Mafiascum.net

In post 3274, Korina wrote:IMO, rolecops always gets survivor back when checking survivors.

Survivor is an alignment, not a role.

A role cop checking a gets the result "Vanilla". (also I'm sorry to anyone who actually rolls that)

Despite what the wiki says, I think it makes a lot more sense to treat Survivor as an alignment and not a role. "Third party" isn't an alignment in the traditional sense in that it encompasses a broad range of alignments. I think the (Role) designation is more to disambiguate the page on the wiki from the game Survivor.

In post 3276, Korina wrote:Survivor is a role

Imagine you're playing Grandest Idea, and you get these role cards.





Survivor is clearly an alignment, you can play a . If it were a role you could make a role card with two or zero wincons!

Category:Third-party roles - also the Wiki calls these roles despite them being alignments, as the Alignment/Role split usually isn't important (a Role Cop or Alignment Cop relies on the Alignment/Role split to get results, and Serial Killer is strictly on the Alignment side of the split according to Normal games).

Survivor's alignment falls into "Benign Neutral", just like Jester, where their goal isn't explicity to cause game-losing harm to another faction.

A Serial Killer is a "Evil Neutral" where their goal is to explicitly cause another faction (or factions) to lose.

In post 3279, Jake The Wolfie wrote:Survivor's alignment falls into "Benign Neutral", just like Jester, where their goal isn't explicity to cause game-losing harm to another faction.

A Serial Killer is a "Evil Neutral" where their goal is to explicitly cause another faction (or factions) to lose.

this isn't Town of Salem, explain the wincon of or if you think they are alignments that work here (and considering posting them in the Grand Idea Mafia thread).

In post 3261, DkKoba wrote:Subject: TemporalLich's Grand Idea - Korina Notes PT

Korina wrote:koba, if you're reading this, you genuinely are pissing me off. your play while it makes sense to me, is inherently scummy to me. imagine if i was actually a survivor? how do you think i'd feel knowing i'm going to be elimed because of something i can't control?
your posts at the end were just scummy.
please stop.

survivor wincon=/=town wincon

when will people LEARN that town compatible wincons arent only compatible with town and are also compatible with scum????

The fact that you want to hunt down Neutrals means that they will be less likely to be open about their existence, and will have to lie about being town. Of course there will be neutrals that fuck you over. Too bad. But you shouldn't screw over neutrals that are attempting to form an alliance with the town, or else neutrals in general will be less likely to side with the town, and thus continue the neutral-hate cycle of rejecting them because they might side against us, which causes them to side against us.

In post 3280, TemporalLich wrote:

In post 3279, Jake The Wolfie wrote:Survivor's alignment falls into "Benign Neutral", just like Jester, where their goal isn't explicity to cause game-losing harm to another faction.

A Serial Killer is a "Evil Neutral" where their goal is to explicitly cause another faction (or factions) to lose.

this isn't Town of Salem, explain the wincon of

Benign Neutral

or

Evil Neutral

if you think they are alignments that work here (and considering posting them in the Grand Idea Mafia thread).

A Neutral (or rather, 3rd Party) is the broadest category, encompassing 3 different categories:

Good Neutrals, which must ensure that a specific faction (or rather, person) wins. (Guardian Angel)
Benign Neutrals, which does not care about either side winning, and must execute their own goal. (Survivor)
Evil Neutrals, which must ensure that a specific faction (or all factions) loses. (Arsonist)

Anyway, my philosophy is to let 3p survive on their own for a few days. If you feel especially suspicious of them, If you're not sure whether or not someone is evil, instead of wasting everyone's time executing them, waste only the time of an investigative role.

Having the mentality that Claiming Neutral is inherently scummy is flawed, as this won't just help you hunt down scum, but will cause many neutral casualties who were innocently claiming to be neutral.

Note that I do not support the mentality that you should overextend your resources to help neutrals, unless you're in desperate need of another ally.

Should I stop using unique colors for the standard 3P wincons and just color them grey or orange depending on if they have a Town-compatible wincon or not?

You should be required to make each letter in the role's name a different color.

In post 3285, TemporalLich wrote:Should I stop using unique colors for the standard 3P wincons and just color them grey or orange depending on if they have a Town-compatible wincon or not?

I like/prefer how you currently do it.

In post 3263, Korina wrote:

In post 3259, DkKoba wrote:hey guys did we learn our lesson about 3p claims?

That apparently town will ignore them for three days after claiming, despite evidence I'm not 3p

Especially when the scummy players are on board with it and pushing it. lol

Werewolf PT?

In post 3289, Bell wrote:Werewolf PT?

Werewolf PT - Secret Glade

Np, thanks Lich.

Werewolves:
1. Intense Calculation
2. ???
3. Uhhhhhhhhhh this person, change it if you want
4. that kill is fine
5. Repeat the next night

We are people during the day, but at night we cant think straight as werewolves.

NDmath, I thought about posting this in twilight:

"Ok ndmath, you dont shoot me I dont shoot you. You shoot town A I shoot town B"

But I still would have shot you. Would you have still shot me too?

Not sure if this would have been allowed tho....

I think it would have been allowed, it wouldn't have been game throwing to out yourself in a 2-1-1 scenario. Though risky given you don't really know the variables present, you only have other people's words to go off of (minus my role which was observable).

As for that proposal that's just the prisoner's dilemma. In a one shot only choice like that, people usually just betray.

the best way is to arrange a draw lol

In post 3294, Vaxkiller wrote:Would you have still shot me too?

I attempted to fast twilight -> kill you -> fast night in a single post; I was set on nk'ing you.

We were made to kill each other.

In post 3294, Vaxkiller wrote:NDmath, I thought about posting this in twilight:

"Ok ndmath, you dont shoot me I dont shoot you. You shoot town A I shoot town B"

But I still would have shot you. Would you have still shot me too?

Not sure if this would have been allowed tho....

Slight improvement:

I'm not going to shoot anyone, if you kill me you will lose.

Of course, you still kill them.