Mafia 79 - "The Amish Mafia" GAME OVER... WHO WON?
-
-
ashmite84 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 448
- Joined: March 27, 2008
- Location: Melb. AUS
-
-
Surye Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: December 23, 2007
- Location: San Diego, CA
The same could be said about any scum tell. "It's only a scum tell if scum says it!"ZombieSlayer54 wrote:
Ok, look.Surye wrote:
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.ZombieSlayer54 wrote: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.
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.-
-
Erratus Apathos Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: February 12, 2008
- Location: Ivory tower
By my unofficial count ZS is now at L-3, with votes from Surye, Korts, Marmalade, Celebloki, Inquisitor JL, Evilgorrilaz, q21, and Riceballtail.
And when exactly did ZS attempt to drag day 1 on for 50 pages?Evilgorrilaz wrote:Not saying discussion is bad, saying that is suddenly day 1 drags on for like 50 pages it can actually harm the town.
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.ZombieSlayer54 wrote: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.Do you want your possessions identified?-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
babygirl86 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 245
- Joined: March 5, 2008
- Location: mentor, oh
-
-
mr. incrediball Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 112
- Joined: November 24, 2007
it's not easy to confirm a town without revealing some power roles.Korts wrote:
ThereThe Fonz wrote: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.is,in fact, a thing called confirmed town. But you're right, that's not usually the case.Showi'm this good at mafia:
wins: none so far (on this site, anyway)
losses: open 72 (as a townie) :(-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
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?mr. incrediball wrote:
it's not easy to confirm a town without revealing some power roles.Korts wrote:
ThereThe Fonz wrote: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.is,in fact, a thing called confirmed town. But you're right, that's not usually the case.scumchat never die-
-
ZombieSlayer54 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 583
- Joined: March 11, 2008
- Location: California, USA
Ok, so, are you saying that we should presume that everyone is Mafia until they can come up with evidence that they are town?Erratus Apathos wrote:
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.ZombieSlayer54 wrote: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.
Note: Burden of proof.HIS NAME IS SIR JEREMY WILKINS, AND THAT IS HOW YOU SHALL ADDRESS HIM!-
-
ZombieSlayer54 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 583
- Joined: March 11, 2008
- Location: California, USA
So... You presume everyone is Mafia unless they can somehow prove they are town?Korts wrote: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.
Innocent until proven guilty may or may not apply here, but I know that burden of proof applies to every debate.HIS NAME IS SIR JEREMY WILKINS, AND THAT IS HOW YOU SHALL ADDRESS HIM!-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
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 wrote:
So... You presume everyone is Mafia unless they can somehow prove they are town?Korts wrote: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.
Innocent until proven guilty may or may not apply here, but I know that burden of proof applies to every debate.scumchat never die-
-
ZombieSlayer54 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 583
- Joined: March 11, 2008
- Location: California, USA
So we appear at a conundrum, and yet another WIFOM, which you folks are so suspicious of.Korts wrote:
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 wrote:
So... You presume everyone is Mafia unless they can somehow prove they are town?Korts wrote: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.
Innocent until proven guilty may or may not apply here, but I know that burden of proof applies to every debate.
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.HIS NAME IS SIR JEREMY WILKINS, AND THAT IS HOW YOU SHALL ADDRESS HIM!-
-
Surye Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: December 23, 2007
- Location: San Diego, CA
-
-
q21 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: March 29, 2008
- Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa
-
-
mr. incrediball Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 112
- Joined: November 24, 2007
i imply nothing, my friend. simply pointing out a downside to confirms.Korts wrote:
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?mr. incrediball wrote:
it's not easy to confirm a town without revealing some power roles.Korts wrote:
ThereThe Fonz wrote: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.is,in fact, a thing called confirmed town. But you're right, that's not usually the case.Showi'm this good at mafia:
wins: none so far (on this site, anyway)
losses: open 72 (as a townie) :(-
-
mr. incrediball Goon
-
-
babygirl86 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 245
- Joined: March 5, 2008
- Location: mentor, oh
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 saidvote 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 Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
Mellowed Man Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 351
- Joined: April 4, 2008
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.ZombieSlayer54 wrote: 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.
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 Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
ZombieSlayer54 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 583
- Joined: March 11, 2008
- Location: California, USA
I think... One vote until I am lynched?Mellowed Man wrote:
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.ZombieSlayer54 wrote: 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.
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
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.HIS NAME IS SIR JEREMY WILKINS, AND THAT IS HOW YOU SHALL ADDRESS HIM!-
-
ZombieSlayer54 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 583
- Joined: March 11, 2008
- Location: California, USA
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.