Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[Erg0]

While we're asking questions, why do you think he's scum?

[zu_Faul]

Feels like first page again. Stop fooling around, ABR is not the one we're looking for today.

posts like this make me want to put the noose around your neck. But, i'll humour you. Why are so sure that ABR is town?

While we're asking questions, why do you think he's scum?

[Peers]

That's the big Mafia Philosophy Debate, isn't it? Are we town until proven scum, or scum until proven town?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Scum until proven town, obviously.

[Shanba]

Vote Count:

5: Quagmire

(schismatized, Elmo, Toaster Strudel, Battle Mage, Kscope)

3: Peers

(hasdgfas, Mert, Erg0,)

3: Toaster Strudel

(Quagmire, MoS, Yosarian2)

2: Sikario8

(Neo-Viper9, Sir Tornado)

2: hasdgfas

(ABR, Peers)

2: ABR

(Sikario8, Panzerjager)

1: MoS

(JordanA24)

1: Kscope

(Zu_Faul)

Not voting:

[PJ.]

I'm of the thinking one is guilty until proven innocent, but then you have that whole burden of proof fallacy thing.

[Peers]

I think it all depends on how much proof you have and on how many people are in the game.

There's 19 of us. We can't all be scum. Judging by tradition, there's going to be 4-5 scum or other anti-town roles. One in four, roughly. And we have very little evidence to suggest anyone is town or scum at this point, just words. We don't even have random actions to link words to, other than votes... the problem is, what happens when I think A and B are both town, but they're going after each other tooth and nail? Should I be forced to pick between them, or hold tight to the assumption they're town until proven otherwise?

[Mastermind of Sin]

We're null until proven either. Duh.

[Erg0]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

[schismatized]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

yeah but in a game with so little proof is this still relevant?

[Quagmire]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

yeah but in a game with so little proof is this still relevant?

Start contributing please

Why is TS not under more pressure?

[Peers]

Because TS hasn't posted for over a week now, most likely. Out of sight, out of mind. It does look suspicious, yes...

[PJ.]

Quag, Schism actually said something smart. In a situation where the only true proof is one's Role PM(which you can't show) should the burden still be placed on the one making the accusation?

[Peers]

The burden of proof lies in the person deciding if he agrees with the accuser; in the end, it is that person's decision whether or not to vote, and they are answerable only to themselves; this is the burden of the uninformed majority, to decide how to find proof where there is no proof, to determine guilt where there has been no act of a guilty man yet performed.

These are the fundamental questions of the game. The only people with proof of who is and is not guilty, at least at the start of the game, are those who are themselves guilty. And they don't want to share that information.

[Yosarian2]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

Neah. There is no burden of proof. In mafia, you're assumed guilty until proven flammable.

[hasdgfas]

we need more pressure on peers.

[Albert B. Rampage]

He already claimed

[Yosarian2]

Because TS hasn't posted for over a week now, most likely. Out of sight, out of mind. It does look suspicious, yes...

I think TS is an alt of DGB, and DGB recently asked to be replaced in all of her games...

That being said, I also think she's probably scum. Might as well just lynch her now, rather then make the mod replace her so we can lynch the replacement.

[hasdgfas]

He already claimed

where?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Okay, you got me. It's time for me to claim... and I'm a vanilla townie. Whoo-hoo, the secret is out...

[hasdgfas]

all right, I just missed it.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Who are you going to vote now ?

[Erg0]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

Neah. There is no burden of proof. In mafia, you're assumed guilty until proven flammable.

I suppose what I mean is that you shouldn't expect others to prove you wrong unless you've made an attempt to prove yourself right. If someone disagrees with you, it's not enough to simply ask "why not?"

[hasdgfas]

vote: toaster strudel

it seems to be the consensus at this point and I'm not saddened by this lynch.

[Erg0]

I'd still prefer a Peers lynch - he's descended even further into generalities since the pressure came off him.