In post 3932, mastina wrote: In post 3727, mastina wrote:Yes, MMR seems to be quite deliberately avoiding fullclaiming the specifics with an entire paraphrase of their role.
I wonder why?
I retain that MMR deliberately avoiding the fullclaim for as long as they did and spreading out the details which gradually changed,
Is not town.
In post 3838, T-Bone wrote:MMR has gone beyond simply botching a role claim. While I can believe town can botch a claim, MMR in general trying is to pretend it didn't happen. If I had a role result that implicated another player as scum I would not stop to follow through on it. I feel like everyone else on the playerlist would do so too. It feels like MMR is just hoping we stop talking about their claim. It goes beyond botching a claim. They've had so many days to clarify their claim, lay everything out clearly, and try to lead an elimination based on it and they haven't.
Basically for this.
But to cover the claim itself in its many pieces:
In post 3730, MMR wrote:Each night, we target a player to see if they're VT or not. If they're not Town or our action doesn't go through, we get no result.
Though, I did forget one thing.
We're informed that at least one of the scum has a role almost identical to us.
In post 3921, MMR wrote:I made up the Informed part based off information inferred in our role PM.
I thought that claiming Informed would make people pay more attention to it and think about it if we got flipped.
The handling of the claim is largely contradictory with the details of the claim always changing.
What was the inferred information from their claim that made them "know" about a scum counterpart to their role?
They never said.
Their explanation for their Loyal section of the role doesn't fit, either.
And
why is there a role that has two different parts that do the same thing?
(Loyal is a Cop, Neapolitan is a Cop.)
But, to explain why their role is specifically not a Town Astrologer:
The (loose, obv, again not exact as to avoid modkill) formatting of my role PM is,
TOWN (MODIFIER--in my case, 'limited') ASTROLOGER
Description of which night phase, singular, I can act. Then, my power, attunement.
The information about scum attunements matching their respective sun/moon factions, with the details of it also including town.
The
modified
section of my role (in this case, 'limited'), specifying my limitations (some players I can't target, can't target more than once, will be informed when this happens).
And on N1, I received the feedback that I couldn't target either MathBlade or Dingle Dangle Scarecrow with my ability.
MMR's formatting
does not match mine
.
Piecing together MMR's broken-up claim, THEIR formatting is, apparently:
TOWN ASTROLOGER
A standard role PM which isn't modified based off of the game (and allows for targeting any night phase rather than singular). The power is a standard power (itself something I find unlikely)--but has the
limited modifiers in the wrong place
. MMR is claiming the
wrong formatting
for their role PM.
The information is not presented in their claim at all.
What information implies a scum counterpart from their claim?
It doesn't fit.
And there's no demonstration of it in their play, either.
Generally speaking, for all of D1, why didn't MMR breadcrumb their role or indicate who they were going to target?
Why didn't MMR hunt for the alleged similar role "almost identical" to theirs? If there were a scum role identical to theirs,
why wasn't MMR suspicious of Yume's investigative claim?
Why didn't MMR check on who the second investigative claim on D1 was?
Why did MMR not react to the investigative claims?
In post 1559, MMR wrote: In post 1551, Enchant wrote:POV: We will let Yume check mastina and Yume claims "I am RBed by mafia, mafia doesn't want me to clean mastina" and we will repeat it again and again, before everyone die.
I predicted future. Now let's give mastina one day and look at my oracle powers.
I somewhat disagree with this.
We're risking too much on hoping that Yume will follow through her plan.
However, I don't know Yume well so if somebody who does says that Yume can be trusted, I'm OK with the plan.
Though, I think that it would be good for us to at least have an elimination so that our solving can be aided.
-Rubella
Why did MMR not target Yume, the claimed investigative?
Why did MMR not target me, the player Yume said she was going to target?
In post 2891, MMR wrote: In post 2889, Radical Rat wrote:UNVOTE:
I'm going to look over all this with fresh eyes tomorrow. MathBlade's role apparently being complementary takes away from my suspicion it's a scum investigative, though I do still think mastina's play has been scummy... I don't know, but I'm not going to figure any of it out without sleep.
Wait.
Is there another Investigative now?
Both me and Mumps are really behind.
Measles also seems kinda busy so I have no idea what happened since my V/LA began and what Math told me yesterday.
-Rubella
This post shows that MMR was aware of an investigative claim on D1--are you telling me that as an investigative role, who knew that there was an investigative role claimed, all three heads didn't check who it was and what the role was?
They already knew that Yume was claiming some sort of investigative role--I literally just quoted them demonstrating knowledge and the quoted post here reaffirms it. They said "another Investigative", with the implication of Yume being the prior one.
Why didn't they look into it more?
They literally knew Yume claimed an investigative. As an investigative, why didn't they try to confirm Yume by targeting Yume's target, or targeting Yume?
They specified doubt on Yume's claim here in 1810, but didn't think to use their own role to help confirm?
And in
2891 (which is obviously after
1810), they clearly were acknowledging Yume's claim.
So they have an investigative role or so they claim, and see Yume has an investigative role, and with their own investigative role...they don't interact with Yume at all? They don't try to confirm her, or coordinate with her, they do nothing? No feedback, no hints, nothing?
In fact, I have a bit of a theory.
Yume was publicly a claimed investigative role on D1.
In post 3116, MMR wrote:Really?
We tried to investigate them last Night and we received no result.
Measles think that this could be due to our Loyal modifier.
Yume, in
3014, specified a role that hinted that Yume had targeted Past Present Future N1.
I have a theory based off of that.
MMR knew that Yume had claimed an investigative role D1;
Yume hinted at having some form of damning result on PPF in
3014;
MMR, seeing this, made an erroneous assumption that Yume targeted PPF N1;
My theory is that MMR made a faked result on PPF thinking that Yume would back them up, not realizing Yume's actual target was me.
But back to that same post with more:
In post 3116, MMR wrote:Really?
We tried to investigate them last Night and we received no result.
Measles think that this could be due to our Loyal modifier.
-Rubella
Does this look like town with a guilty?
Roden and Ircher both saw me, as an investigative who got a No Result, bait scum into a bad claim in Datisi's cafe.
Roden and Ircher both saw Ydrasse, as an investigative with a non-damning result, bait scum into a bad claim in Datisi's cafe.
Are you telling me both of them are going to not try and do the same? You can argue
that this was them doing so, but that is never a claim which gets Past Present Future to claim a bad claim.
Why not claim an unspecified guilty?
Why not say you have role-related reasons for wanting PPF to claim?
Why not vote the guilty result?
If there was confusion about the result and wondering if they were roleblocked, why did they not start the day saying they were roleblocked?
If they were waiting to see if town caused the failure, why didn't they start by asking about that?
If anything, this claim is acknowledging that there is a perfectly logical explanation for the failed result. They, briefly, fakeclaimed a role, which would be a role that actually could explain their result.
It feels like it was done to bait out a protection claim on PPF, not to bait out a scumclaim from PPF.
In post 3122, MMR wrote:Mumps and Measles wanted to see your reaction.
We're actually Loyal Neapolitan.
I guess that your reaction means that you're Town.
-Rubella
This being a scum post has already been covered, but to reiterate:
A Loyal Investigative with a No Result does not think that the reaction of PPF means PPF is town, because their investigative implicates the slot to be scum.
If MMR's claim were a gambit, if MMR's claim were a fakeclaim, then PPF reacting that way would be town.
But with MMR claiming to be Loyal with an actual No Result on PPF, this reaction should mean nothing to them.
Saying that PPF could be an unclaimed ascetic doesn't fit, either, because if PPF were an unclaimed ascetic, they would have claimed it in the initial result from first Yume and then later MMR.
And if MMR wanted to confirm that they weren't roleblocked, again,
why did they not start the day asking if they had been?
If they thought that they were roleblocked, then they should have specified it.
They should've known PPF wasn't ascetic from PPF's earlier interaction with Yume.
In post 3166, MMR wrote:Mumps and Measles wanted to investigate PPF after it was confirmed that your role was related to the scum.
Don't ask me about why they decided to do that.
-Rubella
I wonder why we shouldn't ask an investigative role why they investigated who they did?
Could it perhaps be because they don't actually have any town reasoning for it?
In post 3339, MMR wrote: In post 3338, MathBlade wrote:Also what makes you think my role is “confirmed” to have something to do with alignments?
Meg's announcement that you would've vanillaised the Solar Cult if you had been eliminated in the place of Bunny.
PPF's D1 push means that it's unlikely that they're Solar.
I know this doesn't make them conftown or confscum.
-Rubella
Why would you want to investigate someone who you suspect to not be from one faction?
This doesn't track because it makes no sense.
If you want to target someone not from one faction to confirm they are not from either, then PPF isn't who you want to target--that would be MathBlade or Dingle Dangle Scarecrow.
Basically, MathBlade/DDS are
better versions
of a PPF investigation
by their own logic
.
They suspected that it was unlikely PPF were Solar--
But they KNEW that MathBlade could not be Lunar.
They KNEW that Dingle Dangle Scarecrow could not be Solar.
If they wanted to target someone unlikely to be from one faction, why go for unlikely rather than absolutely guaranteed?
That makes no sense.
If they wanted to target someone who wasn't likely to be a specific faction, then by their own logic of thinking PPF wasn't Solar they shouldn't have targeted PPF.
There is no logical thought which leads to them targeting PPF under the belief that PPF isn't Solar.
If they wanted to target someone they had no read on a faction for, then they shouldn't have targeted PPF due to thinking PPF wasn't Solar;
If they wanted to target someone who they had a read on them not being a faction, then they should've targeted MathBlade or DDS.
Their own logical thought process for a target doesn't add up and is internally inconsistent.
And
3339 demonstrates not targeting with the Neapolitan part of their role at all.
In post 3392, MMR wrote:As to why PPF, it's because it is the sensible choice. Like if I was being selfish and thinking only in terms of my own reads, I would check MathBlade because he has a very high chance of being scum, but checking MathBlade is not the practical choice. He is not practical because if he is scum, we don't gain any new insight. Past Present Future on the other hand is 1) unlikely to get killed if town 2) hard to scum read as either alignment 3) a constant presence in the thread. Understanding their alignment allows us to understand the overall game state.
And this post, much later down the line, uses entirely different logic to justify it. They used one explanation later and when that explanation was shown to be faulty, changed the explanation later.
All of that, aside from what I already said:
In post 3191, mastina wrote:Play can be chalked up to mistake from ONE player, but from THREE players, ESPECIALLY mechanics-oriented players, it is so borderline unacceptable that it is genuinely an instant elimination.
Let's start with the Neapolitan half. A Neapolitan is at its strongest by targeting VTs, to generate hard-innocents. And since we have VTs in the game per the D1 flip, that means that MMR would know that they should try to get innocent results. The D1 elimination proved that there are VTs, but you know what also happened just before the elimination? ...Not one, but TWO different players effectively hard-townslipped a claim which essentially hinted at being VTs. Scarfmanship spelled this out the night I claimed, that T-Bone and Enchant believing that their role PMs gave no hint to alignment basically hard-spewed them as VTs. A Neapolitan, with not one but TWO players that essentially accidentally hardclaimed VT, chose to investigate NEITHER if them???
I can get some random player making that mistake. But Ircher is, infamously, a mechanics-oriented player. Do you think Ircher with a Neapolitan sees two players who basically hardclaimed VT and decides to investigate neither of them? RH9 from my understanding is ALSO mechanics-oriented. I've never actually played with him to verify, but seeing how he's literally THE most prolific user in mafia discussion, discussing the mechanics of roles, I'm pretty damn certain that he is a mechanics-oriented player, and I don’t buy him making the Mistake, either. Roden is the only one who could, but even RODEN is no slouch mechanically.
And you want to tell me that not one, not two, but THREE different holders of the role which is mechanics oriented made a night action choice that is woefully suboptimal? It's beyond improbable. It's not like Neapolitan is a gimmicky role. It's one of the most common Normal Game roles in existence. So all three of them should know the basic theory of the value of a hard-innocent.
Beyond that? PPF was town enough to be a nightkill option--you don’t try to target players who could be the nightkill, you specifically try to target those who will not be. This doesn’t contradict the above, either since neither T-Bone nor Enchant were likely nightkills ESPECIALLY given being vanilla. Even if they thought ONE VT would be nightkilled, they would know at least one would live--and let's be real, mo scum kills Enchant ever. So they could safely target Enchant.
PPF was more town than scum yesterday. So being so, which alignment has more reason to effectively rolecop them? (Neapolitan is a hybrid between Cop and Rolecop.) It ain't town.
Scum had more reasons to rolecop PPF than town did.
AND ONE MORE THING--MathBlade was a PR claim, but why not target Dingle Dangle Scarecrow? MY being unable to target either makes sense (it'd potentially hard-clear them), but MMR's role has no such justification--why not check DDS???
This all is play. You can attempt to write it off as a display of absolute sheer incompetence if you'd like, a collective brain shutdown from all three players who should know better. (Roden literally got mislimmed in part thanks to targeting a PPF like player N1. So to make the same sort of mistake twice is even less likely.)
But then we get into the actual role part. Namely, how the two halves are highly redundant. ANY result that is successful is an automatic innocent, thanks to Loyal. Neapolitan is a role which generates innocents in of itself, by targeting VTs. By stacking the two, it becomes effectively a more powerful cop, NOT ONLY learning if someone is town, BUT ALSO if they're a VT or a PR. If it were just Neapolitan I'd believe it. If it were just Loyal with a confirming result of literally any sort, I would believe it. (Checker, Motion Detector, etc. Literally any role which gets feedback at the end of a night, which is not already innately one of the strongest investigative roles in the game the way Neapolitan is.)
I don’t believe that the town has a Loyal Neapolitan ON TOP OF the revealing mechanic shown at the end of D1 ON TOP OF my role, which theirs is basically a stronger version of. My role just checks for attunement, which is a possible indicator of alignment and potentially reveals role or VTs;
Theirs gets outright confirmation of alignment AND role. They're literally claiming a stronger version of my role, which was even able to act a night sooner than me! (BTW free piece of NRG advice: the NRG tends to balance odd/even night roles by putting the weaker one FIRST, not second. Not always, but as a way to keep the power down.)
And then there are two other reasons for why I think that's a mechical scumclaim, but I'll finish with a final non-mechanics one:
I don’t buy MMR being blocked by scum; I don’t buy PPF being an unclaimed ascetic; MMR were in the PoE already for scum; PPF are town enough to be basically conftown. If they're trying to force a noncommittal guilty where after PPF flip town they go "Oh I guess we were roleblocked", well, I call bullshit. So, because PPF is never scum here, if there WAS a 1v1, by default, MMR would be the scum within.
MMR is claiming they can act
every night
with a role
stronger than a full Cop
effectively a powered up version of a Rolecop that essentially gets the full role PM including alignment.
And
scum had more reason to investigate PPF than town did
.
And then you get to this.
In post 3248, mastina wrote:I have a theory!
In post 3003, MegAzumarill wrote:As the sun begins to set, a ray of sunlight catches onto Mathblade and surrounds him. Likewise, as the moon rises the moonlight surrounds Dingle Dangle Scarecrow. They are surrounded by radiant and ethereal light. Mathblade is blessed by the solar god Helius. He cannot be aligned with the Lunar Cult. If he was eliminated during this phase, the Solar Cult would have been vanilaised. The Solar Cult was the only group with access to this information.
Dingle Dangle Scarecrow is blessed by the lunar goddess Luna. They cannot be aligned with the Solar Cult. If they were eliminated during this phase, the Lunar Cult would have been vanilaised. The Lunar Cult was the only group with access to this information.
I don't think that players being bathed in moonlight/sunlight was a mechanic specific to D1. Now, the
details
might differ. Maybe instead of a nerf to the other scumteam, one specific elimination gives a buff to the scumteam. Maybe instead of knowing which player gives the enemy team a debuff, they know which player would give them a debuff. Maybe it's still a debuff, but somehow different from a vanillaize of the scumteam.
But my theory is the
mechanic
is still present. As in, every day, until some sort of condition is met, two players are revealed with one revealed as not-sun and the other not-moon. Those conditions could be anything from
-A scum player is eliminated,
-Enough phases of the game have passed (with it having been a set number, say, 2-4 reveals total),
-A player that was bathed in sun/moonlight is eliminated,
Who knows exactly. But I don't think that it was just a D1 thing, just MathBlade and Dingle Dangle Scarecrow and nobody else for the rest of the game. Obviously, that theory is something which will either be proven to have merit or be proven wrong once this day phase ends. So no way of knowing. But if my theory is right, you know what that gives scum incentive to do? Potentially--eliminate a target.
If Past Present Future are bathed in light right now, that gives a motive for MMR to eliminate them,
especially
given the SOFT nature of the guilty. They're not claiming cop with a guilty where after a townflip from PPF we always kill MMR. They're claiming a soft guilty, one which is easy to talk their way out of when PPF flip town. The reward from an elimination on a bathed target would be worth the risk of
potentially
(but not guaranteed) being eliminated after, would it not?
That gives incentive, that gives motive.
In post 3484, mastina wrote: In post 3312, Scarfmanship wrote:Some of mastina's posts today have been really awful, like proposing there's a second divine light event.
I don't see what's so bad about it. The claim is terrible, and the target selection even worse, and the handling of it today even worse. It looks scum on every level. PPF is guaranteed to be town, here.
So the scenarios are: MMR is town who had their result fail, MMR is scum who thinks PPF is scum, MMR is scum who claimed a guilty on PPF in spite of PPF being clearly town.
The first I have laid out my reasons for finding beyond unlikely. The claim doesn't fit as town and the play doesn't fit as town. The second
could
happen, but MMR would know they were in trouble if PPF didn't flip scum. So, the third fits the best.
We know MMR is claiming effectively a guilty on PPF. And PPF is town. So the reason boils down to, we know it happened--why? The reasons why it fits for town-MMR are sketchy-at-best. The reasons why it fits for scum-MMR are there, with the only thing missing being the motive. What could make claiming a guilty on town worth it for MMR?
We know that it happened; figuring out the why is secondary because it happened, the reasons we can guess but it happened. And the best guess I have for the why is that there is more than one reveal.
My role PM is worded in a way that makes it possible to just have the one reveal, but loosely implies more than one. Some EVENTS, plural for events. The event D1 caused me to be unable to target MathBlade and Dingle Dangle Scarecrow. EVENTS implies that there's more than just the D1 reveal. Like, sayyyy...the mechanic being applicable to more than D1?
Is it guaranteed? Why no, no it's not! That's why it's a theory! (A game theory!) But it's a
good
one because it helps explain the play we know has happened.
In post 3496, mastina wrote: In post 3336, MMR wrote:And I think that mastina slipped having a similar role.
-Rubella
I claimed a similar role on D1 and literally not a single member of your hydra commented on it--which is one of the reasons I think your claim is bullshit.
Me claiming was a VERY BIG THING at the end of the day. It literally was the entire reason there was a scramble in the gamestate. It spewed T-Bone as town, it spewed Enchant as town, it got Scarfmanship off the voting list, it is why Bunnyonce was the player we ended up wagoning.
And you're trying to claim none of you saw it at all and thought to comment on it at all?
To reiterate--they
quite literally said
"wait what, there's another Investigative claim???". I just showed
2891--where they acknowledge there has been another investigative claim.
Why did they not check to see what that investigative role was?
In post 3753, Radical Rat wrote:MMR claimed a soft-guilty from Loyal, but apparently doesn't trust their own result.
PPF has claimed not ascetic, so the only other way the result isn't guilty from Town!MMR is if there was a roleblocker, which I find to be exceedingly unlikely given the multiple PR claims a roleblocker might target instead, and the existence of a roleblocker at all being unconfirmed.
So AT LEAST one of them HAS to be scum. SvS is possible, but TvT is such a remote possibility as to not be worth considering. I think MMR's claim is a dishonest attempt at influencing an elimination while avoiding responsibility for the flip, so I'm willing to bet MMR is scum here and want to flip them first, see what their role actually is, and judge PPF from there.
I do understand the desire to just follow the guilty instead, but thinking critically about this the claim just doesn't make sense, so I prefer that be settled first.
In post 3625, mastina wrote: In post 3535, MathBlade wrote:In the event MMR flips town you agreed that MMR wouldn’t be roleblocked so why would they get no result?
I agreed it wasn't likely they got roleblocked. I think it is more likely that MMR is scum than town who got roleblocked. But I'm never wrong on Past Present Future being town and thus their result
cannot
be a guilty. The options are ONLY MMR-roleblocked-town OR MMR-scum.
I believe MMR-scum, but if MMR was town then they were roleblocked in spite of me thinking they wouldn't be. I don't think MMR was roleblocked which is one of the reasons I think MMR is scum! But in the event MMR did flip town, the only possibility is MMR was roleblocked because PPF is never scum here, ever.
In post 3724, mastina wrote:I have explained why Past Present Future is always town here. So with MMR claiming a soft guilty on PPF, I always vote MMR in the two. But I have more reasons for voting MMR beyond that. MMR was in the PoE. I have mechanical reasons to doubt MMR's claim. MMR's usage of the role does not match the three heads' worldview as town. And I explained some of this in
3191 back here.
In post 3813, mastina wrote:Well scum wouldn't actually be Loyal, but ultimately, it's very simple:
MMR is claiming a Loyal investigation on PPF which failed. This is a noncommittal soft-guilty that they did not breadcrumb and did not attempt to turn into a hard guilty and did not attempt to ask if they were blocked prior to claiming.
If it is taken to be a claim of a guilty, though, then that means there is basically a guaranteed scum in MMR and PPF. Past Present Future is never scum here, ever. EVER ever. Ergo, if there is a scum in the two, it is MMR.
The "why they did it" doesn't need to be something we know--they did it. MMR claimed a noncommittal soft-guilty that they did not breadcrumb and did not attempt to turn into a hard guilty and did not attempt to ask if they were blocked prior to claiming. This happened, period. There are many possible motivations behind it.
I have my
guesses
. MMR felt boxed in; MMR thought they could get away with it due to it being a soft-guilty and not eat a death afterwards from "oh well, guess we were roleblocked"; MMR genuinely believes PPF is scum for some reason but is wrong, and believes that an elimination on PPF will have no consequences since fakeclaiming a guilty on opposite scum still gets an opposite scum dead; MMR knows PPF to be town, but has a role-related reason for wanting to eliminate PPF this day phase (notably, say the same thing which gave scum incentive to push MathBlade/Dingle Dangle Scarecrow yesterday).
But none of those I can really know.
What I do know is that Past Present Future cannot be scum, and therefore, MMR cannot have a real guilty on them. And analyzing the claim and target and handling of it gives overwhelming reasons for MMR to be scum, with literally the
only
reason for MMR to be town being "scum wouldn't do this"--that's literally it.
Unless you wanna tell me something about MMR that isn't "scum wouldn't do this", that's the legit only reason they have to be town. Their role itself looks like a scumclaim; Their handling of it looks like a scumclaim; Their target selection looks like a scumclaim; Everything they are doing, looks like scum.
At some point, "scum wouldn't do this" becomes overwhelmed by the mountain of evidence demonstrating that, well. They did.
And this remains an apt summary:
In post 3722, mastina wrote:MMR's role does not match the setup as being a town role.
MMR's role has contradictions in it which made it unlikely to be a real role.
MMR's claim has fundamental mechanical flaws to it.
MMR's play has not fit as holding that role.
MMR's target selection is beyond-suboptimal and is borderline gamethrowing as town.
MMR's claimed target makes sense as scum but not as town.
Scum may have incentive to kill PPF.
Scum are boxed in by the PoE and doing something to get out of it is needed.
MMR's claim is not a hard-guilty, giving them an out.
MMR's way of having played the claimed role/result does not fit a town perspective.
MMR is within the PoE, and the PoE is guaranteed to have all 6 scum, so MMR has a 6/7 chance of being scum.
Past Present Future is always town here so if there is a 1v1 between PPF and any other player (in this case, MMR), PPF wins and thus MMR is scum.
This is the reasons for MMR being scum--I haven't shared them all explaining them all but I've shared a fair amount of them and shown enough of them that if you're reading my posts in spite of unwnd's attempt to drown them out, you should know that I have DAMN good reason to think MMR is scum.
I'd only need one of these to have good reason to suspect MMR; I have ALL of them.
