Newbie Mini Mafia XVIII - Page 8

On June 25 2012 12:06 Release wrote:

And why do you seem so satisfied to leave the discussion at policy? That's all we have talked about besides formality. What i posted will generate (and it has) discussion which is good for town.

By saying this, you are saying that you would prefer to sit back and talk about nothing/policy all day.

On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
##vote Hopeless1der

I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded.
The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.

I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not.

On June 25 2012 12:12 dNa wrote:
I'm honestly pretty convinced that the statement you gave as example there can be seen as a "suspicion", not as a statement of a fact.
And while blazing in your example states that toad is scum and that's not the case, it should be pretty obvious that that he is just suspecting it, because there is no way of him knowing it for a fact. But that might be just arguing semantics at that point, let's drop it.

Instead I would like to hear what policy you would suggest, since you are obviously not happy with the policy that was originally proposed. Maybe I like it better than the original one too, I am not too familiar with different policies in this game.

On June 25 2012 12:22 Keirathi wrote:


FOS: Release

I don't see any situation where our infestation of evil (Mafia) can get out of this situation without lying. They can bend truths and suggest things that seem scummy, but in the end, they know who they are and who we are and will have to tell some lies or, at the very least, half truths.

Making a case that someone is scum isn't lying, assuming you are town and you have some kind of reasoning that drew you to that conclusion. Being wrong != lying.

Now, with all that said, your flawed logic isn't the reason for my suspicion towards you. Fast voting someone who has an argument with you is no way to catch the perps. If you honestly think someone disagreeing with your initial logic (which in this case was actually a disagreeing logic to *ANOTHER* person), then you're just asking to lynch innocent people because they have different ideas than you.

On June 25 2012 12:19 dNa wrote:


That is not what that was trying to say. I was just saying directly voting for him seems a bit severe to me, and like a complete overreaction for what he has done (which is propose a policy). I guess you just wanted to take a shot in the dark, because the reasoning behind that vote seems very thin to me.

On June 25 2012 12:13 Hopeless1der wrote:
Any statement preceeded by "I think..." is inherently true until a contradictory "I think.."or similar statement is made.
Nevertheless Release's logic should be addressed and I will concede that I committed the same error that he did prior to his EBWOP: equating truth to honesty, which are not the same.

Basically if someone decides to flip flop on a decision without some ironclad reasoning, I'm saying lynch the sucker

On June 25 2012 12:53 Hopeless1der wrote:
To further clarify my response to Release:

I'm saying lynch people that we can collectively agree have been dishonest in something they have said or done.

Further discussions on what constitutes 'dishonesty' may follow at a later time, or right now if whoever is reading this should so happen to desire.

On June 25 2012 12:53 Hopeless1der wrote:
To further clarify my response to Release:

I'm saying lynch people that we can collectively agree have been dishonest in something they have said or done.

Further discussions on what constitutes 'dishonesty' may follow at a later time, or right now if whoever is reading this should so happen to desire.

On June 25 2012 13:01 Keirathi wrote:
@Release: You completely glossed over the important section of my post. More scum for the scum train.

Getting all read to bandwagon someone who had a policy idea that you didn't agree with less than 2 hours intot he game will when you no friends, no matter how much discussion it spawned. Your post with the ##Vote line = good discussion. Your post with the ##Vote line = mind boggling.

On June 25 2012 13:13 Hopeless1der wrote:
And thus we've arrived at the point of my original policy: dishonesty is a move for scum. Townies shouldn't have a reason to lie, at least not a good one.

It's hard to imagine a game where someone instantly knows every scum and townie correctly - what would be the point of the game? We're going to have times where we're completely convinced of someones scumminess and manage to flip them as town. It happens, but I'd also rather Mislynch (when you're really really sure) than No-Lynch.

No-Lynching basically gives Mafia a free kill while denying us a chance to get rid of someone, at the very least someone that is not necessarily scum but definitely not helping the town. Only if such a person can not be found would I actively pursue a No-Lynch.


@Release: I pretty much agree with your stance on 'honesty'. Hence I moved on to Mis vs No Lynches

On June 25 2012 13:15 Keirathi wrote:
Yes I meant win. Sorry my typing was atrocious, its late.

As far as "friends", its way too early to know who I can trust. Need to hear some input from other people, but for now, yes you are my leading candidate. I 100% feel that your vote was too premature and has no reasonable explanation other than "to get the ball rolling", which is a terrible reason to vote. It accomplishes nothing other than to put a vote on someone who has a 75% chance of being a townie for the SOLE REASON that he had a good intentioned, albeit impossible, idea for a lynch policy.