In post 2428, Titus wrote:I feel pretty strongly that it's spite driven in A given that his only rationale is my mistake and hammering in one game is not related to another game and that's the only thing he's referenced.In post 2425, Amy Dunne wrote:Titus, since you obviously know House is town in A and you also know that he correctly read you in both FFIV and Stumps, what do you make of his read on you here?
In B, he's said nothing which tells me that he's not even attempting to read my or anyone's content. I have him a hair less likely to be scum than Alyssa/RCE but not by much. Alyssa and RCE not voting is a huge concern and mastina's early reads suggest that as a possibility too, if we're assuming (which I'm not 100% sure of), that mastina's bp was hit.
Spoiler:
In post 1490, mastina wrote:Did...did they think I was lying about being bulletproof???In post 1450, Jingle wrote:No One has died in the Mini Theme!
Or get concerned I was legit conftown if they nightkilled???
(On that note: House is conftown for not having shown up btw.)
Regardless, I kinda wanna claim credit for the lack of the kill.
In post 1662, mastina wrote:Alright, so I am home, which means I need to do this:
In Game Two, I am(technically)a.Bulletproof Survivor
It's not quite a normal Survivor wincon; it'salmosta Town Survivor.
My wincon is to survive to the end of the game with no more than two players who're not members of the Paperwork faction alive. (Is slightly paraphrased here, but obviously, can't do an exact quote without getting modkilled and you'll forgive me for being a bit cautious given that literally the last time I got 3p I did in fact eat a modkill.) I asked the mod and, yes, I count as one of those two.
In other words, per Jingle, if there are three scum alive and they trigger their win condition, I will lose;
If there are two scum alive and they trigger their win condition, I will lose.
I couldtechnicallywin with the scum with only one scum alive, buuuuuuut: at that point, why bother? I'm just going to townside since I need two scum dead anyway, why not make it all three?
Given that I need AT LEAST two scum dead in order to win, and pragmatically speaking probably can get the fastest win just by having all three scum be eliminated, I've been playing as if I was town the entire time. (Because I would anyway because fuck playing 3ps as scum, they are town.)
I should give a full disclaimer/confession tho.
I wasn't really planning on claiming 3p here unless one of two conditions happened.
The reason why is simple;
Mafiascum has a murderboner for third parties.
They see a 3p claim, they see "oh they're not town that means we can just eliminate them!". Even when said 3p is basically town and probably the game wasbalancedaround said 3p being treated as town. (As in, 3ps that are benign/benevolent are usually, for balance purposes, meant to be treated as a town PR, meaning that the game will have three groupscum and that the town eliminating the 3p on policy will fuck them over because they are not eliminating scum.)
I didn't want to deal with the arguments of "mastina could be scum, fakeclaiming 3p", in spite of the fact that I never fakeclaim as scum.
I didn't want to deal with the arguments of "mastina could be lying about being benevolent/benign 3p", which, being paranoia-based, I have no real ability to defend against.
I didn't want to deal with lazy town players not bothering to read my claim and thinking "oh survivor = basically 4th scum" in spite of the fact that, no, actually, I cannot in fact scumside because with 3 or 2 scum alive I don't win even if I live.
You know, the arguments: "mastina just admitted to not being town", "mastina isn't town", "mastina could be lying", "mastina might end the game in a solo win", "mastina could be scum fakeclaiming 3p", and such.
Given that I was playing as if I was town, I figured that by virtue of being obvtown due to not being scum and being, well, me, mastina, that I wouldn't need to claim 3p at all if I was just that obviously town anyway. So if I could get away with just pretending I was town, I would do so, and win with the town after eliminating the third scum. The town would never know I was 3p because I was acting as town the entire time, needed two scum dead in order to win anyway, and was working with the town as basically a fullblown town bulletproof which would allow me to relentlessly hunt down and eliminate the scum as if I were town.
With the caveat of the two potential scenarios where I would need to claim.
The first scenario is if someone just directly bluntly to my face asked me, "mastina, are you 3p?". Nobody did directly, but had they, that'd indicate that they would not go murderboner for eliminating claimed 3p and would in fact be willing to work with me. Town players willing to work with someone who basically is already town anyway? Of course I'd claim in a scenario with that, it'd be antitown to not.
The second scenario is what has happened: whennotclaiming would actuallyhurtthe town.
CheekyTeeky's result means exactly that. If I pretended to be town when I am not, it could actually lead to a mislim on a player that I knew to be town--and given that I am trying my damnedest to be basically full-townside, I needed to speak up to prevent that and conftown the players who I know to be conftown from the CheekyTeeky result.
However, while I did indeed want to not claim unless one of those two scenarios came up, I did leave an abundantly clear loaf (breadcrumbs but so abundant that they're a full-ass loaf) in my iso where I would let you all know:Spoiler: I REALLY didn't want to spoiler this because I REALLY wanted y'all to read it all but I ended up quoting enough that I think I need it, sadly"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 IIn post 147, mastina wrote:I'm not scum at all.In post 135, Almost50 wrote:Did you roll Scum with House in setup 1 or 2??couldn'tsay 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.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.)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.
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 wouldalsohave 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 349, mastina wrote:Kill all the scum in all the games, get a triple town win.In post 176, Almost50 wrote: What IS the plan 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 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.
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: MegAzumarillIn post 610, mastina wrote:Guess what role loses value when claimed? Bulletproof!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.
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:Can explain when home why I think that Meg is scum in game two.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.In post 612, T3 wrote:um. meg said it was a joke claim.
Vote stays as I think Meg is still scum even with a retraction of "it a s a joke".
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:"don't have much depth", myIn post 443, T3 wrote:Mastina feels weird. It's like her posts don't have much depth.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 onthreedifferent games.
And I am giving reads and reasons forallof them.
I don't have the perfect ability to break downeverygame 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--myintentionwas 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 inthisgame than they haveeverhad 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?In post 418, Ircher wrote:mastina is town in precisely 2/3 games.
'Cause that's what this looks like to me!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.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.In post 496, MegAzumarill wrote:I am aIn Game BBulletproof (other words I didn't read)
I am 100% serious.
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 scumanyway. 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 claimcame 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.
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 getnightkilledin 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 actuallythe problem. Heshouldn'thave 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.
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 629, mastina wrote:As part of clearing me across all three games.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??
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 togame 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 whereeveryscum/mason ineverygame 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 wouldalsoconftown 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 ofknowingit was wrong.
Again, I thought that Meg was TMI'ing in game #2 with the claim and was trying to bait me out.In post 630, mastina wrote: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.In post 557, T3 wrote:I think Meg implied that their claim was not seriousIn post 523, Dwlee99 wrote:Mega's claim there is very scummy for both games if that's what you're basing this off of
Here I again explain why I thought that Meg TMI'd as being scum in game #2.In post 631, mastina wrote:Look I saw 'bulletproof', 'game 2', and '100% serious' (those words specifically, and nothing else in the post), and instantly saw red.In post 615, Dunnstral wrote:They didn't even claim to be town in Game B so the rush to counterclaim is weird
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?In post 612, T3 wrote:um. meg said it was a joke claim.
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, Icanfullclaim.
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 peoplereallywant 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 Ishouldbe 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'tthinkit does);
I should not show as visiting anyone to a follower (maybe maybe MAYBE 'protective', depending on whether the Activation counts, but I don'tthinkit does);
You get the idea.
I can't becomeconftownin 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 becomeconftownwhile using the BP, Icanbecomebasicallyconftown. (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 inactuallynarrowing down who the scum are.)
Iwantedto 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 thepossibility(not guarantee) of being shot N1 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.
These are the only two posts I believe where Mastina talks about being bp and nowhere does she mention anything specifically about being hit.