Trials of Murder [GAME THREAD]

[Pyure]

Sgbros1 has been brought forward to trial by the prosecution in this occasion.

Secondly on the account of sgbros1. sgbros1 is guilty of all charges.

The charges include:
- Not posting anything remotely helpful during the day
- Lurking and letting the game play out while they watch from above.
- Coming back to the thread only when they were accused.

The only post sgbros1 made this day was:

This post was not helpful but also displayed that sgbros was reading the thread and had the ability to reply during the day. Why did this not happen you ask yourself? Surely a town player would see that more information is needed to make a good decision. But what if sgbros is wolf? Well then he will have nothing to critique, nothing of substance for him to be found wolfy of. This level of inactivity is not tolerated and is deserving of the guilty verdict.

Here are some of the main arguments against Lethosos from yesterday, if you missed them.




As for sg... We were throwing his name around some, but I really thought he would've done more by now. He didn't vote yesterday. He didn't even contribute to discussion. Anyone flying that low under the radar should at the very least be under scrutiny.

Lethosos and sgbros1 are guilty

Don't forget we need to nominate another person for trial tomorrow, by the way. I encourage the defendants, defense, and everyone else to offer their opinions on suspicious players.

Prosecution, so far you've made zero compelling arguments whatsoever. It boils down to "they're guilty because they're guilty".

sgbros1 has a long, long string of conduct that includes, but is not limited to, claiming he is wolfy when he is in fact town. In fact, the more of an idiot he appears to be, the least likely he is to be an "interesting" role.
I put forward that sgbros1 in this case is demonstrating a clear, comprehensible and reproducible pattern of self-denigrating behaviour consistent with not only a Villager persona, but specifically a vanilla-villager persona. There is absolutely no way sgbros1 is a wolf and he needs to be found innocent on all charges.

 

[RealKC]

Meh. @Pyure Until it happens I don't have to make any arguments to stop it from happeing + I have another full day to prove my innocence if it happens

 

[sgbros1]

Now @sgbros1 , speak up, say something, tell us what do you think of everyone. This game is one that your power are the words, use them!

@LivingAngryCheese am I legally allowed to post anything here? My attorneys arrived and I told them some stuff.

 

[Pyure]

I won't be able to defend my other client for a bit. rl pressures.

 

[Fraction2]

I think I agree with Pyure on sgbros1. There simply isn't enough (or any) evidence to jail him, and erroneously jailing players isn't necessarily good for the village.

Leth, on the other hand, I'm leaning towards a guilty verdict. Jumping on the defense's bandwagon is a bad sign, especially after we determined that jumping on the defense's bandwagon is a bad idea.

I'm inclined to vote RJS for trial tomorrow (for the same reason), but I should let the events unfold. See what he says about his actions, and about leth.

 

[LivingAngryCheese]

@LivingAngryCheese am I legally allowed to post anything here? My attorneys arrived and I told them some stuff.

Of course!

 

[sgbros1]

Interesting. So let me paste my rebuttals against @VikeStep
Specifically, these

The charges include:
- Not posting anything remotely helpful during the day
- Lurking and letting the game play out while they watch from above.
- Coming back to the thread only when they were accused.

Let me copy paste the stuff I told my lawyers


The first point, that message was to acknowledge my existence in the game. I didn't want to vote, because I knew it would be automatically locked, so I didn't want to hop on some random bandwagon.

Also, props to the GM who made day end 4pm my time, which means I'm either in school, or just left school. So yeah. Great convenience.

Also, vikes second point against me is invalid. I have been in school the entire day. While day end did happen after I came home, I still wasn't online, because

On the third point, I literally just came back from reading a book, like two minutes before I posted. After I came back, thinking that day end would be at night for me, I went to read a book, not realizing that I was an hour late for day end until I opened the forums and posted that message. And then all of you yelled at me.

 

[fowltief]

honestly surprised i'm not up there..
i agree with the sgbros innocent and Leth guilty but i'm going to wait and see what else people say.

also note there are allot of people in this game. have to keep checking the list to see who is talking and who is not..

Also, props to the GM who made day end 4pm my time, which means I'm either in school, or just left school. So yeah. Great convenience.

not sure if sarcastic or not....would you rather 4AM in the morning?

 

[Pyure]

Spoke with Lethosos and sgbros1. If you lynch either of these guys, you're lynching town. I'd be delighted if we lynched one wolf and released one innocent villager, but that's not going to be the case here. There's zero value in lynching either of these guys unless you're a wolf (or prosecution)

 

[Fraction2]

Spoke with Lethosos and sgbros1. If you lynch either of these guys, you're lynching town. I'd be delighted if we lynched one wolf and released one innocent villager, but that's not going to be the case here. There's zero value in lynching either of these guys unless you're a wolf (or prosecution)

We could catch a guy, and have everybody watching as he murders some poor, innocent villager and you'd still say this. Is almost like it's your job to "no wolves here, no sir, we don't have a wolf problem, I checked, definitely none of those wolves here" when your defendant is covered in blood and fur (not that either of them are today)

The village needs to be sure not to follow the prosecution or defense blindly, because they are going to be super one sided with their arguments. Weren't not going to see Vike go "wait I think the defendant is innocent." His argument that no evidence is evidence of wolfness is evidence of that, he just wants us in jail so he can win. Same with Pyure, except he wants us free (personally, Pyure sounds better to me, except the wolf problem).

 

[Pyure]

We could catch a guy, and have everybody watching as he murders some poor, innocent villager and you'd still say this. Is almost like it's your job to "no wolves here, no sir, we don't have a wolf problem, I checked, definitely none of those wolves here" when your defendant is covered in blood and fur (not that either of them are today)

The village needs to be sure not to follow the prosecution or defense blindly, because they are going to be super one sided with their arguments. Weren't not going to see Vike go "wait I think the defendant is innocent." His argument that no evidence is evidence of wolfness is evidence of that, he just wants us in jail so he can win. Same with Pyure, except he wants us free (personally, Pyure sounds better to me, except the wolf problem).

Hey Fraction2

Just fyi, I considered this. The problem is that the argument works much better for the prosecution than the defense. Once a person is prosecuted and found guilty, Vike never needs to worry about them again. Yes, Vike looks a bit "shady" every time he "accidentally" prosecutes an innocent, but he doesn't care: he's already getting that suspicion from you anyway, and lynching them puts him one step closer towards his win condition. He is genuinely a wolf here: he wants wolves to kill you fast as possible.

For the defense its different: I want to get ahead of the game with acquittals for sure, but then I want to genuinely lynch wolves. Why? Because anyone I acquit CAN BE RE-TRIED and found GUILTY.

In short:

• Anyone Vike/Shaz finds guilty is gone from the game for good and the defense never gets another shot at them.
• Anyone Pyure/Spwnx finds innocent is still in the game and the prosecution gets another shot at them.
• Therefore there's virtually no incentive for Pyure/SpwnX to find guilty people innocent since there's a good possibilty they're going to be found guilty later anyway

 

[Shazam08]

Spoke with Lethosos and sgbros1. If you lynch either of these guys, you're lynching town. I'd be delighted if we lynched one wolf and released one innocent villager, but that's not going to be the case here. There's zero value in lynching either of these guys unless you're a wolf (or prosecution)

That... What? Hang on.

Unless there's a secret thing going on that isn't in the role sheet, it's against the rules for neutrals to talk with anyone in private. There's no legal way you could've spoken with either of them.

Hey Fraction2

Just fyi, I considered this. The problem is that the argument works much better for the prosecution than the defense. Once a person is prosecuted and found guilty, Vike never needs to worry about them again. Yes, Vike looks a bit "shady" every time he "accidentally" prosecutes an innocent, but he doesn't care: he's already getting that suspicion from you anyway, and lynching them puts him one step closer towards his win condition. He is genuinely a wolf here: he wants wolves to kill you fast as possible.

For the defense its different: I want to get ahead of the game with acquittals for sure, but then I want to genuinely lynch wolves. Why? Because anyone I acquit CAN BE RE-TRIED and found GUILTY.

In short:

• Anyone Vike/Shaz finds guilty is gone from the game for good and the defense never gets another shot at them.
• Anyone Pyure/Spwnx finds innocent is still in the game and the prosecution gets another shot at them.
• Therefore there's virtually no incentive for Pyure/SpwnX to find guilty people innocent since there's a good possibilty they're going to be found guilty later anyway

• Therefore there's virtually no incentive for Pyure/SpwnX to find guilty people innocent since there's a good possibilty they're going to be found guilty later anyway

Your argument, and this statement in particular, is illogical and misrepresents any winning strategy for the Defense.

You're saying that there's no reason for you to find guilty people innocent because they could eventually be found guilty. Your win is based on the number of acquittals rather than the number acquitted, so there's a huge incentive for you to find as many people innocent as possible no matter what happens in the future.

Calling Vike a wolf is a bit of a switcheroo, too. The Prosecution has a much harder time winning with the wolves than the Defense. We have to make cases that people are suspicious and kill those suspicious people; the Defense wins by blocking the lynch as many times as they can.

 

[SpwnX]

That... What? Hang on.

Unless there's a secret thing going on that isn't in the role sheet, it's against the rules for neutrals to talk with anyone in private.

It seems we're allowed to talk with our "clients" privately as they're being judged.

And you say like its easy to block a lynch. I bet it is not.

The prosecutors can win easily with either town or wolf, they just have to deem everyone guilty, regardless, especially since we, the "immortals" can not be bribed, blackmailed or anything like.

 

[lenscas]

Spoke with Lethosos and sgbros1. If you lynch either of these guys, you're lynching town. I'd be delighted if we lynched one wolf and released one innocent villager, but that's not going to be the case here. There's zero value in lynching either of these guys unless you're a wolf (or prosecution)

Ok, lets say you indeed want to only defend wolves, how did they "prove" to you that they are not wolves?
I know and agree with the fact that there isn't much against them but there is also not that much for them.

In normal games people get lynched on the first day for exactly that reason. However now they have 1 extra day to get themselves out of this mess and the only one that said something in this thread so far is sgbros1. Yet apparently leth spoke to you so you can fix the mess he is in when we all know that you would try the same for wolves. How can we know for sure you want to defend them because they are town? Why didn't he try and write something in the thread himself which would probably be a lot more effective.


If any of the two is a wolf I would say its leth but neither of them scream wolfy.

 

[frederikam]

Oooooooooooo

These are two of the four most voted people on day 1. They cannot do ANYTHING except talk in the game thread and talk in the convos I make for them. They win by having most people found [...] by game end.

ooooohohhhh

 

[RealKC]

Oooooooooooo

ooooohohhhh

I'm nor trying to mini-GM/joint GM here but you're not allowed to post game-related stuff if you're dead.

 

[frederikam]

OoooOo- alright I'm dead. Kinda went out from this:

Ghosting! It's when you talk in the thread after you die. Some GMs are stricter about it than others cough Vikestep, but it's usually frowned on when overdone. The general rule is to leave out any useful information and drop an "OOoooOoooOooo" with your post.

 

[RealKC]

OoooOo- alright I'm dead. Kinda went out from this:

You may also respect the rules the GM makes.

 

[RJS]

I think I agree with Pyure on sgbros1. There simply isn't enough (or any) evidence to jail him, and erroneously jailing players isn't necessarily good for the village.

Leth, on the other hand, I'm leaning towards a guilty verdict. Jumping on the defense's bandwagon is a bad sign, especially after we determined that jumping on the defense's bandwagon is a bad idea.

I'm inclined to vote RJS for trial tomorrow (for the same reason), but I should let the events unfold. See what he says about his actions, and about leth.

Except unlike Lethosos, I didn't take the approach of 'Oh hey Pyure voted this guy let's vote him'. I took the approach of 'Wow, fowltief is being ridiculously defensive over a couple of votes that then cause his innocence to be put under scrutiny. Hell, it's not like he was dying as a result of being voted for. He would have had a whole day to rebuff any accusations, and he still went and pulled an anti-vote approach that could give wolf-J a run for his money.

sg's explanations don't overly satisfy me but that's kinda par for the course really. I'm waiting to hear what Leth has to say before I launch an irreversible verdict, because I could swing either way there.

However, I am going to make one call here and now. Vote KC. He launched unchangeable guilty verdicts at two players who were yet to be properly and reasonably scrutinised. I can understand having misgivings about innocent votes, but on D2 that kind of certainty is very hard to have as a town player. As a wolf player though, it is depressingly easy to be certain that somebody is not on your team and it is ok to try and get them lynched (yes I know it's jailed but same difference.)

 

[RJS]

You may also respect the rules the GM makes.

I would argue that quoting the rolesheet doesn't contravene the 'standard' ghosting allowances that the majority of GMs give.