Newbie Mini Mafia XVIII - Page 3

P.S: If this post is out of line or against the rules, I sincerely apologize. I couldn't find anything against it in the rules post, and I pm'd kitaman but didn't get a response before it was time to post. I saw nRgMonk ask, but no response as well.

On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote:
I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.

So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?

And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.

And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.

On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote:
I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.

So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?

And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.

And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.

On July 01 2012 02:32 Keirathi wrote:
Because with 8 players left, if we mislynch, the game is over, barring a doc save (which we don't even know if we have a doc).

8 people left: if we lynch a townie (5/8 chance), then mafia kills a townie, that leaves us at 6 people with 3 mafia. Game over.

If we no-lynch at 8 players: mafia kills an extra townie, but we are at 7 players now. 3/7 chance to get mafia, rather than 3/8.

On July 01 2012 13:36 Keirathi wrote:


I guess I could have combined these all into 1 post, I apologize.

Anyways, 4 townies have to be on the same page in either situation. It's basically one extra night of possible blue roles vs arguing today over who to lynch and then voting with lesser odds.

It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation,

On July 02 2012 12:40 Keirathi wrote:



No. That is exactly the opposite of concrete.

Does he have the most compelling case against him? Certainly. Does that make it a concrete case? Definitely not.

Think about our judicial system. Everything you quoted is circumstantial evidence. Its probably enough to convince a jury of our peers of the defendants guilt, but it is very much not guaranteed.

Think about it like this: if you assume that he is mafia, then those quotes can easily feel like indicators of that. But what if you assume he is town?




Now, I agree that he probably still has the strongest individual case against him. But it is NOT concrete. But, our only hope for concrete evidence at this point are credible blue role claims, and the slim chance that they actually have useful information. And claiming them during the day today would just be suicide, hence my whole no-lynch policy.