != alignment? Because I am a member of the NRG and I am strongly in favor of the argument of vigs not being mafia-controlled. Nontown, sure. Even antitown, fine. But mafia vigs are a fuck no to me and are borderline bastard. They're not QUITE there, in that they're akin to a mafia Godfather; it is something TREMENDOUSLY powerful for the scum to have and NOT something I want in games out there willy-nilly.)

You can see my full realclaim the moment D3 unfolds, right here.

Spoiler: The Posts in Question

In post 2219, mastina wrote:

Actual claim: Night 2 Vig; last night, I shot Purrcocet.

(And yes, it's spelled that way. Not Vigilante; Vig. Not N2, Night 2.)

Purrcocet, a scumread of mine no less!, claimed my fucking role. He fucking claimed Night 2 vigilante. I had been

planning

to shoot someone like, say, Kokichi Oma, but as a vig the correct play is to always just fucking shoot your counterclaim especially when you don't get the chance to fucking talk all of D2.

I was basically breadcrumbing this role in every fucking post of mine (I can pull up my VERY specific wordings in a bit), but.
The reasoning for the fakeclaim should be self-evident. I said on D3 I would be an innocent child; that's because you don't fucking give a vigilante to a scum player, and the proof would be in the second nightkill with me having killed Purrcocet. (Well originally I was planning on shooting Kokichi, but. Yaknow. Claimed my exact fucking role, and all that.) By claiming D3 Innocent Child, I would lead scum to think I had no night action; by claiming D3 innocent child, I would lead players to think that I was utterly harmless before D3.

But for SOME fucking reason.

Purrcocet isn't dead.

So.

Purrcocet.
You've got some 'splainin' to do.

In post 2246, mastina wrote:

In post 77, mastina wrote:BTW investigatives should stay off me; they'd be wasting their action.
I'm a D3 Innocent Child.
If you are wondering, no, not

automatic

; I have to manually

trigger

it.

Investigatives should stay off of me because a gunsmith would get a guilty on me; rolecopping or vanilla copping or neapolitaning me would be a waste because my role would be proven come N2 with a successful vig.

I made it clear from the wording here what my true role is. AUTOMATIC-->guns. TRIGGER-->guns.

In post 231, mastina wrote:I guarantee you.

On D3, after I have triggered my action.

I will be conftown.

Again, I specify TRIGGER. I also was very careful with my wording. I never said that I would trigger my action ON D3. I said, QUITE SPECIFICALLY, I would be conftown on D3 after HAVING triggered my action.

In post 233, mastina wrote:

In post 132, Human Sequencer wrote:Wrt innocent child shenanigans it's possible they have something to do with the "main characters" this setup is based around

I'm not a main character; my confirmation comes from a different method altogether.

My confirmation method comes from being a fucking vig.

In post 253, mastina wrote:

In post 252, Brian Skies wrote:Or they'll just do to you what they did to me and vanillarize-neighborize you.

That'd be their funeral then because it'd turn this game from "not exactly something I want" to "oh fuck you I AM GOING TO WIN THIS SHIT" mode.

Vanillaizing an innocent child wouldn't do much because I go without being conftown in most games, but I was specifically putting A LOT OF EFFORT into the strategy behind my vig; being vanillaized after I worked so hard on that would be a "fuck you".

In post 774, mastina wrote:

In post 262, Andriod18 wrote: This is no excuse to not post any reads because you can die before hand.

I have my reasons.

Put it this way.

If a townread of mine gets run up, I'll defend them.

I'll give thoughts on players randomly. Some of these may even be productive.

But I've no reason to give full reads before then.

Also this is a good way to help ensure I

don't

bite the bullet before D3. The suspicion on me helps me stay alive.

I know how to play roles, even ones I'm not particularly fond of. (I mean, I love being conftown, but this is a fairly shitty way to get it.) And I promise you, this is the best possibly strategy for me holding this role.

"Bite the bullet" was another hint, but the strongest hint here was "roles I'm not particularly fond of". What role have I on NUMEROUS different occasions stated I absolutely loathe? That's right. Vigilante. I hate them with a passion, but they have one particular use--being made conftown. It's a SHITTY way to become conftown, but it's becoming conftown nonetheless.

Also, this was me outlining my plan.

I wasn't going to give scumreads because guess what? As a fucking vig, I can let my SHOT do the talking in terms of scumreads.

In post 778, mastina wrote:I never lie about being conftownable as town.

Exaggerate

, yes.

Mislead

, sure!
But lie, fuck no, I know better than that.

So I guarantee you.

I will be conftown.

Here I basically admitted that I was in fact not a D3 IC, because the D3 IC claim was precisely this: misleading, and exaggeration, but still the truth, because by shooting N2, I'd be conftown on D3, just as good as an IC.

In post 781, mastina wrote:

In post 274, grapes wrote:I'm gonna guess she's on a team with a vanillarizor or something and planned to explain it away that way or something

Joke's on them if they vanillaize me, actually. I'd laugh my ass off if they tried.

The assumption here was that I wouldn't be vanillaized N1 (after all, they thought I couldn't be conftown until D3 so why vanillaize me N1?), and if they attempted it N2, it presumably wouldn't stop my shot from going off. Thus, why the joke would be on them if they had tried; I'd still have fucked them over with the shot.

In post 799, mastina wrote:

In post 425, Dunnstral wrote:VOTE: Katsuki

I buy Katsuki's D5 Innocent Child claim if Katsuki has the two-phase-shifted equivalent of my role. (I

suspect

Katsuki would be able to share details about my role from their own, if so inclined to share, which I imagine Katsuki is not.)

So that's not a lynch ever happening because Katsuki is going to be just as conftown as I am, albeit two phases later than I will be.

Here I stated my suspicion that Katsuki had an Night 4 Vig. I was VERY careful about my wording. Not "two-day-shifted". Two PHASE shifted. And I suspected Katsuki would be able to give details of this.

In post 851, mastina wrote:

In post 840, Purrcocet wrote:if we have 2 ics there must be a disadvantage somewhere else

Would you believe me if I said I had an idea of what?

The disadvantage I am referring to here is how Vigs require KILLING, to REMOVE a player from the game--yes, they become conftown by having done so, but shots are DISPROPORTIONATELY likely to be on town (thus why I hate vigs), on top of the chance of failure (thus the gambit to help ensure I'd succeed).

I do not believe for so much as ONE SECOND I was roleblocked, because my claim was D3 Innocent Child.
I do not believe for so much as ONE SECOND I was redirected, because my claim was D3 Innocent Child.
I do not believe for so much as ONE SECOND I was rolecopped N1 to justify them knowing my role, because my claim was D3 Innocent Child.

So Purrcocet survived by some other means.
And I don't buy that it's by a town method.

Sure enough.

Exactly as I roleclaimed.

N2 Vigilante

was

my real role, and

I really did

shoot Purcocet using it.

So like I said.

I don't lie about my role as scum.

BY NECESSITY, I will mislead; the reason I by necessity need to mislead as scum is because I love to do it as town. BY NECESSITY, I will exaggerate, I will play up things, I will make very careful usage of very specific wording. BY NECESSITY, I will try to imply something, when it is something else, but this is done purely to mimic my town meta, and I will always claim the actual real role later.

All fakeclaims have an end date.

All fakeclaims are made knowing a realclaim will need to be made later.

And when I reveal the real claim, the reason for the fakeclaim makes complete and total sense when you view it, because you go, "Oh, I understand why that was done" instantly just by knowing the real role.
You can think of it in this term.
Macho <-> Bulletproof as a switch to make, is in fact a lie.
I would tell it gladly and have done so, specifically because I knew that upon a realclaim, the reasons for me having done so would be abundantly clear. The kind of thing where I don't even need to explain it. I could end up a corpse, and that fact alone, just seeing my flip, would instantly explain my actions.

That's how "lies" of mine work. And that's why I say they're not actually lies. They are, technically speaking, not the truth. But they are a lack of truth, which when you see the truth, you understand why they were done and follow it as having been the optimal play.

Claiming D3 Innocent Child as a N2 vig was a

brilliant

play move,

regardless

of alignment and I'm actually sad I was scum that game because that move would have actually been better were I town. It wasn't really a lie, just me playing the closest I've ever played to my town meta in spite of how little I actually played the game. (Through little fault of my own, mind you.)

If the town hadn't kept quicklynching and I hadn't been so swamped with real life stuff at the time that game coulda been a contender for best scumgame I ever played, but since they did and I was busy I barely got to do anything. BUT I DIGRESS.

Point being.

I don't lie as scum; the closest I come to lying as scum is mimicking my town lies, and when I lie as town, I am most definitively not doing so just for the lulz; there is a clear, role-based reason for the lie and when you see the real role you can understand how it wasn't really much of a lie at all if it was in fact really something you could call a lie because my fondness for wordplay and precise usage of words leads me to carefully selecting words which IMPLY the meaning I want BUT ACTUALLY are me confessing to my real role.

In post 164, jjh927 wrote:Oh yeah and
VOTE: Skygazer

Very bad vote.

In post 160, Innocent Children wrote:Gamma is probably town, I think.

This is true!

In post 307, Ginngie wrote:

In post 76, jjh927 wrote:Role correlates strongly with alignment

this was used by me

to almost lose or we did lose the last game by RC uPick

so sit down and listen to elders on this one

In post 324, Nero Cain wrote:

In post 320, Gamma Emerald wrote:We normal people

says the weeb

In post 304, mastina wrote:

In post 164, jjh927 wrote:Oh yeah and
VOTE: Skygazer

Very bad vote.

In post 339, jjh927 wrote:Explain why you think either of us are good votes

In post 338, jjh927 wrote:I'll take

VOTE: Ginngie

if you're gonna take the path of least resistance