Mafiascum.net

In post 4021, Titus wrote:Mastina, you're attempting to spin any suspicion on you as convoluted. You're smart enough, if you had deduced Not_Mafia was a weak role that him visiting you would result in you being outed as confscum. Doing a block and a no kill would create the opposite impression.

You're adding an extra thing that is not required.

Blocking Not_Mafia generates the clear in of itself. It doesn't require a no kill. Me just surviving is a clear enough. With Not_Mafia alive on D3 and me alive D3, Not_Mafia's weak hider generates the clear on me.

So there is no reason for me to no-kill.

Again.

You can't explain the no-kill with me as anything other than conftown.

In post 3931, Jingle wrote:

In post 3928, Titus wrote:Mod: Can a hider be jailkept or roleblocked if such roles exist?

Explicitly the normal version of the role hider can be both Jailkept and roleblocked, and this is the version of the role used for Not_Mafia. I cannot confirm nor deny whether any variant hiders were used in the creation of the scumteam.

"The Normal version of the Hider is one of the simplest: the Hider, when they use their ability, cannot be killed by actions targeted at them; however, if their target dies as a result of an active killing action (e.g. a factional kill or Vigilante shot), the Hider will also die."

No actions other than killing actions fail against the normal version of hider.

NM may well have been both blocked AND targeted.

This post reads like Jingle considers Hider to be killproof (against direct attack), a passive power, which cannot be roleblocked.

In post 4025, mastina wrote:

In post 4021, Titus wrote:Mastina, you're attempting to spin any suspicion on you as convoluted. You're smart enough, if you had deduced Not_Mafia was a weak role that him visiting you would result in you being outed as confscum. Doing a block and a no kill would create the opposite impression.

You're adding an extra thing that is not required.

Blocking Not_Mafia generates the clear in of itself. It doesn't require a no kill. Me just surviving is a clear enough. With Not_Mafia alive on D3 and me alive D3, Not_Mafia's weak hider generates the clear on me.

So there is no reason for me to no-kill.

Again.

You can't explain the no-kill with me as anything other than conftown.

A voluntary no kill explains it, just like moongrass speculated.

In post 4026, House wrote:

In post 3931, Jingle wrote:

In post 3928, Titus wrote:Mod: Can a hider be jailkept or roleblocked if such roles exist?

Explicitly the normal version of the role hider can be both Jailkept and roleblocked, and this is the version of the role used for Not_Mafia. I cannot confirm nor deny whether any variant hiders were used in the creation of the scumteam.

"The Normal version of the Hider is one of the simplest: the Hider, when they use their ability, cannot be killed by actions targeted at them; however, if their target dies as a result of an active killing action (e.g. a factional kill or Vigilante shot), the Hider will also die."

No actions other than killing actions fail against the normal version of hider.

NM may well have been both blocked AND targeted.

This post reads like Jingle considers Hider to be killproof (against direct attack), a passive power, which cannot be roleblocked.

No If NM was blocked and targeted for a kill, he would be targeted by a jailkeeper which makes no sense as scum would know he was protected.

i really have to go to sleep but i passed the message onto nancy but please reconsider @titus

In post 4024, House wrote:Conveniently ignoring blocking mechanics.

Blocks don't work to block the weak half of the role but let the hider half go through.

I'm not the one ignoring how block mechanics work--the ones proposing I am scum are.

EITHER: Not_Mafia was blocked, in which case he was killable, OR:
Not_Mafia was not blocked, in which case his hide went through on me and he was unkillable.

In the former, I may not be conftown, but there is no explanation for the lack of the N2 kill.

In the latter, I am conftown and there is a perfect, occam's razor compliant, explanation for the lack of the N2 kill.

Those are the only two possible worlds.

One in which Not_Mafia didn't clear me but in which you have to invent some Occam's Razor violation for some contrived convoluted explanation for why there wasn't a N2 kill...

...And one in which Not_Mafia did clear me and the lack of kill was scum trying to directly kill Not_Mafia.

In post 4029, Mia and Maya Fey wrote:i really have to go to sleep but i passed the message onto nancy but please reconsider @titus

I will reconsider when mastina does something townie.

Right now, all she's doing is trying to convince me she's conftown mechanically when that just isn't true.

If she reconsidered moongrass, I'd consider it.

Right now, I don't see that though and moongrass is lockscum.

Like if you put mastina as town, gamma is town fmpov, then you're town koba/nancy.

That leaves moongrass and house.

If mastina's scum, she's never scum with house. That leaves house, me, gamma and you as town. Thus moongrass is the partner.

I'm voting moongrass unless I have to compromise on House.

mastina fighting so hard to try to sell themselves as confirmed town when they know damned well they're not just makes me disbelieve them all the more.

Well you're both spewing her as town now anyway when we do lim house, so...

In post 4027, Titus wrote:A voluntary no kill explains it, just like moongrass speculated.

A voluntary no-kill runs afoul of occam's razor though because it requires inventing a reason to no-kill.

Again, to reiterate:
In the hypothetical world where scumastina has a scumteam with a blocking role that blocks Not_Mafia's hide, Not_Mafia surviving to D3 is, in of itself, enough to falsely conftown scumastina.

You do not need a no-kill for that.

The blocking role, in of itself, generates that. Just by itself. Just alone. Just on its own, a blocking role on Not_Mafia would conftown scumastina N2.

So why no-kill?

What does the no-kill give?

It literally gives nothing more than what we already had.

It gives zero benefit but costs scum a nightkill, a nightkill they could use on conftown or widely townread players.

Requiring a scum no-kill N2 requires inventing extra motives. It requires inventing "scumastina planned in advance to make herself even more conftown by sacrificing her nightkill to make her even more conftown even though Not_Mafia living to D3 would in of itself conftown her, and she did this because she thought that her being conftown from hiding wasn't enough and came up with the no-kill plan specifically to elevate her to an even higher tier of conftown".

Aside from that being an occam's razor violation in of itself, that doesn't fit the modus operandi of scumastina in general. (For that matter, neither does the nom kill N1.) You're familiar enough with my scum methods to know that I maximize reward for the minimal risk and sacrificing the nightkill and roleblocking Not_Mafia is a double violation of that because roleblocking Not_Mafia is banking on him being a role he's not guaranteed to be and sacrificing the nightkill is sacrificing a resource, meaning that the proposed "block Not_Mafia, no-kill" required for me to be scum requires me to make a high-risk, high-reward play rather than just...a near-zero risk, basically just as high reward play of killing AND blocking.

After all, what if Not_Mafia were an ascetic weak hider? A block couldn't have stopped his hide on me then which means if I were scum and that were his role he'd still die, so if I was going down the next day it'd be better to have gotten an extra kill in the night before. That's the smartest play with the least risk and the most reward with a contingency plan built in.

Whereas blocking Not_Mafia and no-killing is a plan with high risk, not really a higher reward, and is putting all of my eggs in one basket with no fallback plan, nothing to help us if the plan goes wrong, if I miscalculated, if I made the wrong call.

And to reiterate: this is pretty damn self-evident. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

The simplest explanation for N2 is Not_Mafia, a weak hider, hid behind me, didn't die, cleared me as conftown, and scum tried to nightkill Not_Mafia but failed thanks to the hide.

Any other explanation is a violation of occam's razor requiring you add in extra steps that require extra justifications including ones which fly in the face of facts and established player metas and modus operandi.

If House is scum, I would lock mastina as town.

To me, there's two universes. Moon/house or moon/mastina.

In post 4035, mastina wrote:

In post 4027, Titus wrote:A voluntary no kill explains it, just like moongrass speculated.

A voluntary no-kill runs afoul of occam's razor though because it requires inventing a reason to no-kill.

Again, to reiterate:
In the hypothetical world where scumastina has a scumteam with a blocking role that blocks Not_Mafia's hide, Not_Mafia surviving to D3 is, in of itself, enough to falsely conftown scumastina.

You do not need a no-kill for that.

The blocking role, in of itself, generates that. Just by itself. Just alone. Just on its own, a blocking role on Not_Mafia would conftown scumastina N2.

So why no-kill?

What does the no-kill give?

It literally gives nothing more than what we already had.

It gives zero benefit but costs scum a nightkill, a nightkill they could use on conftown or widely townread players.

Requiring a scum no-kill N2 requires inventing extra motives. It requires inventing "scumastina planned in advance to make herself even more conftown by sacrificing her nightkill to make her even more conftown even though Not_Mafia living to D3 would in of itself conftown her, and she did this because she thought that her being conftown from hiding wasn't enough and came up with the no-kill plan specifically to elevate her to an even higher tier of conftown".

Aside from that being an occam's razor violation in of itself, that doesn't fit the modus operandi of scumastina in general. (For that matter, neither does the nom kill N1.) You're familiar enough with my scum methods to know that I maximize reward for the minimal risk and sacrificing the nightkill and roleblocking Not_Mafia is a double violation of that because roleblocking Not_Mafia is banking on him being a role he's not guaranteed to be and sacrificing the nightkill is sacrificing a resource, meaning that the proposed "block Not_Mafia, no-kill" required for me to be scum requires me to make a high-risk, high-reward play rather than just...a near-zero risk, basically just as high reward play of killing AND blocking.

After all, what if Not_Mafia were an ascetic weak hider? A block couldn't have stopped his hide on me then which means if I were scum and that were his role he'd still die, so if I was going down the next day it'd be better to have gotten an extra kill in the night before. That's the smartest play with the least risk and the most reward with a contingency plan built in.

Whereas blocking Not_Mafia and no-killing is a plan with high risk, not really a higher reward, and is putting all of my eggs in one basket with no fallback plan, nothing to help us if the plan goes wrong, if I miscalculated, if I made the wrong call.

And to reiterate: this is pretty damn self-evident. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

The simplest explanation for N2 is Not_Mafia, a weak hider, hid behind me, didn't die, cleared me as conftown, and scum tried to nightkill Not_Mafia but failed thanks to the hide.

Any other explanation is a violation of occam's razor requiring you add in extra steps that require extra justifications including ones which fly in the face of facts and established player metas and modus operandi.

That "simple" explanation, doesn't explain the reality in the thread.

It doesn't explain why lockscum moongrass speculates about a no kill.

It doesn't explain why a savvy scumfuck would create more layers to townfirm themselves.

Occam's Razor can easily just say scum were putting all their chips on confirming you as town. That's just as simple.

In post 4036, Titus wrote:If House is scum, I would lock mastina as town.

To me, there's two universes. Moon/house or moon/mastina.

Yeah I'm not partnered with house at all, you have made it more than clear you are today. Neither universe exists therefore my dear, you are caught scum.

In post 4031, Titus wrote:I will reconsider when mastina does something townie.

I already have--I was on the D1 scum wagon and a huge proponent of it when I don't bus, aside from this being my town meta even aside from that, and the scum's nightkills don't match my scum modus operandi. (To reiterate: there is no realm in which I kill nomnom N1. I would shoot DGB, jjh, or similar.)

I'm not just mechanically conftown; I am town by play. But even were I NOT town by play. The mechanical conftown IS airtight because it being anything but runs BADLY afoul of occam's razor requiring you to invent extra steps to justify it.

The fact that you keep on trying to invent reasons for me to not be conftown when I am mechanically conftown is proof that you're scum because moonlogic be damned, you know to follow KISS and KISS dictates that I am town because there's no simpler theory than "scum tried to kill Not_Mafia N2 but failed because Not_Mafia hid behind mastina, conftowning her".

Literally any other theory isn't as simple because it requires the existence of hypothetical, unproven, roles that have zero evidence of existing, with a hypothetical, unproven, justification for a lack of N2 kill, which requires hypothetical, unproven, reasons that fly in the face of established meta.

mastina, bussing isn't townie particularly when a role has to die in order to be able to kill conftown.
I don't care for meta, especially self-meta.
Your relationship with jjh is bad.
Your refusal to see Moongrass as lockscum is bad.
Your attempt to deny instead of accepting reasonable suspicion is bad.

I'm town, if you're town then you're bad and need to take the blame for the loss.

In post 4037, Titus wrote:That "simple" explanation, doesn't explain the reality in the thread. It doesn't explain why a savvy scumfuck would create more layers to townfirm themselves.

This is you continuing to violate occam's razor. The theory of "a savvy scumfuck would create more layers to townfirm themselves" is itself an extra step required--an extra justification required. An extra thing required for me to not be conftown. An extra layer you need to add to the fabrication. It's more steps to add. Not less.

Again, which is simpler?
Scum failed to kill Not_Mafia N2 while Not_Mafia hid behind me, conftowning me...
...Or scum chose to no-kill N2 while an unproven hypothetical blocking role blocked Not_Mafia because a savvy scumfuck wanted to create more layers to townfirm themselves, didn't mention these reasons until the possibility she wasn't conftown was brought up, and that she did this in spite of her not knowing Not_Mafia's role and her having herself proposed the idea of submitting an Ascetic Weak Hider which would ruin her plan if that was his role instead of just a more tame Weak Hider, putting all of her eggs into the basket gambling on it being the role in question and not something else, with her making a high risk gambit in spite of her traditionally as scum making low-risk plays?

In post 4037, Titus wrote:Occam's Razor can easily just say scum were putting all their chips on confirming you as town. That's just as simple.

Scum putting all of their chips on confirming me as town isn't simple.

It's literally, "scum chose to no-kill N2 while an unproven hypothetical blocking role blocked Not_Mafia because a savvy scumfuck wanted to create more layers to townfirm themselves, didn't mention these reasons until the possibility she wasn't conftown was brought up, and that she did this in spite of her not knowing Not_Mafia's role and her having herself proposed the idea of submitting an Ascetic Weak Hider which would ruin her plan if that was his role instead of just a more tame Weak Hider, putting all of her eggs into the basket gambling on it being the role in question and not something else, with her making a high risk gambit in spite of her traditionally as scum making low-risk plays".

That's what is required for scum to be me and put chips on me being conftown. (Which, by the way, is something I never bank on because as scum I always bank on being the D1 elimination pretty much.)

In post 4041, Moongrass wrote:I'm town, if you're town then you're bad and need to take the blame for the loss.

If you are town, you need to understand that you're less townie than everyone else here. That's not solely on me.

In post 4043, Titus wrote:

In post 4041, Moongrass wrote:I'm town, if you're town then you're bad and need to take the blame for the loss.

If you are town, you need to understand that you're less townie than everyone else here. That's not solely on me.

Yeah I'm not though. If you actually read my posts, I'm the towniest person here today. I make zero sense partnered with anyone, my play makes zero sense as coming from scum this whole freaking game. So if you are town pull your head out from your ass and get your shit together because you're running with scum, not me.

In post 4044, Moongrass wrote:

In post 4043, Titus wrote:

In post 4041, Moongrass wrote:I'm town, if you're town then you're bad and need to take the blame for the loss.

If you are town, you need to understand that you're less townie than everyone else here. That's not solely on me.

Yeah I'm not though. If you actually read my posts, I'm the towniest person here today. I make zero sense partnered with anyone, my play makes zero sense as coming from scum this whole freaking game. So if you are town pull your head out from your ass and get your shit together because you're running with scum, not me.

The no kill speculation was garbage
Your push on the hydra was garbage
Your defense of mastina is garbage
Your push on House looks like it could be a bus
Your look at me I'm so town is LAMIST. It's the literal definition.

In post 3955, House wrote:

In post 3954, Mia and Maya Fey wrote:

In post 3952, House wrote:

In post 3949, Mia and Maya Fey wrote:i don't buy that house townread us than suddenly we're in poe without considering a misclear off the hider

Read 3935 again.

Actually pay attention instead of skimming.

dont care tbh

Then there's no reason for anyone else to care what

you

believe since you are actively choosing ignorance, tbh.

pot meet kettle

I don’t think it 100% necessarily points to a misclear though, just that House shouldn’t defacto be ruling it out. like I said, a non-zero chance.

In post 3956, House wrote:

In post 3955, House wrote:

In post 3954, Mia and Maya Fey wrote:

In post 3952, House wrote:

In post 3949, Mia and Maya Fey wrote:i don't buy that house townread us than suddenly we're in poe without considering a misclear off the hider

Read 3935 again.

Actually pay attention instead of skimming.

dont care tbh

Then there's no reason for anyone else to care what

you

believe since you are actively choosing ignorance, tbh.

(Not talking to you, Nancy. I don't want you to think I'm confusing you two.)

Okay, is this somehow supposed to make me feel better?

In post 3957, Moongrass wrote:House wouldn't have appealed to Gamma today to get another vote on his side if SvS.

I think Koba is confusing the slight possibility of a misclear for it being likely which isn’t what I’ve been saying at all.

In post 3958, Titus wrote:

In post 3953, Mia and Maya Fey wrote:

In post 3950, Titus wrote:

In post 3948, Mia and Maya Fey wrote:lmao fuck it
VOTE: gamma

I'm townreading the rest and want to get the hard lim over with

Really?

This is going to need some explanation.

From our PoV we have found town in everyone but those 2 slots.
Gamma has admittedly played a good game if scum but theres no other explaination

From my PoV, there's no way that Moongrass is town here. I can't see Gamma as scum.

I think you're mistaken on one of House or Mastina.

Why is Mastina scum?