Micro-Mafia Games - Game 2, Jester Mafia - Night Thusday @ 10pm EST

[theuntouchable]

21 minutes ago, Nazgul said:

Thank you. Would this be so hard @theuntouchable?

Good job of doing nothing. 

[theuntouchable]

20 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

The biggest piece of evidence was saying you thought swag was the cop 

That’s not evidence lol 

[Pickle Rick]

3 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

That’s not evidence lol 

But it is.  To me it signaled that you were trying to artificially name someone as the cop and glossed over the fact that the cop definitely would have voted for et (swag did not)

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, Pickle Rick said:

But it is.  To me it signaled that you were trying to artificially name someone as the cop and glossed over the fact that the cop definitely would have voted for et (swag did not)

It may have been what you perceived as evidence but it literally had no bearing whatsoever. You’re building that theory based on assumptions. 

[Dome]

3 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

It may have been what you perceived as evidence but it literally had no bearing whatsoever. You’re building that theory based on assumptions. 

This is a reoccurring theme. 

 

If you had a hunch and it was right then the logic must’ve been sound. Right?! Right?!?!?!

[Nazgul]

10 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

Good job of doing nothing. 

Thank you.

[rackcs]

41 minutes ago, SwAg said:

Don’t let rack fool you.  He’s bad at Mafia.  

I mean compared to the mighty swag, what chance do I have? But also you're probably right. I'm not sure if i ever won a game.

[SwAg]

I’m just ******* with you.  You were well above average even if those WF turds never gave you any recognition.

[SwAg]

Really, no one ever got recognition except IR and I, and Walter randomly because he was the owner.

[Pickle Rick]

26 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

It may have been what you perceived as evidence but it literally had no bearing whatsoever. You’re building that theory based on assumptions. 

 

23 minutes ago, Dome said:

This is a reoccurring theme. 

 

If you had a hunch and it was right then the logic must’ve been sound. Right?! Right?!?!?!

But that's where you are wrong touch. 

Everything you do, everything you say, every interaction you have is evidence for or against you.  As town your job is to take all of the evidence and convict or exonerate players (right or wrong).  You build up a case and present it (or dont as some of you like to not post) for others to judge.  

Assumptions are the perceived biases that help to render the verdict.  They help us come to a conclusion based on the evidence.  The evidence is what you say and do, so without a doubt your not being on either et or tk3 lynch line and saying you thought swag was the cop are evidence in your case.  

Being the cop I already had the bias of knowing I was the cop and mafia would try and avoid lynching the cop (assumption), thus at least 1 (if not 2) mafia were not voting for et.  Also knowing I was the cop and the general conception that if someone claims your role the logical response is to vote them,  then if you want to pin down the cop you focus on the ET lynch line not elsewhere. 

That was two pieces of evidence from you that helped me come to the conclusion that you were the most likely to not be town of the 3 I was voting on d3. 

 

[SwAg]

I’ll remember that when you randomly tell me I have no evidence again.

[Pickle Rick]

5 minutes ago, SwAg said:

I’ll remember that when you randomly tell me I have no evidence again.

I think instead of "again" you meant to say for the first time

[Pickle Rick]

@SwAg so do you agree or disagree with my assessment?

[squire12]

13 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

Being the cop I already had the bias of knowing I was the cop and mafia would try and avoid lynching the cop (assumption), thus at least 1 (if not 2) mafia were not voting for et.  Also knowing I was the cop and the general conception that if someone claims your role the logical response is to vote them,  then if you want to pin down the cop you focus on the ET lynch line not elsewhere. 

Why would mafia not want to lynch a power role?   Since when is making an assumption, considered evidence?   It would seem to be the opposite of evidence.  

[theuntouchable]

13 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

 

But that's where you are wrong touch. 

Everything you do, everything you say, every interaction you have is evidence for or against you.  As town your job is to take all of the evidence and convict or exonerate players (right or wrong).  You build up a case and present it (or dont as some of you like to not post) for others to judge.  

Assumptions are the perceived biases that help to render the verdict.  They help us come to a conclusion based on the evidence.  The evidence is what you say and do, so without a doubt your not being on either et or tk3 lynch line and saying you thought swag was the cop are evidence in your case.  

Being the cop I already had the bias of knowing I was the cop and mafia would try and avoid lynching the cop (assumption), thus at least 1 (if not 2) mafia were not voting for et.  Also knowing I was the cop and the general conception that if someone claims your role the logical response is to vote them,  then if you want to pin down the cop you focus on the ET lynch line not elsewhere. 

That was two pieces of evidence from you that helped me come to the conclusion that you were the most likely to not be town of the 3 I was voting on d3. 

 

Except for the fact that 9 times out of 10 that “evidence” would lead you to the wrong conclusion. 

Would it have “worked out” in this game? Yes but I would not have voted et or tk3 even if I was civ. That is not “evidence”, that is your “assumptions”. Your theories are not built with logic, they are built with assumptions. 

It’s why I constantly say you two should donate your minds to science because I cannot discern where in the hell you two come up with some of the connections and theories that you throw out there. There is (generally) not a line of logic that can actually be followed without making a leap or two (assumption and/or bias).