So I just got up and multiquoted every attorney post I saw from today. Let's dig through them a bit yeah?
Firstly on the account of Lethosos. Lethosos is guilty of all charges.
These charges include but are not restricted to
- Treason
- Wolfiness
- Lack of Towniness
I advise that all those in the Jury also vote Guilty due to the limited player. Voting innocent here will achieve nothing.
Firstly, this doesn't go through any of the actual reasons he was put to trial, simply what those reasons may suggest. A lot of assertions without actually presenting the evidence. Also ignore the vote that's just prosecution looking out for themself.
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.
This is a much more compelling post, but sgbros' defence seems valid. My day end is 1 AM so I'm asleep when the new day starts. I think we can all sympathise with that sort of situation. Again, ignore the vote it would have happened if vike thought he was town or wolf.
I would like to point out that the intent of the defense in this trial will be to do anything to find a player innocent, even a murderer. The prosecution advises the jury to carefully decide the outcome in this trial as reluctance to find a murderer guilty may be seen negatively in the eyes of the court, the prosecution and the rest of the Jury.
Well you got half of it right. The defence wants to do anything to find a player innocent, even a murderer. That's absolutely correct.
However, the prosecution will do anything to find a player guilty, even a villager. While I believe you want people to discuss it, you will never admit to those on trial being innocent. You will always assert them to be guilty.
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.
You see here? He actually gives the evidence against lethosos. Everything in this post is either objective or not absolute. He isn't asserting but suggesting. Which is great for letting the village find the right path, but bad for his win condition. Yet again, ignore the votes.
"Zero proof" is never a fair excuse in Mafia. The whole point is throwing mud around and doing your best, not making everyone equivalent and RNGing them to death.
No such thing as first days in Mafia. Do your best.
That was Vike.
As if you remembered "civilized time" comments from me
edit: huh, my comment here got truncated? anyway, Real, you know you're gonna get put on the stand tonight for insta-bandwagoning with absolutely zero good reason to do so?
Not much defence going on here besides the zero proof thing, which is a great point. The post he quoted isn't here, so let me explain it a bit better.
One argument against sgbros/lethosos is there isn't any proof so killing someone with zero proof is better than killing nobody at all as it generates information. However, all this has really done is shift blame to the people making this argument. I should also point out that the more villagers we kill, the closer the wolves get to their end goal, meaning we have less time to figure out the truth. Honestly, putting someone, anyone on trial is a great idea as it generates tons of information on those on trial as well as on everyone else discussing the issue. However, that's absolutely no reason to kill someone. The more villagers we spare the better because we get more time to find the actual culprit.
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.
I actually agree with the first part. Their argument against leth is "he hopped on a wagon" and sgbros it's "he has nothing for him or against him". The first one is actually kinda compelling, but the second one not at all. Though it was a good idea to put him on trial and force some activity out of him.
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)
These are just assertions and I'm sure if one of them outright said "I'm a wolf" then he'd say the same exact thing because he's defence.
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
There's a lot going on here, so let's take it slow. The prosecution does want to jail everyone just to jail them, wolf or no, and as I said previously, the prosecution would sooner let the wolves kill everyone then let a single villager go free.
Now that stuff about the defence: it looks like a bunch of propaganda to try to garner trust for them. While everything they said is absolutely true, here's one contradiction: The last like says there's no reason for defence to find someone guilty innocent. That's simply untrue. If a wolf is found innocent, then the defence STILL GETS A POINT. Even if the prosecution lynches them later, getting an innocent verdict is still 1/1 instead of 0/1. It's not lynchess vs. non-lynchees, it's innocent verdicts versus guilty verdicts. So finding a wolf innocent could only help the defence to their win condition, not hurt. Especially if it's reasonably certain they're going to be found guilty eventually anyways.
In short, the defence absolutely has incentive to find wolves innocent. Keep an open mind. Just because the defence says someone is innocent it's not neccesarily true.
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.
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.
The defence does get a convo with the accused. It's been stated several times IIRC.
Oh...he made the exact same argument I did in the previous section. Well at least y'all have a second non-lawyery opinion on the matter. And he makes a great point here. It's much harder for the prosecution to win than defence. The defence can find someone not guilty until the wolves come home, but the prosecution can only find someone guilty once. That's it.
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.
Not much to comment on here, just more attorney bickering.
Your honor, I cite as evidence the following from the rolesheet, emphasis mine:
We request that this objection be dropped.
This has not been clarified. In fact, we clearly stated on D1 that the rules specify PEOPLE acquitted, not NUMBER OF ACQUITTALS. We are operating under the assumption that we cannot get credit for acquitting the same person twice.
Your Honor, objection: speculation. There is no evidence to support the prosecutions notion of the defense's win condition. Nor is there any evidence to support the prosecution's straw-man argument that the prosecution has to "make cases" to find people suspicious any more than the defense needs to demonstrate their innocence.
I agree here actually. I assumed that only the verdicts count, but it could be players found guilty or innocent, not just the total verdicts.
@LivingAngryCheese it would be lovely if you could clarify that.
I've always been of the opinion that clarifying game rules is not permitted by dead people. As a wolf, I often tip-toe across the rules line and hope none of the surviving people notice. Its up to them to pay attention to the game rules themselves, and not be corrected by people no longer playing.
I absolutely agree. Dead peeps clarifying stuff sways the game in a different direction. For all you know, someone could have had a scheme that hinged on the player's ignorance that you just screwed up. In this case, the dead dude caused the schemer's plan to backfire when it absolutely could have been a roaring success.
Neither of them "proved" it. Both of them "convinced" me. And I'm kind of difficult to convince.
Believe it or not, Leth made the more convincing claim. But sgbros's claim is 100% backed by his personality and standard method of play.
You need to understand: I want to find wolves too. These are not your guys. If either of them are found guilty, you will lynch town.
btw, proper respect to
@frederikam for getting wolfkilled D1.
@LivingAngryCheese, why did we not get his role when he died? Shouldn't we get roles of killed people?
You do get roles, LAC just forgot. You can see that here:
The town gathered. Well, most of the town. Someone was missing... ah, yes. Frederikam. He must've been next on the murderers' list. Anyway, you had voted to bring lethosos into the court room. The prosecution, realising that they hadn't chose anyone, chose sgbros1, and pretended that they had chosen him for a reason.
Frederikam was killed!
Sg and leth are now on trial!
Today you will vote guilty or innocent for leth and sg, and vote on a new person to put on trial!
*and was a villager.
OOOoooooohhhhh
Oh yeah, that
That exchange was the recap, frederikam saying yo you forget to post my role brah and cheese is like oh dang brah i totes forgot thanks
I'll be perfectly honest. I'm still feeling my way on my strategy here and I'm not sure how much information I wish to release about my clients.
Let's say hypothetically they gave me roleclaims. If at this time I'm more inclined to work with the town, publishing that information would assist wolves more than town and work against my strategy. Even publishing that they're not power-roles would simply allow the wolves to exclude them from their murder priority list.
Well it would work for the defence absolutely. If you publish "my client is a bodyguard" then they will be found innocent and then wolfkilled, solidifying your point. Assuming that the count is by player not verdict that is.
Just to clarify: if I find a wolf, I'll surrender my client and vote him guilty in complete contravention of all judiciary principals. I don't want wolves running around as villagers mucking up the game just so Vike/Shaz can re-try him later and erase my win point.
Well if you do find him guilty and the wolves win, you get to keep the point. If not, then finding him not guilty and surrendering him would basically be the same thing. Plus with a known wolf running around, it's more likely a villager will go on the stand that you can find not guilty much easier.
Now most of that was attornys talking about attornies, so not much on the actual defendants. I think for now I'll withhold my votes.
