In post 575, TTTT wrote:why does the likelihood of associations outing a partner require both masons claim?
and why the assumption that mason associations are that obvious?
If scummy player claims mason, that player then has to claim mason buddy. If they fail to produce mason buddy, then I press x to doubt and lynch anyway.
If scummy player claims mason buddy and mason buddy says, "Nah man, that guy full of the shits." I Press X to Doubt and lynch anyway.
If the scummy player claims mason buddy and mason buddy says, "Oh shit yeah, I'm terrible at this game and we're totally masons" then someone else goes, nuh the fuck uh, we have a town autowin. (Or at least a guaranteed scum lynch if the CC partner says "Nah man, that guy full of the shits.")
If a mason outs by themselves, scum knows the other mason is in a pool of 5 peeps. That pool of five peeps also has varying degrees of mason likelihood. That pool of 5 peeps presumably also contains people who pushed the original mason to the point of needing to claim. Odds are, if the scum team doesn't immediately know who the 2nd mason is, they can guess on N3. And the masons are p much useless, even if the living mason CAN confirm their mason status through the arcane method of obscure reference sharing. So having a single mason out is dumb, because its a netgain for scum.