Mafiascum.net

soundtrack

♫

Humanity 2

♫
▶ ❚❚ ────────────────────────●────  2:19 / 2:42

In post 673, MacReady~ wrote:I don't really have much more to say here - I hope Clark is not a town jailbreaker, but their silence and posting throughout this entire process has not been townie at all, so I don't think that's very likely. I think there's a fair amount of vca to do in the scum-Clarke world, but that should wait for tomorrow

The blatant consensus and lack of a counterwagon do somewhat worry me though

My first thought upon reading this was that this doesn't make them town, as it's very clear they're going to flip soon and scum wouldn't want to look like garbage after defending them. This is partly invalid due to the assimilation mechanic being possible, since scum can just leave doomed slots. But not completely invalid, because (from what I understand) the assimilation can potentially get blocked, and they maybe don't want to have to use it on jumping out of a doomed slot.

TL;DR, Clark is scummy on play, I'm fine with the hammer happening there.

VOTE: Clark

Here you go

In post 676, Palmer~ wrote:But not completely invalid, because (from what I understand) the assimilation can potentially get blocked, and they maybe don't want to have to use it on jumping out of a doomed slot.

What has given you this impression?

Like, specifically the assimilation getting blocked? Not the night kill also getting blocked?

In post 2, petapan wrote:If that Thing successfully carries out the nightkill on its intended target, it will "assimilate" the alternate account of the killed player and gain control of it.

This part of the ruleset. It seems that, if the nightkill gets blocked, the assimilation also gets blocked.

I wasn't trying to imply a scenario where an assimilation gets blocked but the nightkill doesn't; I was just highlighting that assimilations CAN get blocked, therefore scum probably wouldn't rely on them for jumping out of doomed slots.

In post 501, MacReady~ wrote:why do you think it's unlikely for scun to have this role?

We know that scum can't have any roles, and thus, any claim they have will inherently be a fakeclaim made with no setup information--
No Informed.
No power role.

Unless the mod in pregame gave them safeclaims, they would need to invent any and every claim they would make, and Jailkeeper is not a good fakeclaim for scum to make.

It is a role that if you want to fake it, you have to give up the nightkill, in a game where the scum may lose a nightkill by some other means.
If you fake it, the town can potentially gain a mislim from the fake of it.
Any player who you claim to have blocked that is revealed to not have been blocked, contradicts your claim, and as an ungated jailkeeper claim, that makes them forced to claim a target each night and be held accountable for it.
Jailkeepers are a strong tool at preventing the scum mechanic from working, too, as it limits who scum can assimilate via the claim.
More than that, jailkeeper is a town protective role with a high chance of being disbelieved. The best case scenario the scum could hope for is a counterclaim, since there's almost a guarantee of town having a protective role.

Are any of these slam-dunk?
Well no.

But if Clark made a jailkeeper fakeclaim, it was made with no information and yet to claim the ONE role which would make me think they're town.

Given the choice between
"Clark is scum who got really really lucky in what to claim",
versus,
"Clark is actually a jailkeeper", the latter is a lot simpler than the former.

In post 526, Fuchs~ wrote:It being said under the quote for post 79, while saying up to this point, feels like it should mean that it was your notes up to post 79, but I wanted to check

You are correct!

In post 508, Blair~ wrote:We can test a jailkeeper claim in this game because scum can't actually have a roleblocker but this risks letting Clark jump into a new body if she is a thing

I am aware of this risk.

I feel it is not an actual risk, because Clark will still be Clark, even if she were scum and stole the body of a different player.

In post 523, Windows~ wrote:Plus, testing the claim would also involve outing another PR.

And now that I willingly outed myself, we can do precisely that.

In post 525, Fuchs~ wrote:Based on the mechanics of the game, I find it doubtful we have a vigilante. And therefore, there would be no mechanical advantage for scum to have a jailkeeper instead of a roleblocker -- unless peta put it in there just for the fake out.

For the record, this is the post that made me realize I needed to claim--there was mechspech that there wasn't a vigilante, and therefore, lacking a vigilante, Clark would be more likely scum.

As a vigilante, I knew there was a vigilante, and that with a vigilante, Clark is not in fact likely scum but rather the opposite.

In post 528, Fuchs~ wrote:And give up that power role's ability for the night.

That is one of the reasons why I wanted to out myself btw.

I with the conclusion that my vig shot is anti-town to actually use.
I with it actually going through as being bad for the town.

So the best option isn't for me to make a shot with the intent of having it succeed--my best option is to make a shot with the explicit intend of having my night action fail.

Ergo, have the jailkeeper target me N1 and after that either me or share my target.
It's worth discussing the merit behind me confirming my vig power with a shot.
But my actual preference would be to attempt a vig shot and have the jailkeep cause it to fail.

(I don't trust my accuracy with a vig anyway. )

In post 539, Palmer~ wrote:Even if the test confirms her as town, we still don't know whether the slot will actually

stay

town, because assimilation is possible.

Scum assimilating into Clark will be shown the moment my kill actually goes through during the night.

A scum Clark assimilating into someone else would be shown by virtue of Clark being Clark.

Unless you want to argue that Clark is magically going to improve their play when hopping bodies, the content you see from Clark now will be the content Clark produces regardless of account they're playing in.

Tell me, do you think that if Clark took over your account, she would post the way that you are? That her content would be similar to what you are posting?

Because that would require Clark to be a scum player that somehow is obvious enough to be caught D1, magically suddenly inexplicably improving their play by swapping accounts.

You're not gonna sell me on the probability of that narrative, because balance of probability: what you see now is Clark's skill level regardless. If Clark is scum, Clark is bad scum; Clark is still going to be bad scum if taking over an account like yours or mine, and wouldn't be able to properly act like town.

In post 558, MacReady~ wrote:

In post 546, Childs~ wrote:I'm pretty sure that we can completely confirm Clark's alignment, here, if I'm right.

I'm at a loss how we're going from your role to 'completely confirming Clark's alignment' here

It's quite simple.

If I shoot and my target doesn't die, my shot failed due to a town PR--Clark, in this case.

Whenever that happens, Clark cannot be scum.
If my shot fails N2, Clark is town.
If my shot fails N3, Clark is town.
If my shot fails N4, Clark is town.
Every night my shot fails, Clark is confirmed to be town.

If Clark is alive and my shot ever succeeds--then Clark is confirmed to be scum.

This generates two guaranteed town for as long as both Clark and I live. (With an asterisk that you have to be able to tell that I'm not a Thing, which like--if you can't, then you're pretty dumb tbh. ) Two guaranteed innocents is effectively masons in this game.

And I am confirmed to be town the first night my shot succeeds.
If my shot succeeds N2, I could not have been scum on D1 or D2.
If my shot succeeds N4, I could not have been scum on D1, D2, D3, or D4.

So when the scum would break the loop above, they would by necessity run into the issue of me confirming they had done so.

If they kill Clark and replace her, then they out the

In post 684, Childs~ wrote:

In post 558, MacReady~ wrote:

In post 546, Childs~ wrote:I'm pretty sure that we can completely confirm Clark's alignment, here, if I'm right.

I'm at a loss how we're going from your role to 'completely confirming Clark's alignment' here

It's quite simple.

If I shoot and my target doesn't die, my shot failed due to a town PR--Clark, in this case.

Whenever that happens, Clark cannot be scum.
If my shot fails N2, Clark is town.
If my shot fails N3, Clark is town.
If my shot fails N4, Clark is town.
Every night my shot fails, Clark is confirmed to be town.

If Clark is alive and my shot ever succeeds--then Clark is confirmed to be scum.

This generates two guaranteed town for as long as both Clark and I live. (With an asterisk that you have to be able to tell that I'm not a Thing, which like--if you can't, then you're pretty dumb tbh. ) Two guaranteed innocents is effectively masons in this game.

And I am confirmed to be town the first night my shot succeeds.
If my shot succeeds N2, I could not have been scum on D1 or D2.
If my shot succeeds N4, I could not have been scum on D1, D2, D3, or D4.

So when the scum would break the loop above, they would by necessity run into the issue of me confirming they had done so.

If they kill Clark and replace her, then they out the

This hit submit before I wanted it to.


If I shoot and my target doesn't die, my shot failed due to a town PR--Clark, in this case.

Whenever that happens, Clark cannot be scum.
If my shot fails N2, Clark is town.
If my shot fails N3, Clark is town.
If my shot fails N4, Clark is town.
Every night my shot fails, Clark is confirmed to be town.

If Clark is alive and my shot ever succeeds--then Clark is confirmed to be scum.

This generates two guaranteed town for as long as both Clark and I live. (With an asterisk that you have to be able to tell that I'm not a Thing, which like--if you can't, then you're pretty dumb tbh. ) Two guaranteed innocents is effectively masons in this game.

And I am confirmed to be town the first night my shot succeeds.
If my shot succeeds N2, I could not have been scum on D1 or D2.
If my shot succeeds N4, I could not have been scum on D1, D2, D3, or D4.

So when the scum would break the loop above, they would by necessity run into the issue of me confirming they had done so.

If they kill Clark and replace her, then they out the Clark account's current holder as being scum.
If Clark is scum, then Clark is outed as scum.

There are only two potential weaknesses to the strategy.
The first is both slots being scum (or me being replaced N1 with Clark as scum)--with so much as basic scumhunting and basic checking to make sure a replacement hasn't happened, this won't be possible. (I'm town, and if I am replaced N1, I'd frankly love to see the scum to keep my posting style up and not slip up. I know people can do it short-term but long-term they simply can't.)

The second is Clark being scum and jumping away N1--but I have repeatedly explained why I don't think this is an issue. Clark's not magically going to improve their play tomorrow by hopping hosts. Clark's going to still be scum in their new body, arguably even more than they currently are. Who could Clark possibly possess to not make it immediately obvious she has possessed them?

The failure conditions both rely on the scum being able to use their one and only mechanic, and get away with it. Lacking that, they simply are unable to counter it. We either get a guaranteed scum in the form of Clark (and we eliminate Clark or whoever Clark hopped into because Clark will still be obviously Clark), or we get guaranteed town that the scum need to spend time to break the loop of, and which still can be costly to them.
In either case, the scum are boxed in.

If Clark is scum, she gets found out regardless of whether she stays in her body or swaps bodies.

If Clark is town, then the two town are able to form a loop that as long as scum leave up, limits their mislim options. They can't kill me N1, and if they kill Clark, then I still get my shot off.

It's win-win.

In post 561, Fuchs~ wrote:if they actually are a vig, I think that they should probably never fire.
this can be worked around by having childs announce their intended during the day

Why never fire when I can have a jailkeeper block me or target my target to effectively produce the same result?

As long as I announce my target, and as long as the jailkeeper is either on me or my target, my shot should never go through--effectively, never firing.

I was open to discussing the merits of letting my shot go through N2, but I still overall leaned towards the strategy of having my shot be perma-blocked and thus, perma-confing Clark as long as they live.

In post 578, MacReady~ wrote:That relies on:
- tying up potential PR's until day3 (and thus making this a topic of discussion until then)
- Neither of them deviating from the plan
- no bodyswapping shenanigans

I have made it clear that Clark is not allowed any excuses in deviating from the plan--protection on me, always, no WIFOMing it. That makes any deviation impossible to justify.

I as the one with the vig shot have no deviation necessary--the plan makes it so that no matter what I do, no kill happens.

Tying me up specifically is, arguably, a good thing--I agree that my shot going through is negative utility. So me effectively not using it by having it be "tied up" is a thing. Yes, it would tie up the jailkeeper, but having an alive jailkeeper tied up is more useful than having a dead jailkeeper "tied up" via being the D1 elimination, now, isn't it? A living town PR is better than a dead D1 town PR.

As for the bodyswapping, that's why I've reiterated the importance of shutting down that mechanic and paying attention. Make it impossible for scum to pull it off, and you deny the scum a tool that the setup was balanced around them being able to use.

In post 594, Fuchs~ wrote:Cross shooting at one another would be better in basically every way lmao.

Cross-shooting is fully an option.

It doesn't matter who I target, so long as I announce it--if my target doesn't die, then Clark stopped the shot from going through, either by jailkeeping me or jailkeeping my target.

If it satisfied you, my target could be Clark. The end result is the same. Clark can't be a jailkeeper if my shot goes through, but is a jailkeeper if I shoot and my target doesn't die.

The things to discuss are who I should target;
Whether Clark should stop my shot (I believe she should);
If stopping my shot, whether it should be jailkeeping me or jailkeeping my target;
If Clark is not stopping my shot (I believe they should), where Clark go.

In post 594, Fuchs~ wrote:Your plan is not a full proof plan, your plan revolves around the benefits if clark is town and broadly dismisss the negative if clark is scum by saying assimilation is impossible to pull off.

Well I have working understanding of Vig/Jailkeeper setups (quite extensively so, as it'd turn out!), so yes, my default assumption is in fact that Clark is town because role-wise that is what a Jailkeeper claim is with me being a vig.

But , the negative if Clark is scum is a nonissue because, yes: Clark assimilating is going to be impossible to pull off.

The proof in Clark pulling off a successful assimilation being impossible is in that Clark is being wagoned in the first place. If she is a bad enough scum player to get wagoned on D1, her play isn't going to magically become better by being in a different player's slot. Her style was enough to get her run up on D1. Presumably if she was scum she was still trying to look town yet couldn't pull it off.
...What makes you think that she could suddenly pull it off when trying to impersonate a slot? She's clearly not doing good enough on D1. If she had a versatile enough scumgame to allow her to do that, then she would have simply pivoted her D1 play. It is much much much easier for a skilled scum player to avoid being wagoned on D1;
It is much much much easier for a skilled scum player to, if they wagoned, adjust their play to get out of it.

That Clark has done neither of those suggests Clark is not a skilled scum player.

And lacking the skills to be a good scum player, Clark is going to be a bad scum no matter what account they are on.

Childs, clark was already hammered

^ you’re 3 hours late

In post 609, Fuchs~ wrote:Your statement was that "we NEED the Jailkeeper to be town balance-wise"
This is not a statement that can be made with just the information that is available.

Technically, yes, but the thing about roles is that there are only so many roles you can pair them with.

You pair a town vig with a town doctor, or any protective role with zero downsides to it. (For instance, a bulletproof townie.)

You can have a of protective roles, but in this game, a lack of protective roles with the vig is incredibly unlikely--one successful vig shot brings the game onto evens. I'd need to shoot twice in order to bring the game to odds. And that doesn't actually give the town an extra mislim, it just moves two eliminations from the town into a single town player's hands.

The only way for a vig going through to give the town an extra elimination is with a killstopper.

So the existence of a vig means that the existence of a killstopper is guaranteed, but the killstopper cannot be a killstopper with no downside.

A roleblocker is possible, but would arguably be even stronger for the town than a jailkeeper would be--a roleblocker causing a lack of scum kill is an outright guilty, whereas a jailkeeper can be argued either way. A roleblocker gives the player using it a clear and unambiguous type of slot to target. A roleblocker is less likely to have negative utility in blocking a town PR, but is still conftown if they do manage to block a town PR because with scum having no power roles, confirmation of a role failure confirms the cause of the role failure to be town.

A jailkeeper is, quite simply: the easiest to balance a vig around because the balancing mechanic is simple, intuitive, self-explanatory, and tried and true. Jailkeeper can protect or block, but not do both; vig can shoot, but not both shoot and be protected.

Mechanically the two roles have such established synergy that to not have a jailkeeper would leave the setup a lot more confusing and difficult to balance.

I can explain further, but it would genuinely be antitown to hand scum a roadmap to what sorts of roles are in the game, I think you'd agree.

In post 609, Fuchs~ wrote:Like, can you really not imagine ANY OTHER combination of town Power Roles that could be balanced with Vigilante + (insert unknown, unclaimed, PRs).
There are infinite combinations of a vig + 9 other townies, that don't have a jailkeeper, that could be balanced in this game, and you are proclaiming that none of those are possible.

Because most of them aren't. Vig is such a game-altering role that just the presence of a vig (especially with the gate I have) means that you need to balance the game around far more carefully.

The vig-JK pairing is a balance pairing that is a no-brainer. The vig having my modifier actually increases the odds of the jailkeeper being present, because the more you alter the vig role, the more the town roles need to be made more swingy/contrived/etc.

Is it a 100% guaranteed to be true town role?

No.

Is it 90% likely?

Yes.

In post 611, Fuchs~ wrote:Just a follow up for Childs, who even do you want us to kill over Clark?

I don't know, I didn't catch up yet.

I'd look at the Clark wagon tho--regardless of Clark's alignment, that wagon ain't pure.

In post 621, Fuchs~ wrote:I actually think that the best use of that role would have been to play like you are a VT, holstering for several nights, until maybe late into the game, but that is now impossible so :shrug:

It's not impossible!

With a jailkeeper blocking me, I am effectively a VT, now, aren't I?

That's why I claimed in the first place!

To set that up.

In post 632, MacReady~ wrote:On a different note: Childs, if Clark is scum, how/when do you propose taking care of the slot?

The day my shot succeeds, obviously. Or if Clark shows up dead N1.

In post 632, MacReady~ wrote:Is your plan to wait until day2 and identify where he assimilated to and lim the slot tomorrow?

Well if they are scum? Yes! Clark's scummy enough today, that ain't magically disappearing D2 regardless of who Clark as scum would hop to.

It is kind of silly to see you simultaneously argue that jailkeeper + vigilante is the most balanced possible combo, while also arguing that you have a full proof game plan to break the game open by combining those two roles.

But I also believe that you believe it, so :shrug:

In post 670, Nauls~ wrote:

INTENT TO HAMMER

Don't really have anything else to say before night, I'll hammer soon if no one's opposed

I am because it's fucking stupid to effectively kill two TPRs in the first game cycle.

I've explained why a scum-Clark can still be found, so there's no actual risk of letting a scum-Clark get away.

There is a very obvious reward in not letting a town jailkeeper be the D1 elimination and letting the vig who specifically claimed to said jailkeeper, be the automatic free scum kill N1 because the scum know that the only town role which could've stopped them was eliminated D1.

In post 673, MacReady~ wrote:I think there's a fair amount of vca to do in the scum-Clarke world, but that should wait for tomorrow

And in a town-Clark world?

What do we gain then?

For that matter, serious question:



I haven't read the entire game so I haven't seen it all--but from what I've seen it has been Clark at 3-5 votes the entire game and the largest wagons outside of Clark at 2 votes.

In post 678, Nauls~ wrote:VOTE: Clark
Here you go

Don't try to fucking blame me for you not waiting for me.