In post 6, mastina wrote:I was expecting to get different alignments from different games but I ended up with basically the same thing in all three games.
"basically the same", but not THE same. Because game #2 I am a survivor, that needs scum dead in a way that makes it basically a Town Survivor, just...not technically town.
Notice that in response to Almost50, I didn't say "I'm town in all 3 games"; I said "I'm not scum at all". Because I
couldn't
say I was town in all 3 games because technically speaking I'm not even though the type of nontown I am is basically town anyway.
I said I wasn't scum at all because I'm in fact, not scum in any game.
In post 219, mastina wrote:BTW I can doubly prove that I am not scum in all 3 games.
The first proof is that I didn't know that this this game had secret alts or readable pts as a Mechanic.
Because my role pm was just three roles, no account info at all.
The second proof?
I am phoneposting at work.
I work 4//7 days.
With a phone that is glitchy.
It literally keeps spazzing out, proof being: this post.
I can't be any scum accounts which posts while I am at work.
Here is a (I corrected the phone-induced errors of the original) hard-'town'slip. (It's not a townslip because I'm not town but I don't have a better term to use. It's like an anti-scumslip in that it's proof that I cannot be scum, but not proof that I am town.)
Basically, I was at work, posting with the game open for the first time, on my phone.
I saw people referencing secret alts and scum/masons, with them being able to post in a PT. (I was additionally under the impression that said PT(s) were public, readable by people not able to post in it.)
I, mistakenly, believed that to be something that applied to all three games.
As in, game #2 and game #1 would
also
have secret alts for the scumteam.
This is, apparently, not actually the case--which I would know if I had drawn scum in either game 1 or game 2.
But I didn't know that the secret alts were a specific mechanic to game #3 because I drew uninformed in all three games.
Once more, though, you may note the usage: "prove that I am not scum", rather than 'prove that I am town'.
Because, if it was necessary, I wanted to leave it open for the chance for me to claim 3p if need be, if either of the two claim-conditions happened to come true (which the second one did).
I didn't say that *I* was town here, I just said that I wanted a triple town win from killing all the scum in all the games. Which is true; I want all the scum dead in all the games and that should generate a triple town win since I can in fact win with the town in spite of technically not being town due to basically still being town.
In post 356, mastina wrote:And it should be painfully obvious that, no, I do not in fact have alt account access. And that, no, I do not have any scumgames here.
I don't have any scumgames here, but I didn't say "I have 3 towngames". (Since again, technically not a towngame even tho it pragmatically speaking is one.)
In post 608, mastina wrote:Phoneposting, so I'll have more to say when home, but:
2:
I an hard counterclaiming bulletproof in game two.
So Meg is scum there, too. I can and will explain when home.
VOTE: MegAzumarill
In post 610, mastina wrote: In post 38, mastina wrote:BTW I should mention in the mini theme, my role has two parts. One part, I'd normally claim on D1, but due to the other half, I cannot. Basically, one half of my role loses utility if I claim either it or the other half, even though I normally would claim it. Phoneposting and this game's not my top priority right now, but I hope to post again later tonight.
Guess what role loses value when claimed? Bulletproof!
The other half is a very specific type of miller tho. I can explain better when not bloody phoneposting from a shitty ass glitchy phone.
I was hoping to draw a night kill in game two from not claiming either the bp or miller (because scum aren't going to shoot a miller), but hey, if Meg is going to out themselves as scum by claiming my role, I'll take dead scum over a failed shot on me.
In post 624, mastina wrote: In post 613, mastina wrote:Well I didn't read that far. I was reading offline and saw Meg claim my role, so I instantly logged in to counterclaim.
Vote stays as I think Meg is still scum even with a retraction of "it a s a joke".
Can explain when home why I think that Meg is scum in game two.
Suffice to say, you can fuck off if you think that I am scum in any of the games.
I'm not.
In post 627, mastina wrote: In post 443, T3 wrote:Mastina feels weird. It's like her posts don't have much depth.
"don't have much depth", my
ass
.
This is literally deeper reads than is physically possible in any other game.
Like, in any other game, you're reading things off of just the one game.
Here I am literally generating reads on
three
different games.
And I am giving reads and reasons for
all
of them.
I don't have the perfect ability to break down
every
game down game by game--but I'm as close as damn fucking possible on D1 of 2/3 of the games.
Reads don't get deeper than that.
In what way do you think they're shallow? Because I can fucking explain each and every single read I've got and surprise surprise! So far, most of my reads have been right in game three! And they are probably right in the other games more than they aren't, because I'm pretty fucking sure that this game's mechanic is the type of thing that I am MADE for solving. That I EXCEL at figuring out.
I'm also literally putting in more effort here than I've ever put into a game before--my
intention
was to draw the scum nightkill in game two, but failing that, I can still be nightkilled in game one, because I am being just that town. And yet, the scum can't actually shut me up, because I can't die in game two. Which is why I felt extra incentivized to try hard here. I can't die in game two, meaning that I can't TRULY die in ANY of the games, meaning that scum cannot get rid of me. (Well, barring a scum strongman in game two, which if it exists...shit. Hopefully not tho.
)
So you can fuck off with calling my reads lacking depth--they have more depth in
this
game than they have
ever
had in ANY prior game of mine.
Do you think that because you are scum in 2/3 and town in the third and thus you know me to be town in the two you are scum and are guessing the inverse for the game you aren't scum?
'Cause that's what this looks like to me!
In post 628, mastina wrote: For the record--this is what I saw before I stopped reading on my phone to log in. I didn't even read the entirety of the claim.
I just saw 'bulletproof' and '100% serious' and INSTANTLY scrolled up to hit the login button to counterclaim because there was no fucking chance in hell of there being two bulletproofs in a mini game in my opinion.
Even with it apparently being a joke, I think that Meg's scum
anyway
. There's multiple reasons for this. I've not read the game thread yet so not sure how the "it was a joke" came up, but. I don't think it was actually meant as a joke. I think that Meg was genuinely trying to get away with it, but decided to change it to a joke later.
I think that the claim was made with scum knowledge about the setup in setup #2 because of the things being claimed.
I think that Meg's claim was designed to get reactions--in hindsight, I shouldn't have claimed because it got the reaction it was looking for (I could've pushed Meg without claiming so probably should've but oh well, is too late now, hindsight 20/20), but I think that the claim was made basically as a way of testing the waters and seeing if Meg could fish out extra information about the town in game #2.
I genuinely think that the claim
came from a position of both scum information
, and scum agenda, in that it was designed to try and further the scum wincon in game #2.
Here, it takes some explaining, but: basically, I saw MegAzumarill claim a third party and claim bulletproof and my thought instantly jumped to, "MegAzumarill is scum in game #2 who has TMI" and was thus not joking.
I was in fact planning to draw nightkills in game #2 (again, being bulletproof and being basically a town survivor that needs scum dead, drawing scum kills to me is a GOOD thing because they couldn't kill me and it'd put the town in a better position). However, I saw MegAzumarill's claim as hard proof that Meg was informed scum in game #2.
You may notice again: "I'm not scum in any of the games". I'm in fact not scum in any of the games! But I didn't say town in all of them because while I might be basically-town in game #2 I am technically not town.
There was in fact depth to my reads tho because I was dead serious in all of them. I, again, was attempting to get
nightkilled
in game #2. As a bulletproof, who needs scum dead in order to win, I needed to be playing as if I was town and furthering the town wincon. Meaning that I needed to be as town as I've ever been before, townier than that in fact.
I do think that Ircher also TMI'd tho--Ircher said, "mastina is town in precisely 2/3 of the games". That was in fact right. But why those words instead of "mastina is scum in 1/3 of the games"? It feels like Ircher was saying exactly what he meant to say because he knew it'd be exactly the truth. He can point to
418 and say he was 100% correct--but him being 100% correct is actually
the problem
. He
shouldn't
have had any inkling of me being non-town-but-not-scum in game #2. Because again, I was powertowning, more than I've ever towned before.
In post 629, mastina wrote: In post 535, Almost50 wrote:Please explain to the class why a TOWN PLAYER IN GAME THREE would "intend" to tell the scum they are not a Mason??
As part of clearing me across all three games.
So basically.
I did not know about the mechanics in game #3 of there being secret alts on masons and mafias.
I thus also did not know that the mechanic was specific to
game three
.
I was on my phone at the time, so I couldn't delve into checking things more closely.
So I assumed that I, via not being scum in any of the games, had missed a core game mechanic where
every
scum/mason in
every
game had a secret alt and a public PT to talk in.
Under that assumption, I could clear myself as being not scum in any of the three games by specifying that I did not receive any alt account info or PT links in my role PMs. The process would, unfortunately, out me as not a mason in game #3...but the process would
also
conftown me across all three games, and conftowning myself across all three games is something I valued more than the chance of scum shooting me wrongly as a mason in game #3.
Now, granted. Apparently, that assumption was wrong. There are not scum alt accounts for each game with a public scum PT in each of the games. But on my phone at the time, I had no way of
knowing
it was wrong.
This is me explaining the townslip (well, slip of not being scum) further, but note again that I used 'not scum in any game', because I am in fact: not scum in any game!
In post 630, mastina wrote: In post 557, T3 wrote: In post 523, Dwlee99 wrote:Mega's claim there is very scummy for both games if that's what you're basing this off of
I think Meg implied that their claim was not serious
Having seen that it was implied and not actually explicitly stated, I am again reminding you that Meg is like 200% scum in game #2.
Again, I thought that Meg was TMI'ing in game #2 with the claim and was trying to bait me out.
In post 631, mastina wrote: In post 615, Dunnstral wrote:They didn't even claim to be town in Game B so the rush to counterclaim is weird
Look I saw 'bulletproof', 'game 2', and '100% serious' (those words specifically, and nothing else in the post), and instantly saw red.
As in, MegAzumarill being red.
So given that I had a very limited amount of time and my phone makes posting the most frustrating borderline-impossible-yet-I-still-try thing in the world, I wasn't going to wait; I was going to make it clear that Meg was full of shit.
Having read Meg's posts?
Didn't happen. Not explicitly.
And the way it hasn't happened is explicitly part of the problem.
It doesn't matter even if MegAzumarill chimes in now and goes "Um, yeah, I was obviously joking?" explicitly--the drawn out way of implying it wasn't serious combined with my feelings on Meg's claim in general means that Meg is scum in game #2 anyway.
Btw since I am now home, I
can
fullclaim.
In Game #2, I'm an Activated Combined Bulletproof Miller (it's not called that in my role PM, but that's what the role boils down to being in effect, can paraphrase the flavor if people
really
want me to).
As in, I can activate a Bulletproof every single night; if I do so, I become a Miller that night.
The Miller though specifies that I do not appear as town to an alignment investigation. Meaning that I
should
be a Miller to precisely one role and would appear town to all others.
I should appear as "not scum" to an alignment cop who receives results in the form of "scum/not scum";
I should appear as "does not have a gun" to a gunsmith;
I should appear as "cannot kill" to a psychiatrist;
I should appear as "has not killed" to a detective;
I should not show as visiting anyone to a tracker (maybe maybe MAYBE self-visiting, depending on whether the Activation counts, but I don't
think
it does);
I should not show as visiting anyone to a follower (maybe maybe MAYBE 'protective', depending on whether the Activation counts, but I don't
think
it does);
You get the idea.
I can't become
conftown
in game #2 while using the bulletproof, which I assume is to prevent someone from doing follow the cop and making me an invincible conftown in game #2.
But it shouldn't be an issue--I am pretty damn obviously town anyway, so like. While I can't become
conftown
while using the BP, I
can
become
basically
conftown. (And if you doubt me, you can in fact use those other roles to investigate me and confirm me, altho it would explicitly be a waste. I am painfully obviously town here so like. Your actions are better used in
actually
narrowing down who the scum are.)
I
wanted
to claim the Miller initially, but I couldn't do so without making the Bulletproof worthless. Scum aren't going to shoot a Miller because towns usually policy-eliminate Millers before lylo given that Millers cannot be confirmed as town. I figured that it wouldn't be an issue given that I should show as a guilty to specifically one and ONLY one role and not a guilty to literally all others, and because I am pretty damn obviously town.
Claiming the bulletproof on D1 when I wasn't intending to is a bit unfortunate, but I'll take a free dead scum in game #2 over the
possibility
(not guarantee) of being shot N1 in game #2.
Here I again explain why I thought that Meg TMI'd as being scum in game #2.
Beyond that, I laid out a modified version of my trueclaim.
I am not actually a miller, obviously.
But what I said there remains true:
I should appear as "not scum" to an alignment cop who receives results in the form of "scum/not scum";
I should appear as "does not have a gun" to a gunsmith;
I should appear as "cannot kill" to a psychiatrist;
I should appear as "has not killed" to a detective;
I should not show as visiting anyone to a tracker (maybe maybe MAYBE self-visiting, depending on whether the Activation counts, but I don't think it does);
I should not show as visiting anyone to a follower (maybe maybe MAYBE 'protective', depending on whether the Activation counts, but I don't think it does).
All of those remain true because they are all actually true--I'm still basically town here. I show as the town result to almost every investigation, I'm not groupscum, I require scum to be dead in order to win, for all intents and purposes, I'm basically just town. Just, technically am not town due to technically not being town.
