Micro 682: Post Restriction Mafia - Anniversary! GAME OVER

[Davsto]

"Court is now in session. Your opening statement?"

This is an odd case indeed, your honour. I will be representing myself in this case, but there are a total of eight other defendants with whom I will also be interacting. All have been accused of gang activity and a conspiracy to murder. The penalty for this is hanging, since this current American society hasn't yet deemed that indecent as my home country has, as forward as this country claims to be. Throughout the duration of this case, I will be interrogating or defending the various parties, thus to ensure a fair trial for everyone. I, of course, plead innocent to all charges, as do all other defendants.

While one must normally assume an attitude of "innocent until proven guilty" - that is, one should not have to prove their innocence - this is a pressing trial with all defendants at risk from death, so assumptions may be necessary, and some sentences may have to be handed out before there has been proof beyond reasonable doubt - a sad, but understandable measure, given the extraneous circumstances.

The defence calls upon its first witness, and urges that they act swiftly, as we are all under great pressure.

VOTE: Alchemist21

[Davsto]

It has been brought to my attention that some of the defendants have bizarre traits - quirks that cause them to communicate in a style which one may find distracting or displeasing. It has also been brought to my attention that others may not. I am seeing this as being presented as evidence by the prosecution, and would like to provide an objection.

I believe that the mafia - smart as they are - would not give such allow such a primitive error to affect their behaviour, as they thrive on fitting in and being undetected - aware of such a presence of quirks which they all lack, they would intentionally attempt to fit in. Such a basic mistake would be uncharacteristic for them. Of course, one may also attempt to assume that, therefore, those which lack said quirks are innocent. However, it would not surprise me if the guilty parties were to adopt this as a double bluff - that is, to fool anyone who would attempt to use a line of reasoning to assume that those which lack the communicative quirks are innocent.

As a result, I believe that this evidence is inadmissible as it has no proven reliability in finding the innocent or guilty, and should be disregarded in further discourse. Additionally, I feel that one defendant, KainTepes, should be considered for perjury for his continued suggestion of this misleading information, despite logic pointing to the contrary.

VOTE: KainTepes

The defence rests.

[Davsto]

I hear the accusations of avoidance, and while I cannot deny that I may not be posting as often as I should be, I would like to express more details of my circumstances to the court, to perhaps justify this issue.

As well as my style of speaking, I must also elaborate a considerable amount with each comment that I make - that is to say, none of my posts may be below two hundred words in length.

This, of course, makes it rather taxing for me to make regular posts, since there has to be enough content to justify writing a short essay.

G&T's premature accusation, leading to the premature demise of our doctor, is a disgusting error, but one that I would, separate to other evidence, put down to an innocent error rather than an example of malicious behaviour, while the more malignant action was that of matt, who (as mentioned by transcend) didn't make clear the weight of a further accusation.

Sadly, due to the brevity of this day and the affected styles of posting, it has been very difficult for me to obtain any decisions as to whom is more likely to be guilty or innocent, besides my already-expressed views on KainTepes and matt, and a gut feeling of innocence from Vaxkiller due to his honesty.

Now, my accusation of KainTepes is being accused as weak and I would like to dispute that. He should be aware of the fact that such a basic error would not give away the guilty, and yet tried very hard to push it. Would you consider that behaviour benevolent and likely to come from that of the innocent? I say not! Add that to him accusing the supposed phony's restrictions as "not being flavoured", while his just appears to be a need to put a series of letters at the opening of each line, and I feel that something unfavourable is occurring with regards to him.

How, may I ask, is the vote itself painting me in a bad light? At the very least, the logic behind it is solid. An explanation would be much preferred to a blunt statement, from all parties involved.

[Davsto]

I believe that in this court, the reasoning for the lack of discussion is the quirks of many members of this court which make communication difficult - it may require a certain amount of extra effort for each comment to be made, which may restrict the abilities and willingness to contribute.

Anyway, for now at least, I think it is fair to say that (since a police officer has come forward) the method is to simply follow his actions while our kind and quiet doctor plays his role and protects him. Through our knowledge of the distribution of jobs within the defendants, and the obstructive nature of the guilty party whom was hanged yesterday, if this police officer is being honest then the existence of said doctor is guaranteed, and there is no obstructive force to prevent the inevitable series of events. Of course, if there exists a jail keeper or one with a bulletproof vest, they should instead come forward immediately, allowing the quick disposal of the false police officer.

As a result of this series of events, I believe the entire court will agree that the correct action at this moment in time is most certainly to throw no accusations without the guidance of the police officer's reports - that is to say,

VOTE: No Lynch

Independent of other events occurring, I honestly have little opinion besides what has already been stated in terms of whom is and is not innocent or guilty, due to the brevity of the opening day as well as the confusion intentionally thrown by Transcend in his final words.

[Davsto]

To the court I must say that little has changed in regards to yesterday's situation.

VOTE: no lynch

I understand that this may seem to be an act of tedium to some, but this is objectively the superior strategy in this situation. To continue the voting and accusation of others would be of severe risk - if we were to expose the doctor, there would be disastrous consequences and the system would break down.

Instead, this continued sequence of following the policeman ensures that we can continue to become closer to discovering the culprit without a risk of accusing our beloved doctor.

Again, this isn't just an alternative method, this is the objectively optimum series of actions to undertake. Any other theories are definitively worse and less likely to find our guilty party. Either our doctor is defeated and we have a considerably reduced pool with at least one member confirmed innocent (our policeman, as well as any innocent results that they retrieved).

I think at this point it has become clear that I am just rather randomly rambling on to surpass my target amount of discussion per post, and am also running out of actual things to discuss. I am now finalising my talking.

[Davsto]

To the court I must say that little has changed in regards to yesterday's situation.

VOTE: no lynch

I understand that this may seem to be an act of tedium to some, but this is objectively the superior strategy in this situation. To continue the voting and accusation of others would be of severe risk - if we were to expose the doctor, there would be disastrous consequences and the system would break down.

Instead, this continued sequence of following the policeman ensures that we can continue to become closer to discovering the culprit without a risk of accusing our beloved doctor.

Again, this isn't just an alternative method, this is the objectively optimum series of actions to undertake. Any other theories are definitively worse and less likely to find our guilty party. Either our doctor is defeated and we have a considerably reduced pool with at least one member confirmed innocent (our policeman, as well as any innocent results that they retrieved).

I think at this point it has become clear that I am just rather randomly rambling on to surpass my target amount of discussion per post, and am also running out of actual things to discuss. I am now finalising my talking.

[Davsto]

Yeah, I think having many post restrictions that made it hard to post was an issue, which was compounded by the post restrictions which actually relied on the posting of others, and caused the severe low posting issue.

It was a fun game nonetheless, but the restrictions did all add up to a low activity game.

[Davsto]

Oh yeah I know it's late but

What can be done to avoid the "if I just force replace someone for breaking post restriction then it's known they have one" issue is that you add a rule to your ruleset that pretending to break a rule receives the same punishment as actually breaking it - that is, you force replace players who act as if they're broken their post restriction on purpose, as well as those who actually do break their post restriction on purpose. That way, you avoid affecting the game with modkills but still leave it ambiguous as to whether or not they actually had/broke a post restriction.