Newbie 983 ~ Game Over!

[Good and Honest]

/confirm

[Good and Honest]

Hello, fellow townspeople!

This is my first Newbie game as SE (Semi-Experienced), which means that I have already played in two games on this site. Not that I think this has made me so experienced...

There is something REALLY IMPORTANT that I must announce from the start - I have a certain playstyle which differs from what you might expect to see in a game of Mafia. My playstyle can be characterized by my username - it's Good and Honest. To better understand what I mean, I strongly suggest that you look at my first game on this forum:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14309

You don't have to read everything - I'm lynched very quickly during Day 1 so you can concentrate on my several posts there, which explain in detail what my playstyle is going to be in a game of Mafia. Of course, you're not obliged to look at that game but then you might wonder why I do (or don't do) certain things in our current game. In any case, I'll gladly answer any questions you might have in that regard.

I have to note that I can talk about that first game of mine on this forum because it has already ended. While you can discuss any finished games, discussions of ongoing games are not allowed as a whole.

You have asked some nice questions, drmyshottyizsik. I'll answer them now:

1) How many games have you played - on this site or in general? I have finished my participation in two games here. Before that I had only played several games once in real life - that's what got me interested in the game!

2) What is your favorite role - well, as a whole, I guess, any role which isn't "bad". With my limited experience I'd say a simple "Townie" because I think I prefer relying only on my thoughts to having some special abilities... However, I have found out that there is an "Innocent Child" role which I quite like.

3) What is the most fun thing you've ever done - I really don't know.

4) One interesting thing about yourself - well, I'm very peculiar and I realize it. I have the feeling I'm incompatible with this world...

5) What is your dream job - I don't know whether it qualifies as a "job" completely but I want to create art. I have always dreamt of being a writer and in more recent times I have also been wanting to make music.

Switz, I see you also dream of being a writer. Have you written any books yet?

silverbullet999, I have looked through both your previous Newbie games here - Newbie 940 and Newbie 965. I hope you don't mind answering a few questions about them (and if you do, no problem):

What would you say about each of those two games? What are your thoughts on how you played in them? Did you change your playstyle from Newbie 940 to Newbie 965? Do you intend to play this game similarly to one of those two or have you decided to change something?

Haylen, I'm very happy to be able to play in a game with you - even if it's only for a while... Unfortunately, I have read quite a few games with your participation so I don't know which one to ask you about. I'll ask you something else - how will the fact that you're only temporarily in this game affect your playstyle? Will you play as if you'd remain here until the game's end? Are you thinking about what you are going to leave for Seraphim once Seraphim comes?

Oh, and one more thing, completely unrelated to these previous questions - I definitely hope you'll be taking notes throughout the whole game indeed - it will be extremely interesting to read them when it's over!

What else can I say? Well, I see that some of you have said why they love our moderator... I'll tell you all why I love KittyMo when the game ends!

I really hope you'll all enjoy this game!

[Good and Honest]

I'm glad that some of you have taken a look at my first game and have given comments about my playstyle. I'll respond to them now.

drmyshottyizsik, I can understand that not everyone likes reading long posts but this is just my writing style. I'm sad that it depletes the fun of the game for you. When you comment on my unwillingness to vote, you are of the opinion that it hurts the town because that makes it harder to lynch anyone during the day. But, on the other hand, that also hurts the mafia because it makes it more difficult for them to lynch an innocent townsperson!

However, there is something else extremely important in this context which relates to our current game in particular:

PLEASE, EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS RULE from KittyMo's second post:

7. This game will have 3 week deadlines. At deadline, the player (or No Lynch) with the most votes will be lynched. In the case of a tie, the tie breaker will be the player who has the first active vote on them. Should there be no active votes at deadline no one will be lynched.

Unlike other Newbie games where if no one has received 50%+1 of the votes at deadline, no one gets lynched, IN THIS GAME even if only one player has voted at deadline, the person who was voted will be lynched! So in this particular game my unwillingness to vote won't have that big of an influence.

Prox, I really like your post where you ponder on the usefulness of lynching me. The thoughts you have given sound very interesting and I agree that the other players should consider them.

Haylen, Prox's question might be notable in a vacuum but my case is special so I don't find the question that strange - I have been asked similar questions in all of my previous games here. The idea is that since I want to always be honest in a game of Mafia, I would be expected to answer a question about my role in a game. However, Prox later did find out that in my first game I have addressed this situation and that I'll remain silent when I'm asked this question.

Switz, being honest doesn't mean that I have to say absolutely everything that's on my mind - just that whatever I say is going to be true. So in your hypothetical situation I most probably won't tell everyone that I think Player X is the "Doctor".

No, I don't intend to change my playstyle. It's going to remain the same as I have stated in my first game.

I see you think it's a problem that I say "If you think my playstyle is going to make the game less enjoyable for you, you can vote to lynch me" so I'll explain in more detail. I realize that my playstyle might not be liked by some players and I definitely don't want to spoil the game for them so I can accept it if they vote for me. That's exactly the case with drmyshottyizsik who has announced not liking either my playstyle or my writing style. So I have no problems with drmyshottyizsik's vote.

However, Switz, you have correctly noticed that my quick lynch during Day 1 in my first game caused many problems for the town - in fact, it can be said that it was a big reason for the town's loss in the end. But that happened because almost all of the other players in the game were focused solely on me. What should have happened is that everyone should have interacted with everyone (and not only with me) and participated more in the discussions... That would have resulted in much more information available - and if the town had used the time available during Day 1, whether they lynched me at the end of the day or not wouldn't really be a problem. That's why I hope that in this game even if the majority of the players don't like my playstyle, the time available during Day 1 will be used for more discussions and interactions between the players - something that even drmyshottyizsik mentioned earlier in the game:

"Also we shouldn't be to quick to lynch, just fyi. If we kill a towny to quick it will hurt us, but if we take our time and really think it won't."

By the way, Switz, there is a sentence you wrote which confuses me:

"The problem with lynching him today is that it loses us a day of actual scumhunting, but the problem with leaving him around is that it'll just make tomorrow more confusing since we have no other way to kill him in a setup like this."

I guess you're talking about me here. The first part of the sentence isn't necessarily true as I've just explained - if we use the whole length of Day 1 for discussions, investigations, sharing thoughts, etc., even if I get lynched in the end, the day won't be lost. However, it's the second part of the sentence that I don't understand - what do you mean when you say that you have no other way to kill me in a setup like this?

[Good and Honest]

silverbullet999, if at times it feels like I'm quiet, it's because I prefer to have more things to comment on (and the result is that my posts are long)...

Regarding your question - from what I have read in various games here, I have seen a few times players announce that they are a mafioso. And in at least two of those cases the person in question turned out to be an innocent townsperson. The reasons they might claim such a thing could be different - maybe they are annoyed with the game or want to confuse someone... In any case, just because someone says they are a mafioso doesn't mean they really are. Now - would I vote for such a player? Well, my playstyle is not to vote unless the town can't win without my vote - and I must say I don't believe the other players will let a player claiming to be a mafioso reach that stage...

Hinduragi, I'm glad that you joined the discussion. It was very interesting for me to read your thoughts. I'm happy that you like long posts! By the way, you have misunderstood me slightly. I'm not trusting the other players not to kill me; I'm trusting them to believe what I'm saying. That doesn't mean they shouldn't suspect me - regardless of my playstyle, it's always possible that in a particular game I have a "bad" role.

drmyshottyizsik, it's great that gandalf5166 is your best friend (gandalf5166, if you're reading this: Hi!), but I don't think it's a good idea to let anyone, even your best friend, influence the way you're playing in this game.

There is something that seems strange to me. I have already cited you saying: "Also we shouldn't be to quick to lynch, just fyi. If we kill a towny to quick it will hurt us, but if we take our time and really think it won't.". I certainly agree with this. But later, when asked by silverbullet999, you say that if in the next 2 hours you have the opportunity to cast the final vote to lynch me, you'll do it! I'm especially baffled by this because it has already been said here how bad it was for the town in my first game that I was lynched so quickly...

silverbullet999, there is something I want to ask you. You're wondering why drmyshottyizsik would be willing to end the day so incredibly early. But then why did you say this to drmyshottyizsik earlier:

"If you want Good and Honest dead or at least pressure applied keep the vote on, if it hops up to L-1 I'd suggest you take it off if it's still early in the week. Worse case scenario is Good & Honest gets quickhammered which then lets us investigate the wagon and more than likely the hammerer"

You said this immediately after drmyshottyizsik unvoted me... And you yourself had just unvoted me! But from what I quoted it sounded like you didn't mind it if drmyshottyizsik's vote stayed on me and you even discussed a scenario where I'm quickly lynched... I hope you'll explain these interactions of yours with drmyshottyizsik.

By the way, I have absolutely no problems with drmyshottyizsik's wanting to be friendly - this depends on one's character. I also like a friendly atmosphere when I'm playing a game.

Prox notes that drmyshottyizsik has said "Thanks Haylen". I looked at the context and I was confused. drmyshottyizsik, while I don't mind your thanking any player, why exactly were you thanking Haylen in this case?

Prox summarized several points against drmyshottyizsik and then drmyshottyizsik used the same points against Prox. For me the most important thing here was what drmyshottyizsik DIDN'T do - didn't attack Hinduragi, who was the one to present a detailed case against drmyshottyizsik.

Little Plastic Ninja and Crayboff, I hope you'll join the discussion!

[Good and Honest]

silverbullet999, thank you for your explanation. So you confirm that you had no problem with drmyshottyizsik's vote staying on me. When you said that to drmyshottyizsik, you added: "Worse case scenario is Good & Honest gets quickhammered which then lets us investigate the wagon and more than likely the hammerer". It sounded to me like you didn't think that that worst case scenario was really bad, i.e., even if I was quickly lynched, there would be something to investigate.

However, then you asked drmyshottyizsik "If he were to get to L-1 in the next 2 hours, you would hammer?" and when drmyshottyizsik answered "Yes i would hammer because that means others feel he would hurt the town as do I", your reaction was "Why would you be willing to end the day so incredibly early? We have quite awhile to gather info on everyone... there are still people who haven't posted yet... and G&H's actions (not intentions) in my mind haven't really given me room for judgement yet.. also there still are two people that haven't even posted yet!". This sounds to me like you were definitely against that "worst case scenario", which previously didn't seem to be that big of a problem for you.

Why am I going to vote only when the town can't win without my vote? I have answered this in my first game, which I linked to - the reason is my character. There are some things which I'll feel awful if I do and voting is one of them.

To tell you the truth, I'm not really comfortable with talking about suspects in general. As I read the game, I'm noticing certain things which I find noteworthy and I either comment on them or ask questions about them. If you want me to comment on a particular action by a particular player, just ask (like Switz has done)!

drmyshottyizsik, during the beginning of the game you were repeating all the time that you were against my playstyle. Then you stated: "I am on the fence about you right now, but I'm not getting a scum read from you, just a bit of anti-town, but this morning i went and reread your play style and looked at one of your past game and realized that you aren't anti-town you just want to be 100% sure that your choice is correct unless you are need for the game to continue". And most recently you say again: "I don't like his style, at all and i find it anti-town the first half of the game". Why do you change your mind so radically?

By the way, you are right - this seems to be a psychological trait of mine, I often want to be 100% sure before I make a decision. In a game of Mafia it's not possible to be 100% sure who is a mafioso (excluding using a role's special abilities)... But when the town can't win without my vote, I'll have to vote even without being 100% sure - there's no other choice...

There's something you say that baffles me - "Also if we lynched him we could stopped talking about lynching him and get on with the game". So a person should be lynched because then people wouldn't need to talk about lynching that person anymore???

Regarding "Thanks Haylen" - Haylen was describing a hypothetical situation where I have a "power role" and I am killed during the night... I'm still confused what exactly you had to agree with/thank Haylen for.

When I said "For me the most important thing here was what drmyshottyizsik DIDN'T do - didn't attack Hinduragi, who was the one to present a detailed case against drmyshottyizsik", I actually liked the fact that you hadn't attacked Hinduragi - this meant that you weren't attacking everyone who was presenting a case against you, especially since it didn't seem like there was much Hinduragi could be accused for. Your reaction to my statement was... to present a case against Hinduragi, which really surprised me. At least you did admit "And I can't say as much against him"... However, it looks like you made that case just because that's what you thought I was asking you to do. I'd like to hear the other players' thoughts on this situation.

Later you said to Prox: "If you attack me I will attack back, it's how it works man". I can't agree with that. Not everyone who accuses you of something in a game is going to be a mafioso. On the other hand, when later Switz also made statements against you, you accepted them, which I thought was good. I have the feeling you yourself are not sure when to "attack back" and when not...

Switz, I'm surprised about your statements about my contribution. First of all, you say: "I feel like you're misunderstanding what we'd like from you in terms of contribution". Why do you say "WE" - I don't think anyone else has stated that they want me to contribute in a particular manner? Also, you say that it's the people who answer that are contributing. First, for them to answer, someone has to ask them something - which I have done. Second, I have also answered questions. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you want my contribution to be like and how it's different from what I'm doing.

In any case, thank you very much for the questions! For the most part, I agree with Prox's and your arguments (as well as Hinduragi's, although Hinduragi hasn't posted much yet) - all of you sound very logical. I especially like your most recent response to drmyshottyizsik (although I'm not sure it's always bad to defend oneself by using another player's arguments against them).

About the votes - everything seems normal to me so far. I received a couple of votes, which I'm always expecting in any game as I know my playstyle is likely to attract votes; drmyshottyizsik has also received some votes, which, considering drmyshottyizsik's remarkable behaviour isn't really strange, either; drmyshottyizsik is voting for a player attacking drmyshottyizsik - again predictable. The only more notable vote is Haylen's for Prox. We have to wait for Haylen to tell us more (get well soon, Haylen!) but it definitely looks like there was a misunderstanding between the two. I think I can understand how from Haylen's interpretation it might have looked like Prox did something bad (even though I myself had no problems with Prox's question, which I explained).

I have no opinion on "lurkers". I just hope such players start to participate more in the game because, after all, the game is more enjoyable when you interact with the other players, isn't it?

drmyshottyizsik versus Prox - to me Prox certainly sounded more convincing. Although, just like you noted, some of the initial arguments were made by Hinduragi, not Prox. I want to say again that I don't think there are any problems with drmyshottyizsik's wanting to be friendly.

And yes, I do have more to provide than what you've asked for. I have made an interesting observation. You and Prox have made quite a few posts (which, as I have said, sound logical and convincing). Each time you have mentioned Prox, you have done one of two things - either agreed with Prox about something or defended Prox from something said by Haylen or drmyshottyizsik. On the other hand, so far Prox has mentioned you a total of ZERO times! Not a word about you... I haven't reached any conclusion about this fact but I wanted to share it with my fellow townspeople.

[Good and Honest]

Hello, archaebob and foilist13! I was following Newbie 968, in which both of you participated. Quite an interesting game... When I read that both of you had replaced into our current game, I thought: "Oh, these two won't like my playstyle at all"...

archaebob, I don't have multiple accounts. This is my only account on this site. Also, you seem to think that I have another, "normal" playstyle while what I'm exhibiting here is an "experimental" playstyle. No, this is my only playstyle (I'm sad if it annoys someone, that's not intended at all) and I'm proud of it.

foilist13, I'm wondering why you're expecting to frighten me by saying that you'll have me lynched if I don't vote. I have always said that I have no problems with players voting to lynch me if my playstyle is making the game less enjoyable for them. If the majority of players in this game dislike my playstyle and I get lynched because of that, so be it. I'll play in another game on this site where hopefully the group of players will be more tolerant towards my playstyle. The beauty of this game (and any game, actually) is that it can be played in so many different ways. What matters is that one plays the game in a way which is enjoyable for one. You seem to think people should play the game the way you want them to play. I won't play in a way which is not enjoyable for me.

I won't stop writing long posts. It brings much enjoyment to me. I love writing (as I have said earlier, I have always dreamt of being a writer). Again, you want me to write much less, which would decrease my enjoyment a lot. It looks like you want to deny me any enjoyment I might have by playing this game.

If you dislike my playstyle so much and dislike my writing style so much, you should have chosen another game to replace into. It's not fair to replace in and immediately ask me to replace out.

I'll say it once again - if people want to lynch me, I'll accept it. However, the time until the end of the day should be used for as much discussion as possible. Two new players have just come; unfortunately, Haylen won't be able to contribute much more because soon Seraphim will come - that's another person who has to share their comments on the game and another person whom we should interact with. The more participation from everyone, the better.

I totally approve of drmyshottyizsik's idea that everyone should focus on everyone, not only on one or two players. Of course, that doesn't mean that people should stop interacting with drmyshottyizsik but in addition to that they should also interact with the others.

drmyshottyizsik, you seem to aways agree with the most recent observation (unless it has something to do with you) - I noticed the remarkable relation between Prox and Switz and you immediately announced that they were mafia partners; archaebob and foilist13 made accusations against Hinduragi and you agreed with them, too...

Also, you're neglecting some comments and questions addressed to you. For example, you still haven't fully clarified for me why exactly you thanked/agreed with Haylen; you didn't answer Switz's question why at first you appreciated Switz commenting on you and then decided that Prox and Switz are mafia partners... You should pay more attention to these things - it's not good when you don't address comments or questions towards you.

Switz, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with Prox or defending Prox - I just found it interesting that you did this each time you mentioned Prox. I guess I would have expected you to at last ask Prox a question or two - even if only for clarification on something... It has to be said that the opposite relation is much more noteworthy. Prox mentioned or interacted with absolutely EVERY other player in the game (including the two that got replaced), apart from you. I think this is peculiar and I hope Prox will comment on it.

Hinduragi, you stated that everyone was only concentrating themselves on drmyshottyizsik and that we should discuss other players as well - something I was already doing. I talked about the relation between Prox and Switz; I talked about silverbullet999's interactions with drmyshottyizsik... You made it sound like no such things had happened.

You can definitely count on my ability to share information on what I think - like I said to silverbullet999, "As I read the game, I'm noticing certain things which I find noteworthy and I either comment on them or ask questions about them". What I'm not fond of doing is specifically saying: "X and Y are my suspects".

And now to the whole "acrhaebob and foilist13 versus Hinduragi" event. Wow, you two have really changed the game.

I'd suggest that the other players take a look at Newbie 968, which I have already mentioned at the beginning of this post. I think doing so will prove useful as you'll learn a thing or two about archaebob's and foilist13's methods. Here is what I have noticed:

These two players have a very aggressive approach towards the game. Sometimes they come up with tricky plans and are more than willing to help each other accomplish them (it sounds like I'm describing some criminals, doesn't it?). As it turns out, this is their way of discovering mafiosi. However, I think the other players in our current game should be careful because I'm sure archaebob and foilist13 will play the same way even if they are mafiosi...

So what about your accusations of Hinduragi? Well, for me they came absolutely out of the blue. archaebob, you seem to be trying to feel what exactly what a player is feeling when they are writing something. You made a similar accusation against podium123456 in Newbie 968 and there you were absolutely right but I don't think this is going to work every time. Your analysis of Hinduragi's writing makes sense. The problem is that when a person tries to convince me of something in the way you and foilist13 are doing it, on a psychological level I somehow refuse to accept it. There could be different explanations for Hinduragi's playstyle/writing style. You may laugh but maybe even Hinduragi's answer to drmyshottyizsik's question "What is your dream job?" could be relevant:

"Mathematics Professor. Anything requiring something below a PhD wouldn't cut it for me. Plus I'll be in a college where I can study up on whatever I find interesting"

I can definitely see how a person with a scientific mathematical approach can play/write the way Hinduragi has done, regardless of role in the game.

I must admit there are a few things Hinduragi has said/done that make me wonder myself. For example, "Shotty, I think you're in the right here that we should all get to know each other a little better. Unfortunately, I have nothing to contribute to the actions of achieving this. Suggestions would be welcomed". Hinduragi, you could have done what I was doing - commenting on other players, asking them questions... As you could see, it wasn't that difficult. Especially if you have a scientific mathematical approach, you probably have an attention for the detail so there could have been a lot of things you could have shared your thoughts on. What you said here sounded more like pretending to agree that other people should be discussed than actual agreeing.

Also, Hinduragi, I'm afraid I wasn't impressed with your reaction to archaebob's and foilist13's accusation. Unlike what you said, I definitely felt you were scared. I don't really mind your thanking them (foilist13, I really don't like generalizations such as "NO townie ever thanked someone for attacking them") but how could you determine them to be the least likely to be mafiosi? How did you decide that by just the couple of posts they made? It certainly seemed like you claimed this just because they were attacking you...

Haylen, I hope you're better now! I'm not sure what "to coast so far in the game" means but it I understand it correctly, you have been allowed "to coast so far in the game" to an even greater extent than Hinduragi. It's true, Seraphim should come soon but even if we won't be able to receive much information about you, at least any thoughts you share on the game could be useful for the other players. I'm looking forward to your contribution!

foilist13, my "character" is completely real. I think you can understand that I'm not feeling happy when you are not only trying to deny me enjoyment from the game but also claiming that "Good and Honest" is a robot with a programmated character and not an individual with real emotions. In your interactions with silverbullet999 in this game you have shown another side to yourself. Please, don't let your "aggressive" side dominate too much...

[Good and Honest]

Well, my second game on this forum is now over and you can take a look at it:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14441

The group of players there accepted me and my playstyle and didn't lynch me on the first day. Then... I was killed during the first night. WHAT?! Good and Honest, "fundamentally detrimental to the town", was killed by the mafiosi at the first opportunity?! Even without voting or making those precious "suspect lists", I was considered a big threat?! And then in the post-game comments the mafiosi explained that they had killed me because I was "very investigative". In fact, here is a direct quote of what a mafioso told me:

"I brought up your lynch because you were too dangerous to keep alive. Your play would have rooted us out in the end, and I didn't want to risk that. I also considered the possibility of a cop clearing you Night One. In the end, you were the most effective nightkill for us. Your play is potentially useful to the right town, and dangerous to an anti town force."

Fundamentally detrimental to the town, indeed.

archaebob, I really appreciate what you have told me. You made a big effort to help me. However, the fact that both foilist13 and you don't believe my character is real pains me too much. You seem to think that there can't be an individual who is an intelligent, disciplined thinker and at the same time very emotional and, in a way, so incredibly naive... Well, there can be such an individual. And there is. drmyshottyizsik's questions at the beginning of the game are great, actually. Here is what I answered to the fourth question:

"One interesting thing about yourself - well, I'm very peculiar and I realize it. I have the feeling I'm incompatible with this world..."

Yes, I'm not compatible with a world where people don't even take into consideration the possibility that someone may feel awful if they accuse/vote/"kill" someone in a game... To others this may seem small or unimportant but to me it's extremely important. In fact, there are countless examples of things that are extremely important to me and people just can't understand why...

Tell me, please. Is it such a problem that people won't be able to judge a SINGLE player in a particular game based on "voting patterns"? Shouldn't the fact that they won't be able to rely on this good old recipe actually make the game more interesting and challenging? I'm sure there will always be a way, obvious or not, at least to have some idea of what my role in a game is - because, unlike what you think, I actually mean every word I write. How can you not FEEL how passionate I am about this game? But then, of course, what you feel is not always right (your theory that I have a friend on this site who I hope won't realize who I am is so absurd that it almost lightened me up)...

Yes, being an intelligent, disciplined thinker usually suggests being rational. But, as I said, there are many, many things I feel strongly about and that's absolutely IRRATIONAL. You're being rational when you give arguments why I should change my playstyle... but that just burdens me emotionally because I strongly believe in my playstyle, my belief is irrational and I can't and don't want to change it.

I have seen players on this site who basically give no reasons for anything they do. I can't say I agree with that but this is the way they have chosen to play and they have every right to do it. Why don't I have the right to play in a way which suits my personality?!?!

To everyone - you can lynch me if you want. But do it if you honestly don't like my playstyle, not because of the completely wrong reason that I'm "fundamentally detrimental to the town". I didn't want to say it until now but my playstyle is actually fundamentally detrimental to the MAFIA. How come none of you even explored the "good" part of my playstyle? Believe me, as people on this site come to better understand my playstyle, my mafia partners in a game will surely be the most eager to get rid of me...

And to use a "Cop" investigation on me is actually the most stupid thing that could be done in a game I participate in. If I'm a mafioso in it, wow, one of the mafiosi was just discovered. How exciting! I really can't understand how I can potentially be "dangerous" for the town - whenever I'm a mafioso, I'll basically represent no threat at all...

When I registered here, I had completely different ideas of what would happen. I knew that during my first few games people wouldn't know whether to believe me about my playstyle... But I thought that, the more games I played, the more people would realize that this was indeed my playstyle and would take it into consideration when they play in a game with me. Yes, a game with me is a different experience - but I thought that would actually be intriguing for the other players. I have thought about so many exciting situations in a game where I, with my playstyle and my writing style, could make the game enjoyable for everyone...

Instead it looks like in (almost) every game I'll play in, I'll have to dedicate most of my energy to defend my playstyle. I'm not sure I can endure that. Still, if it were only arguments, fine. But when people state that my character, which is the reason for my playstyle, is not real, that maddens me. I realize that not everyone can believe what I say (especially on the Internet) but I just can't get over this. archaebob, at least you showed understanding. foilist13, although you probably won't read this, you need to better differentiate your aggressive approach towards the game from your attitude towards the other players (who happen to be individuals with real emotions). I'm sure you didn't intend it but I was deeply hurt.

Right now I'm EXHAUSTED emotionally. I have been thinking about this game for hours and hours... The burden of all the arguments and defenses I have been thinking of (just a tiny part of which appear in my posts; almost everything remains in my head) is too huge. I'm sad to admit it but I'm feeling bad. That's not what I registered here for. It wasn't meant to be like this...

archaebob, once again, thank you for your words. I definitely don't want you to feel guilty. I guess just the circumstances have been unfortunate...

Sorry that I'm not commenting on what has happened most recently in the game. I just don't have any desire to do it at the moment. I'm not sure what to do...

[Good and Honest]

I'll start by saying that I wasn't trying to get people "off my back" with my previous post. I was just feeling very bad and I thought it would be like a therapy for me to write the things that were pulsating in my head. I guess it worked, at least to some extent - I'm feeling better now. The main reasons I was feeling so bad were the attacks against my playstyle and my personality. I'm fine with people discussing my playstyle with me, I even enjoy this - but attacking it is something else. As I said, I strongly believe in my playstyle and this belief is irrational. I guess I can understand now how religious fundamentalists feel - when you attack their religious beliefs, that won't make them change them, it will just give them negative emotions... The attacks against my personality were even worse for me (although I guess people didn't consider them "attacks against my personality") - when someone says my personality is not real, to me that means essentially "It's so peculiar I can't believe it" and that hurts... I love being peculiar but not when people don't believe something about me because it's too peculiar... And then there was the fact that my second game on this forum had just ended and I was thinking how the group of people there had accepted me and my playstyle and I compared that to the reactions here... This saddened me even more...

Well, from what I can see, the majority of players here don't like my playstyle. So I'm absolutely OK with my lynch. But I'll repeat once again - lynch me at (or near) deadline. Let's use the time we were given to have as much discussion as possible and as many interactions between the different players as possible. I'll remind you that there is a player who still hasn't said anything about the game and whom no one has had the chance to interact with - Seraphim. In both of my previous games on this site one and the same thing happened - people were quickly lynched and as a result there was not enough information in the later stages of the game, which in both games resulted in a loss for the town. We shouldn't let this scenario repeat in this game as well.

I have the feeling that I have quite a lot of things to say and since I'm afraid that might make this post gigantic, I'll make two separate posts. In this one I'll talk about me and my playstyle. In the next one I'll comment on the other things that have happened in the game.

First of all, I think none of you have yet explained to me how I can be "fundamentally detrimental to the town" if I'm perceived to be a big threat to the mafia as evidenced by my second game on this site.

Second, you didn't comment on my statement that my playstyle is actually fundamentally detrimental to the MAFIA. I'd like to know your opinions on this.

As the game progresses I'm sharing observations which can prove to be useful to the other players even after my "death"; I'm also interrogating players and the answers (or lack thereof) can again prove to be useful to the other players even after my "death". Do you disagree that this is actually helpful to the town?

By the way, I haven't said that I'll NEVER express suspicion/accusation of any kind. In fact, if you look closely at my first game on this site (which I linked to in my very first post in our current game), you'll notice that I presented a theory which I thought proved that two of the players in the game were mafia partners (the final vote to lynch me was cast shortly before I made that post but I didn't know it at the time of writing)... Well, at the time I was really satisfied with myself because I was so sure I had solved the case! As it turned out, I was completely wrong - neither of the two players was a mafioso... So I prefer to be careful because if I wrongly accuse a person, they might feel bad and I'll definitely feel stupid... Who knows, maybe my problem is with the word "accuse" itself - it sounds too strong... In any case, expressing suspicion/accusation of some kind is NOT something I'll NEVER do.

You all seem to wonder how you are supposed to find out what my role is. I have the feeling that people are relying too much on these "voting patterns" - especially those of you who have played on this site a fair amount of time (archaebob and foilist13). But I, for example, think that I can form an opinion on each player even if they don't vote or make "suspect lists" - as long as they participate in the discussion enough, share thoughts on the game and interact with everyone. If I can do that, why shouldn't you?

Now I'll address the comments/questions of each of you regarding my playstyle. I do encourage everyone to read everything if you want to better understand me.

archaebob - so you're offering me a deal - if I do certain things, you'll let me survive until Day 2. Ah, you and your deals! You do seem to love them as Newbie 968 also suggests. I'll politely decline. I'll continue making comments on the game and asking questions and in the process I might happen to do something that qualifies as one of the things you want from me... but there's no need for you to let me survive in return. I see that my playstyle is making the game less enjoyable for the players here - since that's the case, let me be lynched. I certainly don't want to prolong for another Day the other players' displeasure of playing with me.

By the way, why do you feel it's so problematic if this game differs from what is "the common practice on this site"? I can't see what's wrong with a little different experience...

Prox - when I was writing my previous post, I was so depressed that condensing its points was the last thing on my mind (in fact, it was nowhere near my mind).

I'll tell you the same thing I told foilist13 in an earlier post: "The beauty of this game (and any game, actually) is that it can be played in so many different ways. What matters is that one plays the game in a way which is enjoyable for one. You seem to think people should play the game the way you want them to play"...

What do you mean when you say that if I'm a mafioso, I'm playing in a DECEITFUL way?

About "playing towards my win condition" - well, when I have "good" role, what I'll want is to be able to solve the mystery case, i.e., to discover who the mafiosi are. I suppose this qualifies as wanting to win? However, I must admit that when I have a "bad" role, I won't really enjoy the game and I won't hope that I'll win. "SACRILEGE!", you might scream. But what can I do? If I replace out of games where I receive a "bad" role, after some time people will begin to realize this and my replacements will be put in a very bad position... So I'll have to stay in those games. I'll play in them essentially just so the other players can enjoy the game... But I'm willing to make this sacrifice to be able to solve the cases in games where I do have a "good" role...

Switz - I disagree with the statement "If you know you're naive, you're not naive". The fact that I know I'm naive doesn't prevent me from being naive in many situations...

silverbullet999 - you're saying that you'll be suspicious of me the whole game as if that's a bad thing. Shouldn't you be suspicious (at least to some extent) of every player during the whole game?

About votes applying pressure and thus helping find out a player's role - that's not universal and I'm not the only one who thinks so. I have seen at least one experienced player on this site state that reacting to "pressure" depends on personality - so how people react to pressure might have nothing to do with their role in a particular game. Another thing that player said - some people might actually react BETTER to pressure if they have a "bad" role!

Anyway, in my case, I don't feel pressure when people vote for me. If they vote for me, that means they don't want me in the game - and I'm completely OK with being lynched in a game where I'm unwanted.

Hinduragi - let's see what I have to say about your analysis of my playstyle.

To start, you didn't comment at all on the "good" part of my playstyle. And this is a part which can have a huge influence on a game.

I haven't said that I'll never claim. However, if I do happen to reveal my role, it will be in really special situations. Still, I don't see how it's a problem that I won't answer when asked what my role is - I'm actually doing it for the sake of the other players' enjoyment. Really, will you enjoy it if I openly admit to being a mafioso in a game???

The fact that I'm honest in a game of Mafia will actually have an enormous impact in certain situations. As I said in my previous post, "I have thought about so many exciting situations in a game where I, with my playstyle and my writing style, could make the game enjoyable for everyone"... Who knows, I might be terribly wrong. But I do think being honest can create some truly memorable moments...

I'd like to talk about the concept of being honest when I happen to be a mafioso. In such cases I'll try not to take into consideration my role - I'll share thoughts and observations and interrogate people just like in the games where I'm an innocent townsperson. I certainly won't give special treatment to my mafia partner(s). If I find something they do in the game noteworthy, I'll state that.

Finally, you say that you have read some games on this forum and that's great. But of course these games would have been different if I had participated in them! Each game is a combination of the unique players participating in it with their unique personalities and unique playstyles. Change even just one player and the game changes completely. I'm not sure what your point is.

foilist13 - thank you! Your response to me is actually one of the big reasons I'm feeling better now. Now this is the side of you I was talking about that I'm glad to see more of!

I'd like to ask you what you mean when you say that my character in this game is "contrived", even if it is close to my actual character in real life.

I'll try to explain now why I chose to play this game and what enjoyment it brings to me.

WARNING: This is going to be a VERY long story. It was written mostly in response to foilist13's questions but I feel it will also answer questions by other players. Still, feel free to skip it for now if you're not in the mood for reading (but I do hope you'll all look at it someday).



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



As I said in my very first game on this site, before registering here, I had only played several games of Mafia once in real life. Some of the rules were quite different from the ones here (I'll say how they differed if they become relevant during my story). In all of the games I played in real life I was a "Townie". I was learning the rules as I was playing the game. I always hoped I wouldn't be the Killer (that's how the "bad role" was called) because, even though this is a game, the concept of "killing" my friends I was playing with felt awful to me (not to mention that they told me it was OBLIGATORY to kill at Night if you are the Killer - so I was really fortunate I didn't receive that role even once)... Oh, and my friends knew what my feelings about that were - in fact, they voted for me in a couple of games because, considering my good-natured character, they thought I had had a very sad reaction when seeing what my role was and concluded I must be the Killer (I'm not sure why I had reacted in such a sad way)...

My friends told me that there were supposed to be discussions during the Day but in the games we played that didn't happen. Three things happened during the Day - accusations, defenses and votes. Each day three players had to be nominated to be lynched and people "nominated" by accusing someone of being the Killer (the reasons given were usually quite stupid). Then the accused players and anyone else willing to defend them could present a defense. Finally, people voted for someone of the three nominees to be lynched...

Once again, I was terrified by the thought of "lynching" one of my friends. I also didn't want to accuse them, either. I didn't accuse anyone even once; I didn't vote for anyone's lynch, either (with one big exception, which I'll talk about below).

On the other hand, I often defended some of the accused players. My natural reaction to the attacks against someone was to defend them (oh, archaebob and foilist13, I feel this is another thing which we won't be able to agree on - I'm definitely planning to defend people while playing on this forum).

Anyway, apart from defending people, I wasn't doing anything else (I WOULD have if we'd actually had the discussions we were supposed to be having)... I was almost a passive witness. But what was happening in front of my eyes was so fascinating... It was like a mystery movie! And I felt like the detective!

When I was very little, I was obsessed with mystery books. In fact, the first and only "book" I've written (don't forget, I have always dreamt of being a writer) was a mystery book I wrote when I was 10 years old. Of course, it was not actually a book, it was very short... One of the things I especially loved about mystery books was how the detective was gathering information and in the end summoned all the suspects and revealed who the criminal was...

So in one of the games I played in real life what I hoped would happen became reality - only three players remained "alive", I and two of my friends. I had passively gathered information up to then. Now I was the great detective and it depended on me to solve the case and show which of my two friends was the Killer!

I have to tell you, the feeling was FANTASTIC. I have always imagined myself being in the role of a detective solving a case - when I was very little, I even imagined there were mysteries around me which had to be solved - when there was actually nothing mysterious... So yes, I had to vote for one of my two friends - but with that the case would be solved!

In the end, I voted for the wrong person. The Killer was my other friend. Strangely, that didn't make me feel bad (OK, maybe a little). I can't really offer a logical explanation for that - I suppose this is one of the many irrational things about me. Maybe it's because the feeling I was a detective solving a case was too great to make me sad that I had voted wrongly... In any case, that's when I decided that I'm only going to vote when doing so will determine without a doubt who has the "bad" role, i.e., at the last stage of a game.

By the way, in real life, once you were killed, you were allowed to look during the Night and see who were the Killer and the other roles with special abilities. However, even after "dying" in those games, I still closed my eyes at night because I didn't want to spoil myself the excitement of seeing the mystery revealed at the last moment...

So, foilist13, there's your answer to the question what brings me enjoyment in a game of Mafia - the feeling of being a detective who is solving a mystery case.

I think my playstyle can be explained to a certain extent by this - I want to be a detective, not a prosecutor.

After I played those several games in real life, I couldn't stop thinking about the game of Mafia. At first I wanted to play with my friends again as soon as possible (alas, it hasn't happened yet). But I was realizing more and more things. One thing I had realized was how bad it must feel for the players who are killed early in the game (that was especially true in real life as the game started with a Night - a person was killed before actually being able to do anything!)...

So, in addition to my feeling awful at the mere thought of voting/"killing" a player, there is another reason I won't do these things - I don't want to contribute to a player's premature exit from the game.

Another thing I realized while thinking about the game - the Killer would probably do everything in order not to be discovered. That would include voting for innocent players, intentionally making wrong accusations... That felt disgusting to me. "If I someday happen to be a Killer", I thought, "I won't do any of these "bad" things. I'll be honest to my friends - although I'll have to try not to reveal my role to them in order not to spoil their enjoyment..."

I guess you see where I'm going with this, foilist13. Yes, at one point it occurred to me that this may be "a game based on lies and deceit" - but I decided that I'll be honest no matter what.

So I waited and waited to play Mafia again with my friends but nothing happened. In the meantime, I started reading about the game on the Internet and I became even more interested in it. I found out that the game was also played on Internet forums - and that the experience there was different than in real life. I thought: "Since I'm not sure when I'll play in real life again, why not register in some forum?". I read that this is the largest site dedicated to the game of Mafia so I came here.

I made sure to read the rules before I registered. No, it was not obligatory to vote. And, even better - unlike my experience in real life, if you had a "bad" role, it wasn't obligatory to kill anyone! So I registered. This is important:

IF THE RULES MADE IT OBLIGATORY TO VOTE/KILL, I WOULDN'T HAVE REGISTERED HERE AT ALL!

Yes, I knew my playstyle would differ from what is usually expected here. But I definitely didn't expect people would be so bothered by it...



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



So in my next post I'll talk about the things that have happened in this game not related to my playstyle (don't worry, I'm almost sure that post will be shorter than this one).

[Good and Honest]

The most important thing during the first pages of this game, I think, was the "Prox, Switz and Hinduragi versus drmyshottyizsik" event. The arguments of Prox, Switz and Hinduragi all sounded logical while drmyshottyizsik's arguments sounded illogical, not to mention that drmyshottyizsik's behaviour seemed unpredictable. First of all, I have to say that being logical or not is much more related to one's personal characteristics that to role in the game. Prox, Switz and Hinduragi will sound logical even in games where they are mafiosi and drmyshottyizsik will sound illogical even when being an innocent townsperson.

About drmyshottizsik's behaviour - let me just say I have observations on it not solely based on this game. Yes, it might seem unpredictable at first but at some stage it starts to look "predictably unpredictable", if you know what I mean. But it can't be denied that it's a strange behaviour.

The problem is that having a strange behaviour doesn't mean one is a mafioso. In my first game on this forum there was a player with a very strange behaviour who was lynched after just several posts on Day 2 (a lynch much, much quicker even than my own on Day 1). That player was an innocent townsperson. In my second game on this forum there were three different players with remarkable behaviours. They were lynched consecutively on Day 1, 2 and 3. All of them were innocent townspeople.

I think there are players with a strange behaviour in most of the games here (at least in Newbie games). While yes, in some games they will happen to be mafiosi, that won't always be the case. However, such players are very easy targets and the mafiosi probably won't hesitate to try to lynch them...

Now, it's true that new players are most likely to attack someone with a strange behaviour - after all, in my first game, I was also suspicious of that player I told you about. But still, I'll have to say I think the likelihood that one or more of Prox, Switz and Hinduragi are mafiosi is greater than that of drmyshottyizsik being a mafioso. Still, if the latter is the case, Haylen seems to be a probable partner because of remaining inactive while all that pressure was applied on drmyshottyizsik. I do think actually that Haylen's lack of participation may be the result of a lack of motivation because of only temporarily being here (this is a case where drmyshottyizsik actually makes a very good point; then again, if they are partners, it's no surprise drmyshottyizsik would say that)...

By the way, drmyshottyizsik does show potential of being logical (I guess this just adds to the "unpredictability") - in post #183 drmyshottyizsik comments on some of Prox's statements and I have the feeling a couple of the points are valid. Prox hasn't addressed these comments in spite of replying to a LATER post by drmyshottyizsik. Prox, why didn't you comment on drmyshottyizsik's post #183? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Prox, I have to say something about this sentence of yours - "I read this article once that said I'm supposed to express undeniable confidence when playing this game". It's just my opinion but I think your playstyle should reflect your personality. What's the point in expressing undeniable confidence about something if you're not undeniably confident about it? Don't play in a certain way just because an article or a player says so - do it if you yourself really want to play in that way.

To both Prox and Switz - just because you agree with a player, that doesn't mean they're not a mafioso. You agree with each other, excellent. But what harm would it do if you interact more with each other - ask each other some questions, for example? This will give information both to each of you and to the other players in the game.

Switz, when drmyshottyizsik said that we shouldn't focus on just one or two players, you agreed and decided to inspect silverbullet999. Was there any reason you chose exactly silverbullet999? What do you think of silverbullet999's answers to your questions?

Let me now discuss the arrival of archaebob and foilist13. At that time there was pressure on drmyshottyizsik. Neither archaebob nor foilist13 attacked drmyshottyizsik. What does that tell? Not much. They are both experienced players and they obviously noticed that drmyshottyizsik was an easy target. They were looking for something else that would show them who's a mafioso, as shown by their attacks on Hinduragi. As a whole, I think regardless of their roles in the game, neither archaebob nor foilist13 would have attacked drmyshottyizsik in this situation.

I also think it's very unlikely either of them is a mafia partner with Hinduragi. Yes, the mafia partners can certainly try to distance themselves from each other but here the situation was special. When the two arrived, no one was actually suspecting Hinduragi at all - in fact, most of us were agreeing with Hinduragi's arguments. I don't see why archaebob or foilist13 would want to suddenly bring attention to their partner in such manner.

I'll discuss again the accusations against Hinduragi. While I still think it's possible that this was just Hinduragi's usual writing style, arhaebob's analysis seems to be influencing me somewhat... It makes some sense, especially regarding one particular situation I have been thinking about. As you might recall, at one stage I noted that drmyshottyizsik hadn't attacked Hinduragi, who had presented a detailed against drmyshottyizsik. To my surprise, drmyshottyizsik's reaction was to try to present a case against Hinduragi. I asked the other players to comment on that and this was Hinduragi's reaction:

"I too saw the case. Then I realized it wasn't a case. Shotty intended to make a case against me and instead ended up just defending himself. I am sure you were just confused by the words he initially had at the beginning of that response"

This quote sounded a little strange to me at the time but I didn't really think much about it. But after archaebob's analysis (as much as some part of me opposes to accepting it), the quote really sounds like trying to remove any kind of potential suspicion. None of us should even think of the possibility that there might be some sort of a case against Hinduragi...

I'm noticing a change in the writing style of the most recent posts of Hinduragi. They sound somehow more... aggressive? Hinduragi, I think you're doing this to show that your writing style is not trying to "avoid attracting animosity" but there is an obvious contrast between your early posts and your recent ones. Are both representative of your usual writing style?

Also, Hinduragi, recently you have been arguing with foilist13, interrogating Haylen and archaebob... Compare that to your earlier statement: "Shotty, I think you're in the right here that we should all get to know each other a little better. Unfortunately, I have nothing to contribute to the actions of achieving this. Suggestions would be welcomed". So at that time you didn't think you could contribute to the actions of achieving this but now you're showing yourself capable of contributing to the actions of achieving this. What has changed? The most logical answer to me would be that you were attacked in the meantime. Before you became the centre of attention, you seemed to be content to just let the other players "get to know each other a little better"...

By the way, there is something Hinduragi noted that I'm only now paying real attention to. Since I did mention a potential drmyshottyizsik-Haylen mafia team, maybe it could be relevant so here it is. Look at what drmyshottyizsik said after archaebob and foilist13 voted for Hinduragi:

"I really wanna hear Haylen's views on who she thinks is the scum pair, cause if she thinks its Prox and hindu then she should unvote prox and get hindu"

drmyshottyizsik, why did you want to hear Haylen's views specifically? And it sounded like you found it likely that Haylen may suspect a Prox-Hinduragi mafia team. Why did you think so?

And then, a very short time after drmyshottyizsik said that, Haylen suddenly appeared and addressed drmyshottyizsik's post... I'm not sure what to think about that. Since almost no one has commented on it, will anyone do it now?

These are some of my thoughts. As you can see, I haven't commented much on the most recent events but I'll do it later.

[Good and Honest]

Hello Seraphim! I'm very glad to see that you are also interested in making music!

To everyone - if you can't endure reading my posts in their entirety, at least search them for your names because I'd like to know your reactions to my comments and questions directed towards you.

Some time has passed since archaebob's and foilist13's arrival so now I'll examine them. archaebob made a direct accusation against Hinduragi right from the start. While doing that, archaebob sounded really sure of having discovered a mafioso (although I have the impression that it's usual for archaebob to sound that way). After that archaebob concentrated entirely on trying to persuade me to change something about my playstyle, without mentioning Hinduragi again in the process. And then suddenly archaebob focused on Haylen, saying: "Also, I want to see what Hindu will do with a little breathing room. We might be wrong about him after all". I agree with Switz that this is confusing. archaebob, you didn't even comment on Hinduragi's reaction to your and foilist13's attacks. At least you could have explained what made you think you might be wrong - otherwise the other players are just left wondering.

Then archaebob started interrogating various players and asking them to do certain things, which I think is good because it makes everyone more involved in the discussions. However, I was quite surprised by archaebob's expressed suspicion of foilist13. The only thing which I agreed was strange was that at first foilist13 has asked me to replace out but later told Prox that the goal wasn't to make me replace out. But I can understand that if foilist13 truly had misunderstood me in the beginning. But I was even more puzzled by archaebob's later explanation to foilist13: "You just seem more hardcore and jittery in this game than I'm used to seeing in your town meta". It might be that I don't really understand this sentence (in this case, archaebob, please clarify it) but I don't see how it relates to archabob's original expressed suspicion of foilist13.

Then there were some interesting interactions between archaebob and silverbullet999 but then archaebob neglected a detailed post by silverbullet999 (archaebob, I hope you'll address it at some point) and concentrated entirely on Haylen, whom I'll talk about below.

foilist13, I'm happy to learn that you also love to write! What can I say about foilist13? I did think at the time that archaebob should receive more credit for the case against Hinduragi simply because archaebob was the first to make it. While yes, foilist13 agreed, I wasn't sure whether foilist13 would have been so suspicious of Hinduragi without archaebob's analysis of Hinduragi's writing. However, since then archaebob has decided to leave Hinduragi be while foilist13 has constantly repeated suspicion of Hinduragi. More recently, foilist13 has expressed suspicion of Haylen - but it has to be said, again after archaebob. foilist13 doesn't seem to have such an investigative approach as archaebob in this game.

As a whole, for now I definitely find archaebob's behaviour stranger than foilist13's. archaebob has already commented on foilist13 (expressing suspicion). foilist13, I'd like it if you also comment on archaebob's behaviour in this game. Does it surprise you? How would you relate it to your previous playing experiences with archaebob?

drmyshottyizsik, well done for the effort to respond to Prox's big post! However, you're still neglecting some questions that you have been asked. I'll repeat a couple of mine now. After archaebob and foilist13 attacked Hinduragi, you said something I found interesting:

"I really wanna hear Haylen's views on who she thinks is the scum pair, cause if she thinks its Prox and hindu then she should unvote prox and get hindu"

So, why did you want to hear Haylen's views specifically? And it sounded like you found it likely that Haylen may suspect a Prox-Hinduragi mafia team. Why did you think so?

About Haylen... Well, there are many pecuilar things. For example, this statement: "I do admit though that I came into the game a lot more aggressive than I usually do". I didn't actually find anything aggressive about Haylen's behaviour in the very few posts Haylen had made prior to that statement (unless voting Prox for asking me whether I'm a mafioso counts as aggressive?!).

I had noted that immediately after drmyshottyizsik made the post cited above, Haylen appeared and addressed it - in spite of remaining silent for quite long periods of time before that. Haylen's comment to my observation was: "Technically, I am always online. However, I am not always available". But that didn't explain at all why Haylen suddenly was available especially for addressing drmyshottyizsik's post.

Then there was the fact that Haylen made statements about a few players - archaebob, Switz, me - but without offering explanations. The problem is that Haylen was going to be replaced any minute - it would have been helpful to give us as much information as Haylen had gathered until then. For whatever reason, Haylen chose not to. By the way, I have to agree with archaebob that it's extremely curious that Haylen decided to mention Switz specifically...

Haylen's last post started immediately with "Woahwoahwoah, who said I wasn't committed?". I have the feeling that Haylen might have insisted on being commited because of previously saying "As town I get very emotionally involved in the game"...

Finally, archaebob had told Haylen to vote for archaebob or drmyshottyizsik... and Haylen voted for drmyshottyizsik. However, previously Haylen had expressed suspcision of archaebob while only saying this about drmyshottyizsik: "I would look Shotty to be looked into". When voting, Haylen didn't mention actually finding something suspicious about drmyshottyizsik...

I don't know. It's a pity that Haylen won't be able to answer any of our questions now - and I wonder whether some of Haylen's actions were done exactly because Haylen wouldn't need to answer for them. If Haylen were in a bad mood when writing that last post, this should probably also be taken into consideration... Anyway, Seraphim has only recently arrived and I'll wait some time before commenting on Seraphim.

Hinduragi, I have a couple of questions regarding your post #222. You say to Haylen: "Enlighten us why we shouldn't lynch G&H since you don't have a vote on anyone". First of all, at that time Haylen had a vote on Prox. Also, why did you want Haylen to enlighten us why we shouldn't lynch ME specifically?

In the same post, you commented on archaebob's reasons for expressing suspicion of foilist13. You stated: "The second one just doesn't give me a scum tell but it looks to me like you were trying to hide a possible bus" - I must admit I don't understand this sentence, could you clarify it for me?

It was very interesting for me to read about your previous experience with the game of Mafia. I can certainly accept your explanation for the change in your playstyle/writing style - you're adapting to this forum. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that archaebob's analysis of you makes sense for the beginning of the game, where it did seem like you were trying to avoid suspicion. I know you can't do anything about that now and it shouldn't really be considered definite evidence for anything but is something to have in mind...

foilist13, you haven't commented on Hinduragi's explanations for Hinduragi's style and the changes in it. What do you think about that?

Hinduragi, maybe I wasn't clear - I didn't mean "good" parts of my playstyle as opposed to "bad". I meant that my playstyle is characterized by being "good" and "honest". You explored the "honest" part but not the "good" one. Anyway, of course I'd like to see a full-depth analysis of my plastyle! But you don't need to do it immediately. If you think it's not really relevant to our current game, you may share it in the post-game comments.

Oh, and this question - "Do you leave subliminal or minute hints as to your faction within your posts without knowing it yourself?" - is impossible to answer from a logical standpoint, I think. If I myself don't know that I'm leaving hints, I can't answer whether I'm leaving hints without knowing! However, I can think of at least one thing which could probably show whether I have a "good" or a "bad" role in a particular game - but I hope you'll agree that it wouldn't be wise to tell anyone what it is!

silverbullet999, I have to agree with Hinduragi that it seemed strange that you voted for me when archaebob asked you why you weren't voting. Would you have voted at that time if archaebob hadn't asked?

As a whole, you were more active in Newbie 965 than in Newbie 940. It seems like now you are playing more like you did in Newbie 940 - but there you said the reason was that you were new. Now it seems like this is an intentional approach. By the way, interestingly, both in Newbie 940 and here there has been a "silverbullet999 strikes back" moment after someone has attacked you - it was Nobody Special there and archaebob here...

Prox, I want to ask you something about your post #206. You unvoted there and then it seemed like you wanted to vote Haylen. KittyMo even counted that as a vote for Haylen. But I want to be sure so did you really intend to vote Haylen in that post?

Also, I found those readibility statistics for my post quite interesting! What were they meant to prove?

[Good and Honest]

I have the feeling this post is going to be chaotic but hopefully not too much.

Seraphim, the entire idea is that my playstyle will be Good and Honest even when I'm a mafioso in a particular game. By the way, I'm surprised that you found drmyshottyizsik so suspicious. You have been on this site for quite some time, haven't you come across other players who are unpredictable and constantly seem to change their mind - regardless of role?

As a whole, I don't want to pay too much attention to claims - yes, they are something to take into consideration but I think people should try not to concentrate too much on them when judging a player. This case, of course, is special, since if Seraphim is a "Cop", so was Haylen. I have read theories that players who have "power roles" often try to stay in the background and that's definitely what Haylen was trying to do... until Haylen's last couple of posts, at least.

However, there is something which I feel might be important. If you remember, at the beginning of the game I asked Haylen: "How will the fact that you're only temporarily in this game affect your playstyle? Will you play as if you'd remain here until the game's end? Are you thinking about what you are going to leave for Seraphim once Seraphim comes?". Here is Haylen's answer:

"The fact I'm a temp. replacement won't affect my playstyle. The last time I was a temp, I was scum and actually won the game in 6 days for my team. (Newbie 880). I will be playing as though I am a normal IC in the game. I've never really thought about what I might be Seraphim to come back to - whatever it is, I trust he'd be able to deal with it adequately"

Well, there are obvious differences between the two situations - Haylen might have been a temporary replacement in Newbie 880 but the replacement there happened during the later stages of the game, when it was entirely possible that the game would end before the person Haylen replaced would return (and that was indeed what happened). In our current game, Haylen was a temporary replacement in the very beginning - so why wouldn't Haylen consider at all what "legacy" would be left for Seraphim once Seraphim came? That seems even stranger if Haylen were a "Cop" - wouldn't it be important to try to secure a good position for your replacement with such a role?

And then there were Haylen's last posts, which, as I said in my previous post, were quite confusing. Yes, Haylen may have been in a bad mood - but the result was that the attention was brought to Seraphim. All the previous work of having stayed in the background was undone. Really puzzling. The only explanation I can think of is that Haylen did mean it when saying "I've never really thought about what I might be Seraphim to come back to - whatever it is, I trust he'd be able to deal with it adequately"... but it still baffles me.

silverbullet999, I was simply comparing your playstyles in the different games. I have the feeling that you're playing in a more "planned" manner now than before. I mentioned "silverbullet999 strikes back" because I think it will be a very curious coincidence if once again the person that provoked your "strike" turns out to be a mafioso, like was the case with Nothing Special. By the way, since you said: "Haylen's actions has seemed like haylen being her normal self to me" - do you find the way Haylen played in our current game similar to the one in Newbie 940?

Switz, I had asked you something previously and I don't think you answered so I'll repeat it - when drmyshottyizsik said that we shouldn't focus on just one or two players, you agreed and decided to inspect silverbullet999. Was there any reason you chose exactly silverbullet999? What do you think of silverbullet999's answers to your questions?

Hinduragi, no, I won't kill anyone if I'm the only mafioso remaining "alive". As I said, I checked the rules before registering here and wouldn't have registered if the rules made it obligatory to kill. Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I have already given thoughts and analysis of my playstyle. If you want me to discuss something specific about it, just ask.

I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence: "Well, I'm going to give our mod the benefit of the doubt and assume that there isn't a possible "Follow the Cop" setup in this game". Would you clarify it?

Prox - OK. So in post #206 you unvoted drmyshottyizsik. Now you're saying that you didn't intend to vote for Haylen in the same post. But then there is your post #253 where I can't understand what's going on. In that post you made some comments on Haylen and then placed a "Finger of Suspicion" on Haylen. Later in the same post you stated "I've already read Haylen's posts today, and my opinion of her stands, though technically she's one of the scummiest people here"... and you unvoted!? But at that point you weren't voting for anyone! If we assume that you were unvoting Haylen, why did you tell me you hadn't voted for Haylen in post #206? And again, if you thought you had voted for Haylen previously, what was the point of placing a "Finger of Suspicion" on somebody you had already been voting? On the other hand, if you didn't think you were voting for Haylen, who were you unvoting in post #253?

Also, what did you mean when you said this:

"I'm surprised it didn't take longer for this to happen. However, I don't get how it took someone else to say it for it to matter"

[Good and Honest]

Wow! I just have to say it - this is my first game on this site where I have survived until the second day!

Hinduragi and Prox, good luck in the future! I have some things I'd like to tell each of you but I guess I'll do it when the game ends.

archaebob, you have presented quite an impressive case on Switz. However, as I also said after your case on Hinduragi, a method of convincing such as yours actually has an opposite effect on me (especially when you say things like "I think I can probably still get you lynched even with just a third of this case")... As a whole, your case makes sense. But, from the moment foilist13 first mentioned that Switz's style was similar to that of Hinduragi, I have been thinking about that and I don't really think their styles are that similar. Also, I'm worried that when you concentrate on a particular player, you're not paying much attention to the others (for example, you admitted not really paying attention to Prox). While that works if the player is a mafioso (like was the case with Hinduragi), it might not be good when you're wrong...

foilist13, I'm somewhat confused by your post where Switz's name is formed by the first letters of the different paragraphs. So you did it to prove that at the time you were suspecting Switz. Why was that important?

Switz, I still want to know why when drmyshottyizsik suggested that we shouldn't focus on just a couple of players, you chose to inspect exactly silverbullet999.

I have to say your vote for Hinduragi shocked me. archaebob's analysis is right about the fact that you explain in a succession of posts your willingness to vote for someone before you do it. The only time you didn't follow that pattern was when you voted for Hinduragi - that came out of the blue. The problem isn't really the reasons you gave but the fact that this sudden vote was completely opposite to your previous behaviour. Based on how you played before that, I would have expected you to question Hinduragi about that statement - but without voting. I would have expected you to potentially vote for Hinduragi after a couple more posts discussing/interrogating Hinduragi. Why was that the only occasion when you acted "impulsively"?

There is also another point against you - you actually admit that at the beginning of the game you were "following" Prox - and not Hinduragi. But that definitely makes sense if you are a mafioso. As a mafioso, you would have no problems "following" an innocent townsperson (Prox) but you would be careful not to obviously "follow" your mafia partner (Hinduragi)...

And now - a few things about the interactions between Switz and Hinduragi that in my opinion make it less likely that Switz is a mafioso.

Look at Hinduragi's post #143. There Hinduragi gives an example: Prox, an innocent townsperson, attacks drmyshottyizsik; Switz, a mafioso, seemingly agrees with the attack and as a result drmyshottyizsik is lynched. The first point is - even if this were just an example, why would Hinduragi even suggest the possibility of Switz being a mafioso if Switz was indeed Hinduragi's mafia partner? Hinduragi's style in the beginning seemed to be to avoid suspicion - but wouldn't the idea be also not to cast suspicion on the partner?

The other thing remarkable in post #143 is what Hinduragi tells Switz: "Ok.. this is what I meant. Everyone has been attacking Shotty. We have not even had a proper discussion as to who else might be mafia. I don't mean to put any blame towards you. I'm just using you as an example of where I'm coming from in the following sentence". Does this sound familiar? It's one of many examples where Hinduragi tries not to "attract animosity". But if Switz were Hinduragi's partner, then Hinduragi wouldn't need to be afraid of attracting Switz's animosity!

Then there is Hinduragi's post #269. archaebob had asked Hinduragi to share thoughts on Switz. Hinduragi did it and in the following paragraph told archaebob: "I'm not really sure what your game is so far. I suspect you to be pro-town but you could just as well be this aggressive every game regardless of your faction. Do you have any past games where you are mafia?". However, Switz misunderstood who that was addressed to and answered: "Sorry, I don't have any other finished games on this site, mafia or otherwise. And I haven't played online in years, so I honestly don't even know where I'd find old ones, but I'd hope my ability to play games like this has improved/changed since then, so it probably wouldn't help anyways".

Now, Switz could have misunderstood that regardless of role in the game. The important thing is that Switz's answer sounds completely honest (at least to me) - almost like a defence. And why would Switz need to make an honest defence against a mafia partner?

Finally, a point which may be minor but still - Hinduragi's post #293. At the end of Hinduragi's previous post, Hinduragi comments on Prox's post... but talks to Switz, not Prox. I must admit that during the game I have also mixed up Prox and Switz once or twice. The thing is - is it likely that Hinduragi would mix up a mafia partner and an innocent townsperson?

I'm not sure whether these points prove that Switz is not Hinduragi's mafia partner. But I think they show that other possibilities should also be considered.

I'll now talk about silverbullet999.

silverbullet999, I previously asked you something but maybe you missed it because it was in my longest post. So - when you voted for me, you said: "I didn't throw a vote as I wanted to see Good's reactions and if he would actually change... throwing my vote on him now cause it's obvious he won't and I'll be suspicious of him the whole game". Why did you say that you'll be suspicious of me the whole game as if that's a bad thing? Shouldn't you be suspicious (at least to some extent) of every player during the whole game?

By the way, there is something about the interaction between archaebob and silverbullet999 that's been bothering me. In post #235 archaebob says this about Haylen: "For example, her most recent post sounds a little pressured, and seems to have been at least partially a reaction to the votes on her". In the very next post silverbullet999 questions which post archaebob is talking about. Much, much later archaebob cites Haylen's post that sounded pressured to archaebob... However, that post of Haylen is post #246 - i.e., it was made AFTER archaebob initially mentioned that a post by Haylen sounded pressured! I'm puzzled by archaebob's action. However, it seems even stranger to me that silverbullet999 quickly agreed with archaebob that that post sounded pressured and didn't even bother to check the chronology... While after archaebob's original mention of a pressured post by Haylen in post #235, silverbullet999 immediately checked the chronology to point out that Haylen's LAST post at the time wasn't pressured...

I have already said that silverbullet999's approach towards this game is not very active and seems "planned" in a way. I don't think that in and of itself shows whether someone is a mafioso. However, this approach has allowed silverbullet999 to selectively comment on just a few things during the game. Switz makes a good point about the small number of interactions between silverbullet999 and Hinduragi. silverbullet999, why didn't you share any thoughts on Hinduragi's situation - especially after archaebob's and foilist13's initial accusations against Hinduragi?

I also find silverbullet999's post #280 interesting. I think its main purpose was to show more contribution than usual. And yes, most of the other players in the game are mentioned in this post. But there are comments only about a few of them - Haylen, me and drmyshottyizsik - the ones who had already been discussed a lot. And Prox isn't mentioned at all in this post. As a whole, there are several players silverbullet999 has interacted very little with - Prox, Switz, Hinduragi... I think a probable explanation is that when asked about the lack of interactions with Hinduragi (the partner), silverbullet999 would be able to use this as excuse: "But there were other players I didn't interact with much, either!"...

And, unlike the case with Switz and Hinduragi, the interactions between silverbullet999 and Hinduragi don't make it look less likely that they are partners. I'll say it again - archaebob's analysis of Hinduragi's play (that Hinduragi was trying to avoid suspicion) was valid for the beginning of the game - until the moment archaebob and foilist13 appeared. Before that point, as I showed, Hinduragi had talked to Switz using exactly this style - trying not to "attract animosity".

However, before archaebob's and foilist13's arrival, Hinduragi hadn't used the same style when talking to silverbullet999... because Hinduragi hadn't mentioned silverbullet999 at all! Yes, at the beginning of the game Hinduragi didn't mention silverbullet999 even once! The first time Hinduragi did it was in the post provoked by archaebob where Hinduragi put silverbullet999 as the third most likely player to be a mafioso...

Of course, this doesn't prove 100% that silverbullet999 is Hinduragi's mafia partner. But people shouldn't be focusing only on Switz (or silverbullet999). I believe that all possibilities should be explored. However, I think what I have written so far is enough for now.

[Good and Honest]

Hello Kison! That must have been a dream scenario - you enter and immediately give town the win!

As I said earlier, in both of my previous games on this forum the town lost and I think the reason for this was that everyone focused just on a couple of players who were quickly lynched and as a result there wasn't enough information. In this game, the completely opposite happened - we used much of the time we were given and many players were discussed thoroughly. That certainly helped the town win.

At the beginning of the game, I almost had a feeling it was a team effort against drmyshottyizsik - Prox attacked drmyshottyizsik, Switz agreed with the attack, Hinduragi presented a case against drmyshottyizsik, everybody congratulated Hinduragi for the case... While I was happy that people were actively investigating, I didn't think concentrating so much just on drmyshottyizsik was a good idea. I also quite early decided that yes, Prox, Switz and Hinduragi sounded logical while drmyshottyizsik sounded illogical - but that alone didn't show who could be a mafioso. A logical person should sound logical regardless of role in the game and vice versa. drmyshottyizsik seemed like an easy target. So I thought it was more likely that one or more of Prox, Switz and Hinduragi was a mafioso than drmyshottyizsik being one.

I did notice something strange about silverbullet999 at the time and I commented on it - silverbullet999 unvoted me but then seemed to encourage drmyshottyizsik to keep voting me. I asked silverbullet999 about that situation and I wasn't really convinced by the answer but I wasn't sure what more I could ask so I decided to leave it at that.

Then archaebob and foilist13 came... and changed the game completely. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if the two players they replaced had remained in the game...

I was flabbergasted by archaebob's and foilist13's immediate accusations against Hinduragi. Before that I had just assumed this was simply Hinduragi's writing style... But Hinduragi's reaction to the accusations didn't impress me at all. It really sounded like: "How did they manage to catch me?"... I was puzzled that Hinduragi placed archaebob and foilist13 as the least likely to be mafiosi - just because they attacked Hinduragi?!

Hinduragi, it will be interesting for me to know whether you would have used the same style you did at the beginning of the game if you weren't a mafioso. As I noted, after the attacks against you, your style changed - you became somehow more aggressive and interrogative. I think that if you hadn't changed, it would have been easier for me to believe that your style in the beginning was simply a result of your personality.

A thought that crossed my mind at the time was that archaebob or foilist13 could be a mafioso trying to bring attention to Hinduragi so said attention wouldn't be on their partner... I even thought: "What if archaebob and foilist13 are mafia partners?"... but, of course, I knew that it would be an extremely big statistical coincidence if both replacements in the game were mafiosi. Still, I was confused when archaebob expressed suspicion of foilist13 and I wondered what that could mean about these theories of mine.

Then, of course, there was Haylen's behaviour. I had noticed that Haylen almost hadn't participated at all in the discussions and then made those strange last posts... At that time I was thinking of two possible mafia teams: Haylen-drmyshottyizsik and Haylen-Prox. Reasons for the first team: Haylen had remained inactive while people were focusing on drmyshottyizsik and there was drmyshottyizsik's post #175 which asked specifically Haylen to unvote Prox and vote Hinduragi. I also thought that could be the explanation for the unexplained vote for drmyshottyizsik in Haylen's last post.

However, I was much more convinced of the Haylen-Prox team. The only thing Haylen did in the beginning was vote for Prox in a somewhat pecuilar manner. And then Prox brought that up on several occasions during the game... Also, in Haylen's last post, Haylen told Prox: "You have no idea how pissed off I'm getting over people twisting my words. I seriously advise you to stop" - I thought that was another instance of distancing from a mafia partner. And, of course, there was this famous sentence of Haylen's: "I am pretty sure that Switz is town, if he is scum, then he has been coached by experienced scum in the quicktopic". I really couldn't understand the purpose of that sentence. My only interpretation was that it was meant to bring attention to Switz and AWAY from Prox - the real person whom the experienced Haylen had "coached" in the QuickTopic...

The interactions between archaebob and silverbullet999 had also caught my attention. It definitely looked like silverbullet999 voted for me just because archaebob asked why silverbullet999 wasn't voting. And I have already commented on how puzzling silverbullet999's reasons for the vote were: "I'll be suspicious of him the whole game". One is supposed to be at least a little suspicious of each other player... And then there was that "silverbullet999 strikes back" moment which I'll discuss below.

So, Seraphim replaced Haylen. I was really surprised that Seraphim immediately accused drmyshottyizsik - I would have expected that Seraphim had previously come across other players with peculiar behaviour (and that doesn't automatically make them mafiosi)... Then Seraphim switched accusations to Prox - so Seraphim attacked the two players who I suspected could be mafia partners with Haylen. What did that mean?... And after that Seraphim claimed to be a "Cop". I didn't know what to think about that - as I stated, in my opinion, Haylen's behaviour didn't make sense as a "Cop"... I supposed that Seraphim thought the situation was critical because of the "legacy" Haylen had left so only a "Cop" claim could help... But still, that was a huge risk which I wasn't sure Seraphim as a mafioso would take.

At that time Switz made an "impulsive" vote for Hinduragi. I was shocked because I wouldn't expect Switz to do something out of the blue like that. It seemed to me just like an excuse to vote someone... I had no idea what Switz's intentions were.

But things didn't look good for Prox, who had become the centre of attention. And I did think it was likely that Prox was a mafioso - especially with the contradiction I pointed out where Prox voted/placed a "Finger of Suspicion"/unvoted Haylen... But then Prox made those explanation posts... Seraphim said "That entire last post was a giant batch of Appeal to Emotion that doesn't convince anyone of your town-ness"... However, I was convinced to a large extent that Prox was an innocent townsperson by those posts (who knows, maybe I'm too sensitive?). They just sounded so honest to me...

Hinduragi, when you explained why Prox couldn't possibly be a mafioso, that didn't make me suspect Prox more, it just made me find your behaviour stranger. Although, who knows what I might have thought about that if Prox had survived until Day 2...

Let me now return to silverbullet999. I had observed how during the whole game silverbullet999 was playing very quietly. I had the feeling that silverbullet999 may have a "power role" and that's why I didn't comment on silverbullet999's behaviour for a long while. But then I thought: "OK, silverbullet999 might have a "power role" but might just as well be a mafioso. And in that case I'll really regret it if I don't comment on silverbullet999's behaviour..."

So I compared the way silverbullet999 played in this game to the ones in Newbie 940 and Newbie 965. I found many similarities between Newbie 940 and our current game - silverbullet999 was relatively inactive in both but had "silverbullet999 stikes back" moments... However, everything in Newbie 940 seemed natural because that was silverbullet999's first game. Here, as I stated, everything seemed "planned" - as if silverbullet999's idea was to replicate the behaviour from Newbie 940 but in an even more quiet way.

There was also that remarkable post #280. It definitely felt like silverbullet999 was saying: "I wasn't very active so far because I was observing things. The time has come for me to share my observations, here they are!"... but, in fact, silverbullet999 just made a few comments on the players that had already been discussed a lot. That seemed to me like a simulation of contribution.

I have recently also come to realize something else that was strange about silverbullet999's behaviour - silverbullet999's interactions with Haylen and foilist13 weren't real interactions at all; they were based solely on past experience together.

I said it would be curious if once again the person who had experienced the "silverbullet999 strikes back" moment (in this case - archaebob) turned out to be a mafioso. silverbullet999's reaction was: "How would you feel if I was correct?" - which I found interesting because I thought it sounded like it was meant to imply not so subtly that silverbullet999 was an innocent townsperson...

Anyway, Hinduragi committed suicide and I knew why - so that the partner wouldn't need to comment on Hinduragi's situation. Which meant that the partner was most probably a player who hadn't had the chance to react - Switz or silverbullet999 (or even archaebob)...

When the night came, I thought there were only two possibilities for who would be killed - Seraphim (if the "Cop" claim was true) or I. After all, if I survived until Day 2 and another player was killed during the night, that would prove that I'm not a mafioso. So I wasn't even excluding the possibility that no one would be killed... As a result, I was baffled that Prox was killed.

And then archaebob immediately presented a remarkable case on Switz. I must admit, at that time I thought: "Oh no, if Switz is indeed a mafioso, archaebob has single-handedly solved the case!"... Which, of course, would have been a great achievement for archaebob (who, after all, was the one to discover Hinduragi), but I wouldn't have felt like I have helped find the solution. So I hoped archaebob was wrong about Switz...

After that Switz appeared and immediately noted that the fact that someone was killed during the night proved I wasn't a mafioso... This made Switz more likely to be an innocent townsperson in my eyes because I didn't think a mafioso would be willing to point that out.

When I made my last post, I just wanted to examine Switz and silverbullet999. I planned to comment on Seraphim in my next post (after Seraphim appeared, of course) because that was another main suspect - especially for surviving the night.

As I said, I was confused when archaebob showed silverbullet999 the post by Haylen that sounded "pressured" but was made after archaebob's initial comment. I thought archaebob might have made a mistake but I also felt that could have been a trap for silverbullet999 - I just didn't know whether archaebob set that trap as a mafioso or as an innocent townsperson... But the fact is, silverbullet999 accepted that and didn't bother to check the chronology of the posts - after having done it previously. My interpretation (although I didn't state it in my last post) was that silverbullet999 wasn't actually that interested in examining archaebob - which meant that all of silverbullet999's previous interactions with archaebob, especially the "silverbullet999 strikes back" moment, were most probably simply a simulation of activity.

I'm really proud that I found those things in the Switz-Hinduragi interactions which I said made it less likely that they were mafia partners. Yes, it wasn't 100% evidence but I was proven right.

I must admit that I don't like obvious solutions. That's why even after my last post I was hoping the solution would be something unexpected - for example, if the second mafioso was drmyshottyizsik, archaebob or foilist13. I thought that if someone is going to replace into a game and immediately attack their partner (who had previously stayed away from attention), that would be an experienced player like archaebob and foilist13. After all, archaebob unvoted Hinduragi soon after the initial attack and switched attention to Haylen...

As for foilist13 - one of the main reasons for my suspicion was Hinduragi's last post before Day 1 was over: "Anyways, I just have one last thing to say: Kudos to foilist for keeping his case on me"... I believed the idea was to make any connection between Hinduragi and foilist13 seem absolutely unlikely... Hinduragi, I'd really like to know whether with that post you intended to cast some suspicion over foilist13.

Anyway, as much as I enjoyed my unlikely theories, I knew that the choice would most probably be between Switz and silverbullet999. I had shown evidence that Switz may not be Hinduragi's partner. The more I thought about it, the more I realized there was NO such evidence for silverbullet999 - NOTHING proved that silverbullet999 couldn't be Hinduragi's partner. And, when I came here, it was indeed revealed that silverbullet999 was the second mafioso.

I have to say once more that during the period of time when I made post #200 I was feeling really, really bad. I hope I'll never experience something similar again in a game of Mafia. But otherwise, I did enjoy our current game. It was very interesting to see how everything seemed to suddenly change from time to time. What I loved the most was how the whole time I felt that every solution, even the most unlikely, was possible. This feeling was fantastic - and it was great trying to explore in my mind all of these different possibilities...

By the way, Haylen, don't think I've forgotten - you promised you'd take notes throughout the game and I really want to see them!

Finally, does anyone remember that I said this in the beginning: "Well, I see that some of you have said why they love our moderator... I'll tell you all why I love KittyMo when the game ends!"? KittyMo, I love you because, while I know it was all random, I once again received a "Vanilla Townie" role. I didn't really want to have a "power role" because, as I explained, I think I prefer relying only on my thoughts to having some special abilities... and I certainly didn't want at all to be a mafioso! So you (unknowingly) contributed to my playing experience!

Thank you all for playing with me!

And thank you, KittyMo and Excedrin, for moderating our game!

[Good and Honest]

Thank you for your words, foilist 13!

silverbullet999, I have definitely seen mafiosi on this forum suicide in a manner similar to Hinduragi's - as far as I understand, exactly to help their partner.

Prox, I haven't taken physical notes of the game but I guess you can say that I've been taking mental notes...

By the way, I planned to mention something in my previous post but somehow didn't so here it is:

In my post about Switz and silverbullet999, I said: "As a whole, there are several players silverbullet999 has interacted very little with - Prox, Switz, Hinduragi... I think a probable explanation is that when asked about the lack of interactions with Hinduragi (the partner), silverbullet999 would be able to use this as excuse: "But there were other players I didn't interact with much, either!"...". I have the feeling that silverbullet999 didn't see that - in the post used as a defence against Switz's case, silverbullet999 made exactly that excuse - not having interacted with Switz... I would have certainly pointed that out but, as it turned out, the case was solved in the meantime...