Mafia 79 - "The Amish Mafia" GAME OVER... WHO WON?

[ashmite84]

Sorry guys. I have to go away for a week. Unexpected. Request replacement.

[Surye]

Ok, Surye, besides this whole incident, what other evidence do you have to suggest I am a Mafia? If you do not have any other evidence, well, the only thing you should do in this incident is to presume I am a Townie, unless you have evidence outside of this incident to presume I am a Mafia.

Innocent until proven guilty applies here, you know.

Awh, that's so cute You think I'm going to presume you're town when you're using a strategy that is damaging when used by mafia.

Ok, look.

The point is is that you have no evidence that I am Mafia, besides this incident.

Therefore, in this incident, you should presume I am innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. Seriously. Unless you do not believe in that, of course.

The same could be said about any scum tell. "It's only a scum tell if scum says it!"

[Erratus Apathos]

By my unofficial count ZS is now at L-3, with votes from Surye, Korts, Marmalade, Celebloki, Inquisitor JL, Evilgorrilaz, q21, and Riceballtail.

Not saying discussion is bad, saying that is suddenly day 1 drags on for like 50 pages it can actually harm the town.

And when exactly did ZS attempt to drag day 1 on for 50 pages?

Ok, look.

The point is is that you have no evidence that I am Mafia, besides this incident.

Therefore, in this incident, you should presume I am innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. Seriously. Unless you do not believe in that, of course.

This isn't the American justice system; the fact that a majority vote sentences a person to death should have tipped you off. Stop trying to extend inapplicable real world legal rights into this game, it won't work.

[Korts]

ZS: in mafia, as far as I gathered, it works the other way, i.e. guilty until proven innocent. Don't let that stop you, though.

[The Fonz]

It works neither way- the principle is 'lynch the person with the best case against them.' You'll rarely PROVE anything, and to suggest as such is scummy.

[Korts]

It works neither way- the principle is 'lynch the person with the best case against them.' You'll rarely PROVE anything, and to suggest as such is scummy.

There

is,

in fact, a thing called confirmed town. But you're right, that's not usually the case.

[The Fonz]

Hence rarely, not never.

[babygirl86]

hey guys sorry I havent posted... I had to go out of town for a few days unexpectedly. I'll reread and then post more

[mr. incrediball]

It works neither way- the principle is 'lynch the person with the best case against them.' You'll rarely PROVE anything, and to suggest as such is scummy.

There

is,

in fact, a thing called confirmed town. But you're right, that's not usually the case.

it's not easy to confirm a town without revealing some power roles.

[Korts]

It works neither way- the principle is 'lynch the person with the best case against them.' You'll rarely PROVE anything, and to suggest as such is scummy.

There

is,

in fact, a thing called confirmed town. But you're right, that's not usually the case.

it's not easy to confirm a town without revealing some power roles.

No, it's not. In fact, it rarely happens without outing an investigative role. There are some cases where someone's pretty much confirmed, as in counterclaiming a RB in an all-RB setup, before the setup is known. But I feel you're implying that I want to a power role to reveal itself. Is that so?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Ok, look.

The point is is that you have no evidence that I am Mafia, besides this incident.

Therefore, in this incident, you should presume I am innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. Seriously. Unless you do not believe in that, of course.

This isn't the American justice system; the fact that a majority vote sentences a person to death should have tipped you off. Stop trying to extend inapplicable real world legal rights into this game, it won't work.

Ok, so, are you saying that we should presume that everyone is Mafia until they can come up with evidence that they are town?

Note: Burden of proof.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS: in mafia, as far as I gathered, it works the other way, i.e. guilty until proven innocent. Don't let that stop you, though.

So... You presume everyone is Mafia unless they can somehow prove they are town?

Innocent until proven guilty may or may not apply here, but I know that burden of proof applies to every debate.

[Korts]

ZS: in mafia, as far as I gathered, it works the other way, i.e. guilty until proven innocent. Don't let that stop you, though.

So... You presume everyone is Mafia unless they can somehow prove they are town?

Innocent until proven guilty may or may not apply here, but I know that burden of proof applies to every debate.

Not exactly. I'm equally suspicious of everyone at the beginning, because everyone may be guilty. My point was that noone should be considered innocent without proof. And thus we arrive at your point. I take it that you're saying we need proof to accuse someone. But we also need proof to consider someone town.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS: in mafia, as far as I gathered, it works the other way, i.e. guilty until proven innocent. Don't let that stop you, though.

So... You presume everyone is Mafia unless they can somehow prove they are town?

Innocent until proven guilty may or may not apply here, but I know that burden of proof applies to every debate.

Not exactly. I'm equally suspicious of everyone at the beginning, because everyone may be guilty. My point was that noone should be considered innocent without proof. And thus we arrive at your point. I take it that you're saying we need proof to accuse someone. But we also need proof to consider someone town.

So we appear at a conundrum, and yet another WIFOM, which you folks are so suspicious of.

If I am a Mafia, then you are all screwed if you trust me.

If I am a Townie, then you are all somewhat screwed if you do not trust me.

So it all depends on which risk you would rather take, really. The latter seems like less of a risk, I understand. So I really can not say you are being illogical if you choose the former. But meh.

[Surye]

Okay, now we can all agree, lets lynch him.

[q21]

/agree

[mr. incrediball]

It works neither way- the principle is 'lynch the person with the best case against them.' You'll rarely PROVE anything, and to suggest as such is scummy.

There

is,

in fact, a thing called confirmed town. But you're right, that's not usually the case.

it's not easy to confirm a town without revealing some power roles.

No, it's not. In fact, it rarely happens without outing an investigative role. There are some cases where someone's pretty much confirmed, as in counterclaiming a RB in an all-RB setup, before the setup is known. But I feel you're implying that I want to a power role to reveal itself. Is that so?

i imply nothing, my friend. simply pointing out a downside to confirms.

[mr. incrediball]

o.k, zombieslayer agrees with his own lynch there,

unvote vote zs

.

[babygirl86]

Ok guys I hate to do things this way but I slept in and I have to leave for vacation in an hour. but before I go I did manage to do a reread and I agree zs looks the scummiest ou of anyone here. So with that said

vote ZS

and by the way I'm not sure if they'll have interenet at the hotel I'm staying in so more than likely I won't be able to post anything until thursday.

[Korts]

L-1, guys.

[The Fonz]

Claim time.

[Mellowed Man]

Ok, look.

The point is is that you have no evidence that I am Mafia, besides this incident.

Therefore, in this incident, you should presume I am innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. Seriously. Unless you do not believe in that, of course.

Hey everyone. Sorry, I've been REALLY sick the past few days, and I posted in the Vacation/ Limited Access thread before. I'm just glad I did not catch Strep Throat.

I just reread the thread, and Zombieslayer's post here makes me think he is scum. He says there is only one evidence that he is mafia, so how is he innocent until proven guilty, if there is already evidence?

He is undoubtedly someone that is guilty.

unvote, vote ZombieSlayer54

[Korts]

Way to go, Mellowed Man. Read The Fonz's post. You haven't fucked up at all, no.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Ok, look.

The point is is that you have no evidence that I am Mafia, besides this incident.

Therefore, in this incident, you should presume I am innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. Seriously. Unless you do not believe in that, of course.

Hey everyone. Sorry, I've been REALLY sick the past few days, and I posted in the Vacation/ Limited Access thread before. I'm just glad I did not catch Strep Throat.

I just reread the thread, and Zombieslayer's post here makes me think he is scum. He says there is only one evidence that he is mafia, so how is he innocent until proven guilty, if there is already evidence?

He is undoubtedly someone that is guilty.

unvote, vote ZombieSlayer54

I think... One vote until I am lynched?

Ok, what I was saying was was that, in this incident, you need evidence from outside of this incident which says I am guilty to use that incident to further prove my guilt. Since there is no evidence outside of that incident of my guilt, you can NOT use that incident to prove my guilt.

[ZombieSlayer54]

L-1, guys.

Wait...

*scratches head*

I thought it was L-1 NOW, since...

Wait, is it L-0?

In that case: Bah.