Last I checked, I have a one in five chance of being guilty, assuming any of us actually did kill this NPC.
The "nobody is guilty" gimmick already happened, and wouldn't fit with the shown wincons
at all. It's technically possible, I suppose, but only with extreme, not-yet-seen bastardry—so we probably shouldn't worry about it.
Just in case: Do any of you Town people have an additional, alternative "survive" wincon?
Also, you've earned extra suspicion points: If your wincon really was to lynch the Evil role, it should have been obvious that this was impossible (wincons never lie outright, even if they often mislead by omission; if your only wincon was to lynch the Evil role
and the setup was as you suggested, winning would be impossible). I suppose it could also have been a logical error, but +suspicion for you.
Last I checked, I have a one in five chance of being guilty, assuming any of us actually did kill this NPC.
... One in four if we're hoping Tomasque wouldn't make the kingmaker the Evil role, but there are such things as corrupt judges too. Or fake roles because secret autos or something. I mean, those have happened too.
What? No. That isn't how probability works. Stop.
Like, let me break this down:
This is basically as far from equal odds as you can get. Why? Because
assuming this round's opening post is not blatantly lying to us (which is not
guaranteed, but is certainly
likely), there are two possible Evil roles: you and Starver. Now, even after we acknowledge the possibility of the opening post being accurate, we still—
Actually, no—this is stupid. There are Mafia situations which can be condensed into probability; this is not one of them.
Because it's not a trial, it's a game of Mafia, and claiming randomly helps scum, EP.
...The "last I checked, you're on trial" thing was, like, a witticism. Not a very good one, apparently, but it certainly shouldn't have been taken so hyper-literally.
The point is that you can't just say "I'd rather not"—you need to at least explain
why you didn't claim. You could have said "I can't claim because revealing some of the information in my role would be anti-town", but you didn't, instead opting to give the most useless, information-less response possible.
Also, I didn't ask you to claim "randomly"; I asked you to claim because your role is a total mystery to me, and I assumed that the "hey, you don't actually need to claim if it'd be super-bad for town" was implied. I didn't make it
explicit because I figured you were more likely to be scum and I didn't want to give you ideas, but it's always an option.
I acted on Hector last night.
No, see, I asked what your night action was. You answered a different question entirely.I suppose that the question was the slightest bit ambiguous, though I still believe most people would have reached my conclusion. I acknowledge that your response, though not what I wanted, may not have been a deliberate attempt at evasion.
@Ninja!EP:I seriously was expecting more...Evidence-y evidence than that, though.
Well gosh gee, you should have said that! The only thing your version added was flavour, so I assumed that it was a joke.
...Rereading, I suppose you could argue that "it" is implied to be murder, but still.okay fine "it" is totally meant to refer to murder; I jumped the gun on that one
Author
Topic: Mafia Marathon (Read 230656 times)