Mini #1007 (Game Over)

[Good and Honest]

Hello, fellow townspeople!

This is my first Mini Normal game. It will be very interesting for me to experience how it differs from Newbie games...

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.

drmyshottyizsik, isn't it funny that we're participating in two games at the same time?

Hoopla, I waited for each other player to post so you could get reactions to your claim. I hope you won't mind that I'll speak now.

In case you are wondering what Hoopla is doing, look at Mini 973 (including the post-game comments). Hoopla, well done for making that game so memorable! By the way, you'll notice that in my first game, which I linked to, yabbaguy and I commented on Mini 973 in the post-game comments!

AGar and gonnano, I had also read Mini 992 where you both participated - that was another very interesting game!

Vel-Rahn Koon, I know that you don't participate in many games so I'm glad I'm able to play with you! Don't worry, I'll comment more on the things you ask later, for now I just wanted to make the revelation about Hoopla.

I really hope you'll all enjoy this game!

[Good and Honest]

Hoopla, did you actually know that I knew about Mini 973? If I hadn't mentioned it, would you have unclaimed and if so, when?

It's difficult for me to investigate the other players' reactions to Hoopla's claim because, unlike them, I wasn't taking it into consideration at all. I knew from Mini 973 that Hoopla was interested in what would happen in future games that also have someone claim "Paranoid Gun Owner" right from the start; so when Hoopla did this in our current game, I knew that the idea was to get reactions from the other players as well as test that experiment. I think that Hoopla would have done this regardless of role in the game.

The dialogue between Hoopla and AGar in the beginning seemed somewhat strange to me - especially the last few posts where AGar was claiming not to have read that post by Amished (about Hoopla's "Miller" claim in Mini 909), in spite of having replied to it. I'm not sure what the purpose of AGar's actions was.

As I have already said, I'm also playing in another game with drmyshottyizsik. From what I have seen here, this is typical drmyshottyizsik behaviour. I must admit I don't approve of people discussing drmyshottyizsik's fate like that. It must be very discouraging for a player to read how the other players are planning to get rid of them... I think drmyshottyizsik must be given a chance - there is still enough time to interact with drmyshottyzsik and hopefully receive more information this way.

ConfidAnon, I agree with your idea that people shouldn't focus on just one or two players. However, like Kid Know Nothing pointed out, at the time you voted for gonnano, I hadn't even posted once yet. Were there other players apart from gonnano who you considered were "under the radar" and if so, why did you choose exactly gonnano? Also, you say you wanted to add another name to the discussion - was it gonnano's name that you had in mind? Because I have the feeling that by what you did you actually added your name to the discussion, not gonnano's...

About keeping an open mind and considering all possibilities - I guess it depends on personality and preferences but I don't see anything wrong with it.

Elleran, I'm confused by your statement that Hoopla and AGar can easily understand each other's strategies. What conclusion have you reached from this?

AlmasterGM, I have read your posts a few times and I can't seem to understand what exactly you found illogical - was it Hoopla's claim itself or this justification for it: "Knowing me, I'd be likelier to attract doctors and investigation roles if I didn't claim, though"? From your first post it sounds like it's the latter while your following posts seem to suggest it's the former...

Regarding liars - while it's completely opposite to my playstyle, I realize that sometimes a player might be dishonest with the idea to help the town. Two examples of this are the already mentioned: in Mini 973 Hoopla claimed to be a "Paranoid Gun Owner" while actually being a "Vengeful Townie"; and in Mini 992 gonnano claimed to have a special doctor role while actually being a "One-Shot Bulletproof Townie"...

[Good and Honest]

I'm posting just to say that I'm emotionally drained by the other game I'm playing with drmyshottyizsik (no, it has nothing to do with drmyshottyizsik's behaviour). I don't know when I'll post here again...

[Good and Honest]

Well, I'm feeling better now.

Elleran, I agree about the dialogue between Hoopla and AGar at the beginning of the game - it seemed strange to me, too. And mostly some of AGar's actions. I see that Kid Know Nothing has also brought this up and AGar still hasn't commented on it, so now I'll directly ask: AGar, what was your purpose when you were trying to prove to Hoopla that you might not have read that post by Amished which mentioned Hoopla's "Miller" claim?

gonnano, your questions are quite interesting. My intentions are that when I say something, it's going to be true. That doesn't mean I'm going to say absolutely everything that's on my mind. To better understand you, I think you should give me an example of "a half-truth with the intent of deceiving people" and "an untruth without the intent to deceive" - I must admit I haven't really thought about such nuances.

drmyshottyizsik, I'll also suggest that if you're not interested in this game, maybe it's better to replace out?

drmyshottyizsik's behaviour continues to not surprise me. All these unpredictable actions that you're seeing are already "predictably unpredictable" for me. I'm not even going to take into consideration drmyshottyizsik's role claims. If something seems unusual, it's that in this game drmyshottyizsik has made almost no comments. But that can definitely be explained by a lack of interest. I also think all these sudden votes are a result of boredom. Still, drmyshottyizsik, if you're willing to continue to play, why don't you share some thoughts and observations on what has happened? Also, it would be nice if you expand on what little you have already said. What are the reasons you suspect AlmasterGM... or have you already changed your mind about that?

I have already said that I don't approve of people discussing how to get rid of drmyshottyizsik. This is quite an easy target. I don't see what huge problems drmyshottyizsik can cause. I don't think drmyshottyizsik is really going to be able to influence anyone much (sorry, drmyshottyizsik). The only danger might come from these sudden votes - but the players here should now be aware of this. So I'm not impressed with those who have been most eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik - Zachrulez and, to a smaller extent, AlmasterGM. On the other hand, I find it good that some players haven't supported at all any drastic measures against drmyshottyizsik - like redtail896 and Vel-Rahn Koon (who has recently stated that drmyshottyizsik should just be ignored). gonnano is against getting rid of drmyshottyizsik - but that's because gonnano believes drmyshottyizsik's "Doctor" claim. gonnano, if drmyshottyizsik is not a "Doctor", would your position change?

Elleran, I can perfectly accept your explanation for unvoting Hoopla. However, it's exactly because there is nothing shocking about that explanation that I'm wondering why you wanted to keep it to yourself and only reveal it on Day 2?

There is also something about your response to redtail896 that confuses me. You say: "At the time I posted the first post, I was thoroughly convinced that Hoopla was lying and was a scum who simply claimed for protection". However, at the time you posted that post (where you stated that you supported lynching liars), Hoopla had already unclaimed. Why would you think at that point that Hoopla wanted protection?

I looked at Newbie 957, which Hoopla linked to. From what I saw, Elleran was lynched for being inconsistent and making mistakes... So maybe this is just typical for Elleran.

There is also another remarkable thing. In Newbie 957, there was a player with an unpredictable behaviour who claimed to be a mafioso at one stage. Elleran seemed to believe that that player was actually an innocent townsperson (and that was the case indeed). In our current game we have another player with an unpredictable behaviour - drmyshottyizsik. And, even more curiously, drmyshottyizsik also claimed to be a mafioso. Elleran's reaction was "I don't know what to make of this". I think that, especially considering the situation with the aforementioned player in Newbie 957, the fact that Elleran didn't attack drmyshottyizsik speaks well for Elleran.

Hoopla, you say it's likely that there is a "Mafia Roleblocker" in this game. I know you love statistics about the game of Mafia so are you basing this supposition on statistics (and if so, would you share them?) or do you have other reasons to think so?

ConfidAnon, I'm puzzled by your latest post. You're not stating much in it; don't you have any other thoughts on the game you'd like to share? And is it just a coincidence that this latest post of yours is a reply to gonnano - the player you voted previously to "add another name to the discussion"?

Now I have seen the latest developments. Hoopla, I really don't like your plan, mainly because I find it hard to believe what drmyshottyizsik says. I think it's very possible that drmyshottyizsik is an innocent townsperson but NOT a "Doctor"...

[Good and Honest]

AGar, let me start with this sentence of yours - "In this post, G&H demonstrates the scummy tactics of not reading the entire thread, while projecting the same issue onto another player who is, by default, unlikely to be their buddy". I don't understand this part - "while projecting the same issue onto another player" - do you mean that I have stated a particular player hasn't read the entire thread???

Also, the fact that something is pretty clear to you doesn't mean it's clear to everyone else. I don't see what harm it would have done to you if you simply answered my question - like you did in post #60, where you answered Hoopla's question, in spite of already having talked about what Hoopla asked you. In that situation, you didn't refuse to answer and tell Hoopla to "Go back, read the thread, and try again later".

I have read the thread. And what is clear to me is that in your early dialogue with Hoopla you tried to prove that Hoopla couldn't have known that you remembered Mini 909 and the "Miller" claim. However, Hoopla provided very convincing evidence of knowing that - and when Hoopla showed your reply to Amished's post mentioning the "Miller" claim, I thought that would be the end of the discussion. The fact that you at that point continued arguing, claiming that you might not have read a post you had replied to, shocked me. I really couldn't understand why you would go to such extremes.

The only explanation of yours I could find was this: "I'm arguing it because you're basically trying to say you know how I think, and that makes your actions pro-town". But this also seems baffling to me. First, I don't understand why you're saying it as if it's a bad thing!? Second, I have noticed this in other games as well - you seem to be uncomfortable when a player's comments on you are based on what that player has observed from you in other games. I guess this feeling of discomfort might have affected you during this dialogue with Hoopla and might have contributed to the fact that it seemed strange to me.

So a person might have read the entire thread and might yet not find everything pretty clear. I still find some of your actions during that dialogue confusing.

By the way, Hoopla, since AGar mentioned "you know how I think", I'm noticing something I hadn't really paid attention to before - you did say "I did this even knowing you would bring this up". Yes, you knew that AGar remembered your "Miller" claim - but why were you sure AGar would bring it up?

AGar, regarding my quote which you found odd - I'm emotional about drmyshottyizsik's situation. This is not the only game in which I'm witnessing drmyshottyizsik's behaviour and that behaviour is constantly attacked. Personally, I don't really mind what drmyshottyizsik is doing, when there are different players with different personalities and different playstyles, that only makes the game more interesting. And, as I said, I find drmyshottyizsik's behaviour relatively harmless. So I'm feeling bad when people are discussing so directly how to get rid of drmyshottyizsik.

gonnano, thank you for your examples! From the ice cream example I'm getting that you are talking about saying unrelated things which are intended to seem related to the other players. Well, it's not my strategy to do such things but I can't say with absolute certainty I'll never do it. Not to mention that sometimes even I myself am not sure whether two adjacent sentences I have written are linked or not...

From the "24 days in a week" example I'm getting that you're talking about jokes and ironical statements which are not meant to be taken literally. Well, I'm actually sure I'll be doing these. I have thought about specifying that I'm joking but I won't make such specifications absolutely every time. If you're wondering whether I'm joking in a particular situation, just ask!

I have thought about whether in some cases I'll say whether I have a particular role or not. I must say I haven't really reached a conclusion yet.

I'm sorry that I won't be able to help you but I really don't want to think about who I would vote for.

By the way, why were you so obsessed with me before my previous post? You constantly asked about me...

Elleran, in my previous post I asked you a couple of questions. Would you, please, answer them?

ConfidAnon, two days ago you promised to make a "substantial" post soon. I'm still looking forward to it!

[Good and Honest]

Are you all waiting for me? Although here it's a question of simply saying whether I'm a "Doctor" (or something similar) or not, I'm not going to participate. Sorry. I hope the fact that a single player doesn't participate won't cause too many problems.

May I know why some of you are so eager to lynch Elleran as quickly as possible? We should use the time given to us. In my previous games (don't worry, AGar, they're both finished) the fact that someone was lynched without having as much discussion and interactions between the players as possible had very bad consequences.

I have the feeling that Elleran may have given up. Elleran, you still haven't answered my questions so I'll copy and paste them:

"Elleran, I can perfectly accept your explanation for unvoting Hoopla. However, it's exactly because there is nothing shocking about that explanation that I'm wondering why you wanted to keep it to yourself and only reveal it on Day 2?

There is also something about your response to redtail896 that confuses me. You say: "At the time I posted the first post, I was thoroughly convinced that Hoopla was lying and was a scum who simply claimed for protection". However, at the time you posted that post (where you stated that you supported lynching liars), Hoopla had already unclaimed. Why would you think at that point that Hoopla wanted protection?"

Also, you insist on suspecting Hoopla because of the claim and unclaim. Why? As I explained, basing my explanation on Mini 973, I think Hoopla would have made the "Paranoid Gun Owner" claim here regardless of role - if not for anything else, just to test that theory of what would happen if claiming "Paranoid Gun Owner" right from the start of a game becomes a trend. Did you consider my point?

As I said, in Newbie 957 Elleran seemed to be lynched for being inconsistent and making mistakes - something similar to what Elleran has been accused of in our current game - yet Elleran was a "Townie" there. I don't understand why no one has commented on that - even Hoopla, who actually linked to that game.

I have already stated that in my opinion drmyshottyizsik was an easy target. I do think the mafia would be likely to want to get rid of drmyshottyizsik - regardless of drmyshottyizsik's role. Yes, even if drmyshottyizsik actually were a mafioso (I'm speaking theoretically; not taking into consideration Hoopla's 14% statistics). If I understand correctly, AlmasterGM also seems to think so according to post number #231. But then I find it interesting that AlmasterGM says that after having discussed so openly getting rid of drmyshottyizsik...

AGar puzzles me. First, there was that famous dialogue with Hoopla. Then I found some of the interactions between AGar and gonnano strange - they were a mix of attacks, accusations and jokes... I feel they were both influenced at least a little by Mini 992, where they both participated. And then there is AGar's attitude towards me. I stated that I couldn't understand the purpose of some of AGar's actions during the dialogue with Hoopla - no reaction. I asked directly and AGar refused to answer, claiming that everything was pretty clear. I explained in detail that at least to me it wasn't clear... and AGar announced not wanting to communicate with me. That may go on for the rest of the game - AGar might always say: "You're still not using half a neuron, I'm not going to address you". AGar, your fellow players are not enemies. We're all supposed to enjoy this game together!

So I find AGar's interactions with some players peculiar. I'm also not happy with how AGar seems to be so eager to quickly lynch Elleran.

Hoopla, you didn't answer me why you were sure AGar would bring up your "Miller" claim.

Vel-Rahn Koon looked very investigative in the beginning (which was good) but not so much later on - possibly because of little time? Vel-Rahn Koon, at one point you said: "I get the feeling that the Alamaster/AGar battle is a Town v. Town scenario". Very soon after that you expressed dislike of one of AlmasterGM's posts during that "battle" and voted AlmasterGM. What is your current opinion on that situation surrounding AlmasterGM?

gonnano, you noted the quick succession of votes for Hoopla and AlmasterGM. Why didn't you note it when the same thing happened with Elleran on page 10?

Zachrulez hasn't really done much so far. Zachrulez was the most eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik (once again, I'm not impressed with that at all) and in general, as others also have mentioned, has focused quite a lot on drmyshottyizsik. Zachrulez also made some comments on AlmasterGM and that was basically all. Zachrulez, what are your observations on ConfidAnon so far?

ConfidAnon is another player who hasn't done much. There was the vote for gonnano to "add another name to the discussion"; then ConfidAnon made a short statement in response to one of gonnano's posts, which I thought was again with the intention to bring attention to gonnano... but, interestingly, more recently ConfidAnon has mentioned not thinking gonnano had a strong reaction to ConfidAnon's vote. Otherwise, ConfidAnon has made a couple of remarks and that's basically all. ConfidAnon, what are your observations on Zachrulez so far?

Kid Know Nothing, it was very interesting for me to read your detailed thoughts on what happened during the first few pages of the game. I'm hoping to see a continuation!

[Good and Honest]

Espeonage, please don't close the thread yet. I'm going to write a post now, it shouldn't take too long.

[Good and Honest]

I would have posted less than ten minutes after the moment Espeonage closed the thread... For my standards that wasn't "too long". Anyway, I'll start with the things I wanted to say then.

I'm really disappointed with the reactions towards my post #311. I hoped the thoughts I shared would lead to more discussion... Instead, many people concentrated solely on the first paragraph where I refused to participate. At least thank you to those of you who answered my questions.

Some of you asked why I didn't object to Hoopla's plan earlier. I actually did - at the end of my post #221, soon after the plan was originally presented. However, whether I approved of the plan or not has nothing to do with the fact that I refused to participate in the mass claim.

As I have said, I intend to always be honest when playing a game of Mafia. So, in general, I won't reveal what my role in a particular game is. In our current game, I was only supposed to say whether I'm a "Doctor" (or something similar) or not - but that still has something to do with my role. I have to say it - I don't plan to NEVER reveal my role. In fact, I can think of special situations when I'll do it. This is also my answer to Hoopla's question at the end of Day 1 - that will really depend on the situation.

It might also be a question of principles - I want to reveal my role when the stimulus comes from the inside (i.e., when I decide that I'm willing to do it in a special situation) and not from the outside (i.e., when someone asks me about my role or there is a mass claim).

So, as you can see, my refusal to participate has nothing to do with our current game.

Some of you have also commented on the fact that I haven't voted so far. In my very first post in this game, I explained that I have a specific playstyle and gave you a link to my first game on this site, where I explain it in details. It looks like not many of you have bothered to check that link (at least gonnano did and I appreciate that). I'm only going to vote in a game of Mafia if the town can't win without my vote. So far, I have never voted on this forum. If the rules made it obligatory to vote, I wouldn't have registered here at all.

As I have stated in all of my games on this site, I realize that my playstyle might make the game less enjoyable for some players. So, if you don't like my playstyle, I have no problems if you vote for me.

I have to say I find something intriguing. After my post #311, the players who announced willingness to lynch me because of my refusal to participate were exactly the ones whose actions I had said I wasn't happy with (although AGar has since been shown to be an innocent townsperson)...

Hoopla, you say I have commented on "dated events" - if there are remarkable things that I want to discuss, does it matter when in the chronology of the game they have happened? I still want to know why you were sure that AGar would bring up your "Miller" claim.

I don't like how, before I refused to participate in the mass claim, Hoopla was so eager to quickly lynch Elleran. Especially since it was Hoopla who linked to Newbie 957, in which, as I explained, Elleran was a "Townie" and showed a similar behaviour to the one in our current game. Hoopla, if what got Elleran lynched in Newbie 957 didn't affect your willingness to lynch Elleran here, what was the point of bringing up Newbie 957 at all?

Let's also look at the way Hoopla's focus initially went on Elleran. Elleran said: "Hoopla, your tactic will undoubtedly attract townie power roles to you now that you unclaimed. I'm not so convinced your breadcrumb tactic. That could have been planned whether you were a town or scum". Hoopla's reply: "Sounds like scum trying to shoo the PR's into the corner on dear old Hoopla, so it stays off him. The point of the claim was to generate information in the day, you know, the only thing most of us townies can actually control". I find the reaction in the first sentence strong.

Then there is the quick succession of votes for Elleran on page 10. AGar is an innocent townsperson and drmyshottyizsik does such things all the time. But what about AlmasterGM? I'm not happy with the words AlmasterGM used in post #245. AlmasterGM, why did you actually vote for Elleran?

I'm glad that, after in post #311 I asked Zachrulez and ConfidAnon to share observations on each other, they have done it at the beginning of Day 2... However, that's also a little worrying. Maybe their interactions now are a result exactly of realizing that their lack of interactions on Day 1 is noteworthy?

I also find it curious that ConfidAnon and Zachrulez are both mentioning each other's not doing much during Day 1 when that seems to be true for both...

Vel-Rahn Koon, I have a question about your post #331. You say there "The most important point I want to make is that I feel that AGM's explanation makes sense to me and consequently I am removing my vote"... but you don't actually unvote. Was there any reason for that?

Also, you state this about ConfidAnon: "I think CA seemed to drift through the game as well yesterday". What would you say about Zachrulez in that regard? Do you think Zachrulez "drifted through the game" on Day 1?

ConfidAnon, do you have any observations on gonnano you'd like to share? And if so, did your actions towards gonnano on Day 1 help you achieve those observations?

gonnano, what would you say about ConfidAnon's behaviour towards you on Day 1?

Hoopla's latest statistics post is very interesting to read but, in the end, such analyses just show what may be more or less likely - as proven by the conclusions at the end. And more likely doesn't necessarily equate true. However, that post did bring my attention to a couple of things.

ConfidAnon, when you voted for AlmasterGM on Day 1, you said you really didn't like the quick succession of three votes for Elleran on page 10. However, you didn't explain why you voted particularly for the first of the three players participating in that succession.

Hoopla, I don't really understand this point of yours:

"Which makes the one/two scum on the wagon theory fit in a little bit better and also incriminates Zach (and I suppose me) at the back of the pack there. Though, in my defense, I was on a lot earlier and unvoted which sacrifices my true position/influence in the wagon"

You were the first to concentrate on Elleran and actively encouraged other people to do the same - you even stated at one point "Also, more people need to be paying attention to Elleran. Have a look, you won't be disappointed". Later you were ready to lynch Elleran as soon as the mass claim finishes. So your influence regarding the attention/votes for Elleran is big - and I don't see how the fact that you unvoted at some stage changes this.

Kid Know Nothing, it's a pity that what I have written hasn't been helpful for you. I hope other players have found it helpful. I don't really take into consideration drmyshottyizsik's "Doctor" claim. drmyshottyizsik made it out of boredom. As I have explained, whether that claim is true or not, I consider drmyshottyizsik relatively harmless.

However, drmyshottyizsik, I'll still be happy to read any thoughts you might have about this game.

[Good and Honest]

Hoopla, yes, I realize that if everyone had the same playstyle as me, nothing would happen as no one would ever be lynched. However, I think that not a lot of people have a similar playstyle as me - at least I haven't seen such people on this forum. I think that having a single player with a playstyle like mine in a game of Mafia wouldn't be such a problem.

Because, as I have said in my other games on this forum, the beauty of any game is that it can be played in so many different ways. What matters is to play in a way which you enjoy. That's what I'm doing. If I'm not allowed to play in this way, I just won't play. No, I won't encourage other players to adopt my playstyle - I'll encourage them to play in a way they enjoy.

In my other game with drmyshottyizsik (which has finished now) I have argued extensively whether my playstyle helps NO ONE. I completely disagree. I'm sharing thoughts on the game, I'm asking players questions... Each player sees what I write. I might notice something that no one else has; someone may find the answers given to my questions useful; someone can feel the need to comment on my comments... The result is that more information is gathered and everyone can take it into consideration.

Why should you answer my questions? Well, depending on your answer, I might make a comment or ask another question. And, in any case, your answer(s) will be there for everyone to see - which will be helpful for them.

Interestingly, in my other game with drmyshottyizsik people also suggested that this is not my only account here and that I'm experimenting with playstyles. That's wrong. This is my only account and I'm not experimenting because this playstyle is related to my personality and I have never played in any other way, nor am I willing to.

If some of you have been left with the impression that my first game on this site, which I linked to in my first post, is my ONLY other game here, that's not true. I have played in two other Newbie games (both over now) and, if you are interested, I'll give you links to them. My playstyle there is the same. In one of those games the mafiosi recognized me as a threat and killed me on Night 1, while in the other game I survived and I think I contributed to a certain extent to the town's win.

Hoopla, I agree with you when you say that this game is purely about probabilities. The thing is, when I'm solving a mystery case, I don't like obvious solutions. Wouldn't you agree that it would be most interesting/exciting if the least probable solution turns out to be the real one? That's why I prefer to explore all possibilities, not just concentrate on the most probable ones.

From your statistics post I was left with the impression that you consider a mafia team Zachrulez-Kid Know Nothing-ConfidAnon likely. But in post #399, you have replaced ConfidAnon with Vel-Rahn Koon. Why?

Also, it might be just your playstyle but it makes me feel uncomfortable - on Day 1 you were very eager to lynch Elleran and now you seem very eager to lynch Zachrulez...

...And Zachrulez's reaction is: "Better yet, lynch Good and Honest. Seriously, one post through the entirety of day 2?". Of course it would be better for you if I'm lynched than if you're lynched! I'm sure that if it weren't the "one post through the entirety of day 2", you would have found another "reason". You have made a number of very short posts during Day 2 - whether that's better than my one long post is entirely subjective.

Vel-Rahn Koon, you didn't answer my second question:

"Also, you state this about ConfidAnon: "I think CA seemed to drift through the game as well yesterday". What would you say about Zachrulez in that regard? Do you think Zachrulez "drifted through the game" on Day 1?"

Regarding your question - everything I wrote when Espeonage closed the thread was lost. It's actually covered just by the first part of my post #393, where I explain why I refused to participate in the mass claim. In my original lost post, I also addressed a couple of AGar's comments but I didn't do it again in post #393 because AGar is now "dead".

AlmasterGM, when you say that Kid Know Nothing has defended me, which point in time did you mean? Because, if you are talking about the beginning of Day 2, when Kid Know Nothing voted me, I had exactly the opposite feeling - Kid Know Nothing accused me for "the absolute lack of total content overall yesterday". If you're interpreting Kid Know Nothing's actions as a "defence", I'd like to hear more explanations why.

By the way, you didn't answer my question - what were the real reasons for your vote for Elleran (it surely wasn't just to "scare" Elleran more)?

Also, AlmasterGM, as other players have noted, it's not nice when you're calling people "stupid". The rules allow a playstyle like mine and I have the right to play the way I want to play - that doesn't make me "stupid". And I'm sure you can guess I'm not feeling happy that you're hoping I'll be banned.

Kid Know Nothing, that's just my writing style. I don't post often because I prefer to have more to comment on; I also love writing and sometimes it's diffucult to stop... By the way, I actually think your writing style is somewhat similar to mine - you don't post that often, either, and you have made a couple long posts (which I definitely enjoyed reading)... Also, if a thought of mine becomes less clear, just ask for a clarification.

You make an interesting observation about AlmasterGM's statement. However, earlier Hoopla had made a similar comment about it being likely that there is a "Mafia Roleblocker" and, after I asked, Hoopla presented statistics showing it's more likely that there is such a role than that there isn't. Of course, it's still good to have that statement of AlmasterGM's in mind.

gonnano, in my post #393 I did explain why I refused to participate. I summarized ConfidAnon's behaviour towards you earlier - first, ConfidAnon voted you to "add another name to the conversation"; then in post #144 ConfidAnon made a short remark on a post of yours and I perceived that again as trying to bring attention to you; but, finally, ConfidAnon stated that your reaction to ConfidAnon's vote wasn't strong at all. I wondered whether you'd have any comments on these actions of ConfidAnon.

When I asked you about the quick succession of votes for Elleran on page 10, you said: "Hoopla had been trying to get that wagon going for a long time already. After I joined in started to take off. My thoughts are that the scum were trying to see if they could get by with ignoring Elleran's scummy behavior, then when it looked like they might not get away with it they started showing more support for his bandwagon". Did you write that from the standpoint that Elleran was a mafioso?

drmyshottyizsik, would you explain what makes you think Zachrulez is a mafioso?

[Good and Honest]

Well, no one asked but I guess it'll do no harm if I post links to my other games. The link to my first game is in my post #70.

Here is my second game (where the mafiosi killed me on Night 1):

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14441

And here is my third game (with drmyshottyizsik; I survived):

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14637

Hoopla, I don't know where to start. If one plays soccer with only one's left foot or plays chess without using the queen... and if that's the only way one enjoys playing these games, what's the problem? It might become a problem if one wants to play these games professionally... But we're not professionals. No one is paying us for playing Mafia.

I really like playing table tennis. In school I played it a lot with my friends. I'm not sure of the correct terms but some of my friends noted that I was neved adding "spin" to the ball, I was always using "straight" shots. But that was the way I enjoyed playing. I didn't want to add "spin" to the ball. You might say that I was "sacrificing a necessary facet of the game". But none of my friends refused to play with me just because of that and I actually think many of our games were quite interesting.

Also, in our school yard you could often see students playing badminton or volleyball just by passing the feather/ball to one another. This way no one won or lost and you could say that was a "pointless exercise" - but the students still enjoyed it.

I don't understand why you think that if one is a mafioso, one HAS TO lie. Can't one just not take into consideration one's role and make honest observations based on what one reads in the thread (and probably what one has read in past games of the other players)?

Regarding your example of posting in Russian - I think players on this forum are supposed to write in English... Anyway, for me the question is this - if someone's playstyle is considered problematic, would that person enjoy the game playing in another (less problematic) way? If so, great. If not, why deny that person the right to enjoy the game? As I said, I wouldn't enjoy this game if I had to change my playstyle.

Also, it saddens me that, in spite of my explanations why you should continue to answer my questions, you state you're going to ignore me. After you have criticized me for supposedly not being helpful, don't you agree that you won't be helpful for the other players if you don't answer my questions and don't interact with me?

If that remains the case, I'm asking everyone: if you want to know the answer of some question I've asked Hoopla, repeat my question. Hopefully Hoopla will answer you...

AlmasterGM, you once again didn't address my comments/interrogating of you. About your question - I won't post anything in large, bold letters. You must have noticed that I have talked about some things I have found noteworthy about you, Hoopla, Zachrulez, (to a certain extent) ConfidAnon... But even if I haven't found something really remarkable about someone, that doesn't mean they're not a mafioso. I'm usually paying big attention to the interactions between the players - unfortunately, in our current game some players haven't really interacted with some other players. Of course, one of the reasons is the nature of Mini Normal games - it's more difficult for 12 players to interact with everyone than for 9 players (as is the case in Newbie games)... Although, sometimes lack of interactions is interesting in itself - something I hinted at about Zachrulez and ConfidAnon and then on Day 2 they immediately began to interact with each other...

Kid Know Nothing, I'll comment on this thought of yours: "with the fact that you won't vote unless absolutely necessary, you do lose one of the more beneficial tools any townie has in hunting, that being pressure. Someone won't feel obligated to answer you or even really acknowledge you if they know you aren't willing to vote them". To me it seems absurd that a player would answer a question only if they feel I'll otherwise vote them. We are all supposed to interact with each other and so we should generally answer each other's questions. In fact, if someone constantly neglects my questions/comments towards them, wouldn't that seem suspicious?

gonnano, a question you haven't addressed yet:

"When I asked you about the quick succession of votes for Elleran on page 10, you said: "Hoopla had been trying to get that wagon going for a long time already. After I joined in started to take off. My thoughts are that the scum were trying to see if they could get by with ignoring Elleran's scummy behavior, then when it looked like they might not get away with it they started showing more support for his bandwagon". Did you write that from the standpoint that Elleran was a mafioso?"

Also, what you have quoted from my post #393 is only a part of the explanation. The other part is the next paragraph:

"It might also be a question of principles - I want to reveal my role when the stimulus comes from the inside (i.e., when I decide that I'm willing to do it in a special situation) and not from the outside (i.e., when someone asks me about my role or there is a mass claim)"

By the way, I completely agree with you about asking the "right questions". I'm always open to questions, I just can't promise I'll answer all of them.

redtail896, on Day 1 you interrogated AlmasterGM quite a lot; now you have listed some notable things about Zachrulez's behaviour. In this context, what do you think of Hoopla's suggestion that EXACTLY ONE of them is a mafioso?

Also, when discussing the votes from Day 1, you mention that Hoopla considers gonnano an innocent townsperson. What about you? Do you have any thoughts on gonnano you'd like to share?

Vel-Rahn Koon, now I see your question. Apart from my three Newbie games here, I have only played several games once in real life. I talk about my real-life games of Mafia in my Newbie games here (in one of them I do that in an extremely detailed way) so, if you're interested, you can check them. If you're scared by my big posts there, feel free to ask me specific questions about my real-life games.

[Good and Honest]

Happy birthday, Hoopla! I wish you all the best! And, even if you sometimes come across players like me whose way of playing you don't approve of, may you always enjoy your games of Mafia!

drmyshottyizsik, in our other game you at least gave reasons for your suspicions. Could you please explain why you think Zachrulez is a mafioso?

redtail896, yes, soccer is a team game. So, if one wants to play by only using one's left foot, it's only fair to tell that to one's teammates from the beginning so they can adjust. Which is what I have done. I have done it in each of my games on this site and I intend to always do it - in my very first post in every game I participate in, I warn the other players about my playstyle.

Also, I realize very well that my teammates have the right to be angry. That's why I have said it in each of my games - if someone thinks my playstyle is making the game less enjoyable for them, they can vote for me.

By the way, I had a couple of questions for you. I hope you'll answer them.

gonnano, I'm surprised by your reaction. You yourself had previously stated that I have to be asked the "right questions" - when I said I can't promise I'll answer all questions, I was thinking mainly about questions like ConfidAnon's (which Zachrulez has brought up now and I'll talk more about this below). As I said, I'm always open to questions. And since it looks like you didn't understand my point about the stimulus coming from the inside, I'll explain in greater detail:

Since I want to always be honest, each time I reveal my role (or something about it) in a game of Mafia is going to be a remarkable event. I have been imagining some special situations where I'll do it and that will make that particular game very memorable... So, obviously, I want the stimulus for revealing (a part of) my role to be coming from the inside - if I answer questions about my role or participate in mass claims (i.e., when the stimulus comes from the outside), everything special about my revealing my role will be lost. And that will make the game less interesting for everyone, I think.

So my thoughts about the stimulus were solely related to my role in a game of Mafia. They had nothing to do with answering questions in general. After all, when one answers questions, the stimulus always comes from the outside - and, once again, I'm always open to questions.

I hope you'll now answer my question. I have an additional one - you're voting for Vel-Rahn Koon and one of the reasons you've given is that Vel-Rahn Koon voted and unvoted Elleran in quick succession. Why do you find that suspicious?

Vel-Rahn Koon, once again, I'll agree with gonnano that a mafioso doesn't HAVE TO lie. Let's imagine a mafioso in a particular game who, from reading the thread, gets the feeling that Player X looks the most suspicious. So the mafioso says that and might even vote for Player X. Technically, the mafioso would know that Player X is an innocent townsperson but from reading the thread the mafioso finds Player X the most suspicious. So if the mafioso says "I find Player X the most suspicious", wouldn't that be honest?

I like the example you've given with redtail896. Yes, I approve of what redtail896 has done so far - wasn't willing to get rid of drmyshottyizsik; investigated some players, pointing out contradictions in their posts. However, redtail896 hasn't given analysis on ALL of the other players in the game. In fact, it's exactly because I noticed that redtail896 hasn't commented on gonnano yet that I asked redtail896 my second question. The fact that in redtail896's next post there was no answer worries me a little... But I can't be sure what it means.

You're asking me about my honest opinion. The thing is, I don't like too definite statements that someone is a mafioso or not. There can be multiple explanations for everything. In my first game on this forum, at one point I presented my idea that two players were mafia partners. I was so proud at the time because I thought I had solved the case... But, as it turned out, neither of the two players were mafiosi and I felt stupid. It's probably not strange that I don't want to be wrong; moreover, I'd feel bad if I make strong accusations that prove to be wrong. Also, I think that when I make an observation about something, the observation itself is more valuable than whether I think it might mean someone is a mafioso. After all, every player can decide what they think about the observation - but they wouldn't have been able to if the observation didn't exist in the first place.

Still, in my answer to AlmasterGM in my previous post, I did mention some players whose behaviour has caught my attention and I guess there's no harm in explaining once again why:

AlmasterGM - seemed eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik; I said I wasn't happy with AlmasterGM's behaviour and AlmasterGM expressed willingness to lynch me at the end of Day 1; AlmasterGM still hasn't explained to me the real reasons for voting for Elleran.

Hoopla - was the main driving force behind Elleran's lynch; hasn't explained being THAT eager to lynch Elleran and especially bringing up Newbie 957 (where Elleran was lynched for a similar behaviour as a "Townie") if that wouldn't affect Hoopla's position towards Elleran; after I asked why some people were so eager to lynch Elleran as quickly as possible, Hoopla presented the idea of lynching me (supposedly simply for refusing to participate in the mass claim).

Zachrulez - seemed very eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik; I said I wasn't happy with Zachrulez's behaviour and Zachrulez expressed willingness to lynch me at the end of Day 1; didn't do much on Day 1 and only started interacting with ConfidAnon after I hinted at their lack of interactions.

ConfidAnon - I found ConfidAnon's actions towards gonnano strange; didn't do much on Day 1 and only started interacting with Zachrulez after I hinted at their lack of interactions.

Also, Vel-Rahn Koon, recently I have been wondering about you. In the beginning you were quite active; you weren't willing to get rid of drmyshottyizsik - good things. But you have been relatively inactive lately and you still haven't answered my question whether your comments towards ConfidAnon are also valid for Zachrulez. It seems to me like you're somehow avoiding to comment on Zachrulez.

But I'll say it once more - even if I haven't found something really noteworthy about a certain player, that doesn't automatically make them an innocent townsperson. I agree with Kid Know Nothing that one should always consider the possibility that each other player might be a mafioso.

AlmasterGM, I might not have done exactly what you wanted me to but I still shared thoughts which were related to your question. You, on the other hand, continually neglect my questions/comments towards you.

Regarding your comments towards me - did you actually look at my three other games, which I have linked to? In my opinion, the things you say I'm doing (or not doing) here are the same things that I've done (or not done) in my previous three games. If you find something about me in our current game which is different from my other games, you're welcome to say that.

About my "Good and Honest" playstyle - "good" means that I don't want to do "bad" things (this is mostly related to potential games where I'd be a mafioso); "honest" means that I don't want to lie - and later in post #456 you yourself state about me: "he supposedly can't lie". So I don't know what you're saying "No, no, no" to concerning my playstyle.

Also, AlmasterGM, you insist that Kid Know Nothing is "defending" me. First of all, if a player is defending another player, does that really reveal something about their roles? Second, even if certain posts by Kid Know Nothing can be counted as "defense", I think some of redtail896's posts can also be counted as "defense". Yet you have stated more than once that Kid Know Nothing is "defending" me but haven't said anything about redtail896 "defending" me. Why are you using such selectivity?

I want to say something about the discussion between Zachrulez and Kid Know Nothing regarding drmyshottyizsik - I think the reason drmyshottyizsik wasn't concerned about being lynched was that drmyshoyttyizsik was bored of this game. That has nothing to do with drmyshottyizsik's actual role in the game.

Zachrulez, you say the accusations against you completely ignore your approach to the game in general. Would you, please, explain what your approach to the game in general is?

I'm wondering why you thought that Elleran's lack of attention (especially with the evidence from Newbie 957) made it a "good chance" for Elleran to be a mafioso.

Also, I'm confused by this sentence of yours: "Quantity =/= Quality". Wouldn't that actually prove my point - that your numerous short posts (bigger in quantity) weren't necessarily better (in quality) than my single long post?

Finally, I'm shocked if you really expected me to answer ConfidAnon's question. I have received similar questions in all of my games on this site and I have never answered them. In fact, here is an explanation I gave in my first game:

"I'm not going to claim any role. I always want to be honest so whenever I say I have a certain role, that will be true. That's not a problem when I have a "good" role... But sometimes I'll probably be a mafioso and then I'd have to say "I'm a mafioso"... which, like I already said, would spoil the game for everyone. So obviously in those cases I'll have to remain silent. But then if I always claim that I have a "good" role when I do have a "good" role, people will logically conclude that in the games where I choose to remain silent, I'm a mafioso! So that doesn't help, either. Therefore, the solution is not to claim any role... unless the case is special, of course (I'm thinking mostly about situations that can occur during the late stages of the game)"

By the way, I asked something in my third game and no one really explained it to me so A QUESTION TO EVERYONE - if my playstyle is that "detrimental to the town", how come in my second game the mafiosi killed me on Night 1 and in the post-game comments they said they had considered me a threat to them?

I must admit I'm starting to despair. More and more of you seem to neglect my questions/comments towards them. That certainly didn't happen in my previous three games (one player announced they wouldn't read my posts until I vote but soon changed their mind)... You must realize that by neglecting my questions and comments you're preventing me from developing the discussion and thus less information is available for everyone.

Kid Know Nothing, I'm glad you seem to agree with me about my previous paragraph. I have to say that I don't mind it at all if people are discussing my playstyle but that certainly shouldn't be the only thing they're doing. In my first game Day 1 revolved mostly around discussions about my playstyle and, as a result, there was little information for the following days...

I have a couple of questions for you, Kid Know Nothing - you say that from Hoopla's perspective (regarding the votes on Day 1) at least one of you, ConfidAnon and Zachrulez is a mafioso. What is your perspective?

The other question - you mention that there didn't seem to be many reasons for your vote for AlmasterGM. Is that how you think the other players perceived your vote or did you yourself think at the time your reasons for the vote weren't strong?

Hoopla, I have been thinking about something. According to that quote you gave, you enjoy the game of Mafia because of the challenge. Previously, you said that my playstyle makes it more difficult to determine what my role in a particular game is - isn't that actually challenging?

I think a problem with some of your analyses is that you disregard some possible explanations because someone doing a certain thing would be "unnecessary". Whether something is "unnecessary" or not doesn't mean that someone won't do it.

Also, you didn't comment on certain things regarding the votes from Day 1. For example, at one stage redtail896 voted AlmasterGM but then switched to Elleran. Do you think that has any importance (I'm still asking you questions in the hope you'll answer them someday)?

By the way, you seem to acknowledge that Elleran was an "easy target". Since you're realizing that, why indeed were you so eager to lynch Elleran?

[Good and Honest]

Thank you for your explanations, drmyshottyizsik! While I don't usually agree with your logic (as you probably know), it's always better when you share your opinions and I think a couple of the points you made about Zachrulez are interesting.

I have to say ConfidAnon's behaviour continues to be peculiar, just like on Day 1. On Day 1 there were some actions of ConfidAnon's towards gonnano but not much else. Now on Day 2 ConfidAnon made immediate accusations against Zachrulez (after I had hinted at their lack of interactions) and there hasn't been much else since... It looks almost as if ConfidAnon's plan is to make only one or two prominent things per Day...

Vel-Rahn Koon, here is my question again:

"Also, you state this about ConfidAnon: "I think CA seemed to drift through the game as well yesterday". What would you say about Zachrulez in that regard? Do you think Zachrulez "drifted through the game" on Day 1?"

You also haven't commented on gonnano's accusations against you. Do you have anything you'd like to say about them?

gonnano, it looks like we're interpreting "right questions" in different ways. I was thinking that if there was a question I wouldn't answer, it would be rephrased (i.e., become "right" in a way)... I'm really not sure why you have decided not to answer my questions. On the one hand, I'm saying that I'm always open to questions, I just can't promise I'll answer all of them. On the other hand, you seem to be declaring that you won't answer ANY of my questions (unless someone else also asks them). Our positions don't seem to be equal to me.

About "Do you have a protection role?" - an answer to this question would reveal some information about my role. I have now explained numerous times that I don't want to reveal information about my role.

About "Who would you vote for right now if you absolutely had to vote?" - you asked me this on Day 1 and I told you that I really don't want to think about that. I think the most correct answer would be: If I absolutely had to vote right now, I wouldn't have registered to this forum. I have registered here precisely because I don't absolutely have to vote right now.

You say that no one has refuted your points about Vel-Rahn Koon - yet I have asked you a question about one of those points and you're neglecting it.

By the way, according to you, you voted Vel-Rahn Koon "because he's been avoiding taking definitive positions like the plague". Now that I think about it, I find this reason quite surprising since on Day 1, just like me and Elleran, you stated that there was nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and considering all possibilities.

redtail896, I'm not angry at all that you're disagreeing with my playstyle - after all, I'm expecting that there will be people disagreeing with my playstyle in each game I participate in. You're right that the choice for the other players is to accept my playstyle or vote to lynch me because of it. I can only hope that the group of players in a particular game of Mafia will happen to be tolerant towards me. For example, in my second game on this site the other players accepted me and my playstyle - only one player voted me because of disliking my playstyle (and, as it turned out, that player was a mafioso)...

I agree with you that on Day 1 gonnano seemed to concentrate quite a lot on AGar. However, as I have said, I think at least a part of that can be explained by my suggestion that gonnano was still under the influence of their recent game together - Mini 992. Otherwise, gonnano's behaviour during Day 2 has started to baffle me lately.

By the way, redtail896, I'd like to ask you something about a sentence of yours - "I'm welcome to the possibility that I'm wrong (like I kinda was yesterday with almaster)". Just to clarify - what were you wrong about regarding AlmasterGM?

AlmasterGM, it's not my intention at all to be rude. I'm sad if you perceive it that way. About my unwillingness to vote being "detrimental to the town" - in my other game with drmyshottyizsik, I have argued that this is actually detrimental to the MAFIA - because it makes it more difficult for the mafia to lynch innocent townspeople.

I'm not playing this way simply because it's "more fun" - if I play like most people play, I won't have ANY fun. Will you have NO fun at all if you answer my questions? After all, Mafia is a social game - i.e., there should be interactions between the players. If someone refuses to interact with someone else, that makes the game less interesting, I think.

I understand your point that I deserve to be lynched because of my playstyle - you have every right to dislike my playstyle.

I must admit I don't understand the link between Kid Know Nothing "attacking" you for attacking me and my unwillingness to lie.

I have to say, AlmasterGM, that I completely disagree with your idea - "We're lynching Zachrulez and nothing else matters". It certainly does matter to have an ongoing discussion about what is happening in our game.

By the way, I find it interesting that you say: "Zach's play is uncharacteristically bad". Would you explain what about Zachrulez's way of playing in this game is different than usual?

Hoopla, you state the game is "stalling". I think that (whether you like it or not) one of the reasons has been that people - including you - have been neglecting my questions/comments...

Vel-Rahn Koon again - I just can't agree with you (by the way, to me it doesn't matter whether the point seemed minor to you because it's interesting for me to discuss it). Let's look at the opposite example - let's assume that, from reading the thread, a mafioso doesn't feel at all suspicious of their partner(s). So, according to you, in spite of that, the honest thing for the mafioso would be to say that they are suspicious of their partner(s) - since they technically know their partner(s) are mafiosi. To me this is absurd.

And, in my opinion, I didn't ignore the point of your post. I gave my thoughts on how I feel about that matter.

[Good and Honest]

Zachrulez did mention taking a trip last Friday... But it's a pity this has happened at a time when people here are really expecting to hear from Zachrulez.

gonnano, I gave you explanations why I "didn't feel like" answering those questions. If you honestly "don't feel like" answering my questions, please give me an explanation why. It's unfortunate that the questions you've asked me are not "right" in my opinion. The questions you have asked ConfidAnon are for me examples of "right questions" - they ask about particular things happening in this game. Why haven't you asked me such questions?

By the way, I'm confused by your question to ConfidAnon: "Are you still not sure why Hoopla thought Almaster was probably town?". What made you think ConfidAnon wasn't sure about that?

Thank you for answering one of my questions. I'd like to know how the fact that Elleran has turned out not to be a mafioso has changed your perceptions about that situation with the votes for Elleran.

redtail896, I have been sharing my thoughts and observations. I find your first three questions somewhat strange - as I have said, I think everyone should always consider the possibility that each other player might be a mafioso.

Do I consider the possibility that you are a mafioso? Yes. But, as you surely have noticed, so far I haven't found something that noteworthy about you.

Do I consider the possibility that Hoopla is a mafioso? Yes. And I have mentioned numerous times things that could point out to such a solution. Now there is one I'd like to add:

I have seen in various games on this site that when deadline comes near, some players change their vote to the person with most votes just so they can have someone lynched. So when Hoopla asks people to vote Zachrulez, I'm not that surprised. But there is another player Hoopla asks others to vote for - Kid Know Nothing. Not someone who has already received votes (me, Vel-Rahn Koon, ConfidAnon) but a player who no one has voted for! So this reason - to avoid having no one lynched - seems illogical to me in Kid Know Nothing's case.

By the way, redtail896, it would be interesting for me to know what you think about Hoopla stating the game is "stalling" and at the same time neglecting my questions and comments...

Do I consider the possibility that ConfidAnon is a mafioso? Yes. I think I have commented quite a lot on ConfidAnon's behaviour. However, it has to be said that, whenever I have interrogated/commented on ConfidAnon, ConfidAnon has responded to me, which is a good thing. There has been one exception - when at the end of Day 1 I asked ConfidAnon "What are your observations on Zachrulez so far?", ConfidAnon didn't answer but instead attacked Zachrulez immediately on Day 2.

Regarding the part of my previous post where I talked about ConfidAnon - you say that what's most important is what I think about ConfidAnon's actions. I disagree. I have already expressed my point of view when I shared my thoughts on Vel-Rahn Koon's post (whose point Vel-Rahn Koon said I had ignored) - I think the observations I make are more important that what I think about them. In this particular situation my observation might have been about something relatively obvious but that won't always be the case - I'm sure sometimes I'll notice things others haven't noticed. The funny thing is, in this particular situation I did give my opinion: "It looks almost as if ConfidAnon's plan is to make only one or two prominent things per Day..." I feel we don't interpret the word "opinion" in quite the same way. I guess you want to know whether I think that this supposed plan of ConfidAnon's could point to ConfidAnon's being a mafioso. Yes. But that's not a certainty - as I told Vel-Rahn Koon, there could be numerous explanations for everything.

About your blaming the town's potential loss entirely on me - let's imagine the hypothetical situation that I'm a "Doctor" or something similar and drmyshottyizsik isn't (by the way, I'll state once again that I don't think that drmyshottyizsik lying about something automatically proves drmyshottyizsik is a mafioso). In that case, if one of us dies, that will be revealed to all other players. And if we both reach the last stage of the game, I suppose that will be one of those special situations where I'll reveal my role. So I don't think you should worry about that too much (not to mention that it's just a hypothetical situation).

Now we get to something curious, redtail896. When you say that gonnano was "referring specifically to keeping an open mind about Hoopla's roleclaim", I think you're basing this on gonnano's post #96. However, I'm interpreting that post as having a much more general meaning. And then there is gonnano's post #193 which, in my opinion, completely proves my interpretation.

The soccer analogy - I'm informing the other players of my playstyle shortly after the whistle is blown so there is plenty of time to adapt. Not to mention that I do believe in a game of Mafia my playstyle is actually detrimental to the mafia (so the mafia in fact have more right to be angry)... By the way, I didn't understand this sentence - "In addition, I'm not sure that I like that subtle dig at the end there".

Finally, you say: "I think G&H's logic has a bunch of holes (some of which I was trying to point out above)" - did you have your post #483 in mind? Because I must admit I didn't feel like you were pointing out holes in my logic there. In any case, I'll be glad if you talk more about such holes in logic of mine.

AlmasterGM, when I discussed my playstyle with Hoopla, I did say: "Hoopla, yes, I realize that if everyone had the same playstyle as me, nothing would happen as no one would ever be lynched. However, I think that not a lot of people have a similar playstyle as me - at least I haven't seen such people on this forum. I think that having a single player with a playstyle like mine in a game of Mafia wouldn't be such a problem". So, if we imagine a situation like the one in our current game - where only one player refuses to vote - it's absolutely true that this makes it more difficult for the mafia to lynch innocent townspeople.

You continue presenting my playstyle as detrimental to the town. So I'll ask again: how come then that in my second game on this site the mafiosi killed me on Night 1 and in the post-game comments they said they had considered me a threat to them?

I'm happy that you're answering my questions now. So I hope this time you'll explain what the real reasons for your vote for Elleran on Day 1 were.

Zachrulez might have "evaporated" - but people have noted that. Any discussion we're having in the meantime might prove to be useful in the future.

I have to say that telling me you'd never talk with me hurts. Imagine meeting someone in real life and finding that there are quite a lot of things you enjoy discussing with them... and then it turns out that I'm that person! So you'll stop talking with me just because you disagree with my playstyle in a game?!

Kid Know Nothing, I asked you a couple of questions which I hope you'll answer: "you say that from Hoopla's perspective (regarding the votes on Day 1) at least one of you, ConfidAnon and Zachrulez is a mafioso. What is your perspective?

The other question - you mention that there didn't seem to be many reasons for your vote for AlmasterGM. Is that how you think the other players perceived your vote or did you yourself think at the time your reasons for the vote weren't strong?"

[Good and Honest]

Well, let me explore each of the remaining "alive" players potentially being mafia partners with Zachrulez:

ConfidAnon-Zachrulez - I have mentioned this possibility quite a few times. I had noticed that both of them didn't do much on Day 1 and I thought this could be a good excuse for their lack of interactions, that's why at the end of Day 1 I asked both of them to say something about the other but at the time they didn't. So I found it quite curious that they started interacting immediately on Day 2 (as if my observation from Day 1 showed them that they should interact)... Their dialogue seemed somewhat strange to me, more like simulating an interaction than a real interaction... And while ConfidAnon immediately voted Zachrulez, Zachrulez expressed suspicions against ConfidAnon only a couple of times, otherwise concentrating mainly on me. In post #462, Zachrulez said: "It's less interesting that pretty much every point that ConfidAnon made against me (minus the wagon hopping point) could easily be made against him and more interesting that KKN seemingly isnt interested in him" - I'm not sure how to interpret that but it sounds to me like Zachrulez acknowledges that points can be made against ConfidAnon but at the same time states that's not really interesting, i.e., Zachrulez is trying to deflect the focus from ConfidAnon... And then Zachrulez tries to use against me the fact that I didn't answer the question "Good & Honest, is your alignment anything other than Town?" - which was originally asked by ConfidAnon. An argument against ConfidAnon's being partner with Zachrulez is that during the whole Day 2 ConfidAnon repeatedly mentioned not having anything to comment on, just restating suspicions of Zachrulez - if Zachrulez were ConfidAnon's partner, I'd expect ConfidAnon at least to explore other possibilities for mafiosi...

AlmasterGM-Zachrulez - on Day 1, they were both eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik. I said I wasn't happy with that and, when at the end of the Day Hoopla asked who would be willing to lynch me, they both raised hands... And then they both attacked me on Day 2 (Zachrulez voted me, AlmasterGM mentioned me as second suspect after Zachrulez). I don't know how likely it is for mafia partners to do similar things like that... But they did accuse each other quite a few times on Day 1 - which, in my opinion, mafia partners could do in order to distance themselves from each other. Also of note is that before AlmasterGM made that unexplained vote for Elleran, AlmasterGM was voting Zachrulez... Then on Day 2 AlmasterGM voted Zachrulez after three other players had already done so - the question is would someone bring a partner this close to a lynch? Finally, I find it notable that, after having accused AlmasterGM so much on Day 1, on Day 2 Zachrulez didn't mention AlmasterGM at all apart from a short remark in the defense against Kid Know Nothing's case.

Hoopla-Zachrulez - Hoopla didn't really interact with Zachrulez on Day 1; Zachrulez commented on Hoopla's claim in the beginning and I perceived that as support for Hoopla. Then on Day 2 Hoopla immediately voted Zachrulez despite not commenting on Zachrulez the previous Day... As a whole, on Day 2 Hoopla seemed eager to lynch Zachrulez - that's somehow surprising if they are partners. However, at the end of the day Hoopla gave the other players another "option" to vote for - Kid Know Nothing (who had received no votes at the time)... What I find quite noteworthy is that Hoopla repeatedly stated that EXACTLY ONE of Zachrulez and AlmasterGM is a mafioso. Taking this into consideration, if Hoopla is a partner with Zachrulez, it would seem most logical that the third mafioso is AlmasterGM. There is one thing bothering me about such a solution - as I have already said, at the end of Day 1 Hoopla asked who would be willing to lynch me and both Zachrulez and AlmasterGM raised hands. Would all three mafiosi agree on such a plan?

Vel-Rahn Koon-Zachrulez - Vel-Rahn Koon asked Zachrulez a couple of questions on Day 1 but that could have been just so that there is some interaction between them. Zachrulez's statements of perceiving Vel-Rahn Koon as an innocent townsperson seem strange to me in any case - I wonder how likely it is for a mafioso to make such statements about a partner. But Vel-Rahn Koon's attitude towards Zachrulez on Day 2 is remarkable. Here is what Vel-Rahn Koon says about the votes for Elleran on Day 1: "The last two votes are a wash for me, as they were done to secure a lynch. Because of this view, I REALLY don't like CA's attempt to use it against Zach. The other stuff he's got against Zach is fine, but I'm not ok with that point" - this sounds to me like conceding that points could be made against Zachrulez but at the same time deflecting the focus from Zachrulez. Also, Vel-Rahn Koon said that ConfidAnon had "drifted through the game" on Day 1 and I asked a few times if Vel-Rahn Koon thought the same was true for Zachrulez... but received no answer. Vel-Rahn Koon commented on Zachrulez again in post #479 - only after the other players had already discussed Zachrulez a lot. Maybe Vel-Rahn Koon didn't do much on Day 2 precisely in order not to have to comment on Zachrulez...

redtail896-Zachrulez - here the situation on Day 1 is similar as with Vel-Rahn Koon and Zachrulez - redtail896 asked Zachrulez a couple of questions (about drmyshottyizsik), otherwise there was no direct interaction between them. However, redtail896 did state suspicion of Zachrulez on Day 1. On the other hand, Zachrulez didn't comment on redtail896 at all. Then at the beginning of Day 2 Zachrulez attacked me while it can be said that redtail896 defended me - I guess that wouldn't be a bad tactic if they were partners. However, unlike Hoopla, I don't see why redtail896's vote for ConfidAnon and not Zachrulez was such a problem since redtail896 did mention considering their actions similar. I'm baffled by something else. In post #432 redtail896 made points against Zachrulez but then said: "To the people voting Zach: why should I vote for him". I don't understand why redtail896 would need the other players to give redtail896 reasons for voting for Zachrulez...

Kid Know Nothing-Zachrulez - first I want to say that it has been said that Kid Know Nothing has focused on Zachrulez and not ConfidAnon... but early on Day 1 ConfidAnon was Kid Know Nothing's main focus. Anyway, on Day 1 Zachrulez didn't say anything about Kid Know Nothing. On the other hand, Kid Know Nothing did mention Zachrulez's not doing much and concentrating on drmyshottyizsik. On Day 2, I see Zachrulez's first mention of Kid Know Nothing as a positive one - stating that Kid Know Nothing's posts have content (as opposed to mine). In fact, Zachrulez only talked about Kid Know Nothing in negative light after Kid Know Nothing made a case against Zachrulez. It might be worth noting that Kid Know Nothing's case came at a time when Zachrulez had already received 4 votes. So far I have the feeling that Kid Know Nothing has a special playstyle and, like me, has a special attitude towards voting so I don't really find anything wrong with Kid Know Nothing's voting me while accusing Zachrulez. I'm not sure what to think about their accusatory dialogue... The main thing that makes me consider Kid Know Nothing and Zachrulez being mafia partners is something about post #462 (Zachrulez's "countercase" against Kid Know Nothing). At the end of that post, Zachrulez said: "At this point I'd be putting some serious thought into whether I want my vote on KKN or G&H if not for this one little gem that confid directed at Good and Honest". So Zachrulez didn't switch vote from me to Kid Know Nothing just because I hadn't answered ConfidAnon's question "Good & Honest, is your alignment anything other than Town?" - when I don't see how anyone would expect me to answer it?!

gonnano-Zachrulez - this is the most peculiar case. During the whole game, Zachrulez hasn't mentioned gonnano even once. In return, on Day 1 gonnano solely asked Zachrulez this question: "Zach, what is your position on the massclaim? Claiming protection role/not protection role would be considered an acceptable answer to this question". This lack of interactions certainly looks worrisome. But it has to be said that immediately after asking Zachrulez about the mass claim, gonnano made another post: "EBWOP: Or whatever else you want to say. Not trying to force anything" - somehow I can't imagine someone telling their mafia partner that they're not trying to force them in any way... On Day 2, just like Vel-Rahn Koon, gonnano didn't do that much - and again, this could have been an excuse for not directly commenting on Zachrulez. At one point gonnano asked ConfidAnon an interesting question: "Does Zach seem scummy to you for any reasons other than ones that could also be applied to you?" - but gonnano didn't actually say anything about Zachrulez. Late in the Day, gonnano voted Zachrulez with the words "he's my second choice behind VRK" - in spite of never mentioning such a thing before that.

In conclusion, I'll say once again that anything is possible. I'll have in mind all of the above possibilities. It will be interesting to see how things develop!

[Good and Honest]

Wow... Not that I wasn't left with this impression even from before but now it's confirmed - anything can be expected from Hoopla!

I haven't seen a Mini Normal game with four mafiosi so this solution is impossible but, looking at this trialogue between Hoopla, redtail896 and gonnano, if they were all partners, what a performance that would be!

I'll say that until the events from Day 3 I thought that, based on Hoopla's interactions with redtail896 and gonnano, it was unlikely that Hoopla was a partner with either of them. Here's why: in redtail896's case, Hoopla told redtail896 in post #165 "You're town, so it doesn't matter" - I couldn't imagine someone saying this to their mafia partner. In gonnano's case, Hoopla said this in post #232: "Gonnano, help me convince these clowns that this plan is a solid idea" - once again, it would shock me if someone adopts such an attitude towards their partner; another example of this attitude is Hoopla's post #403 from Day 2 where Hoopla asks where gonnano is and the last sentence is quite curious: "We need the extra voice of reason..."

Well, on Day 3 Hoopla has accused consecutively redtail896 and gonnano and at first I thought that this pointed even more to the unlikelihood of Hoopla being a partner with either of them. But let's assume that Hoopla actually is a partner with one of them. During the first two Days Hoopla has repeatedly shown considering redtail896 and gonnano as likely innocent townspeople. So Hoopla might have decided that now the time has finally come to attack the partner. OK, the trialogue happened and what is the result? Hoopla once again states considering redtail896 and gonnano as likely innocent townspeople - but now Hoopla can point to the trialogue and say: "See, I did attack them"...

Of course, this solution is just a possibility. But I can't help feeling that it looks convenient how everything basically ended the way it was before the Day started. It doesn't seem like a bad idea to group two players together as likely innocent townspeople if one of them is indeed an innocent townsperson and the other is your mafia partner... This part of Hoopla's post #496 from Day 2 could also be an example of such grouping: "Redtail, would you vote Zach or Kid Know Nothing? Your vote is being wasted on ConfidAnon. Gonanno is also wasting his vote at the moment. Put it on Zach or Kid Know Nothing please".

So let me explore Hoopla potentially being a mafia partner with redtail896 or gonnano:

Hoopla-redtail896 - at first Hoopla expressed some suspicion of redtail896; the reason was that redtail896 had taken a "middling" view towards Hoopla's "Paranoid Gun Owner" claim. After that it can be said that redtail896 defended Hoopla to some extent during the discussion with AlmasterGM... but then in post #160 redtail896 said: "Not so fast Hoopla; you get questions too". One of the questions was whether Hoopla found redtail896 suspicious - which resulted in the aforementioned sentence "You're town, so it doesn't matter". At the time I really liked redtail896's post #160 since it showed that, in spite of defending Hoopla from AlmasterGM, redtail896 was paying attention to Hoopla... But I guess this could also be interpreted as distancing from a partner. What about their interactions on Day 3? Well, I agree with Hoopla that redtail896's reaction to Hoopla's "revelation" that redtail896 has a gun doesn't make sense if redtail896 is a mafioso... unless they are partners! I find it interesting that at no point did redtail896 mention even considering that Hoopla's "Gunsmith" claim might not be true. Then Hoopla suddenly announced that it was gonnano who actually had a gun... and redtail896 immediately voted for gonnano, which I must say I didn't like. I would have expected redtail896 to be more careful and think more about the situation before making such an action... Finally, I don't know what this means but I feel I have to note it: in post #547 (redtail896's first for Day 3), redtail896 asks Hoopla: "What in your analysis is such a smoking gun?"...

Hoopla-gonnano - unlike the situation with redtail896, Hoopla never expressed suspicion of gonnano; in fact, during the beginning of the game Hoopla only mentioned gonnano once, stating being "unsure" of gonnano's role. It can be said that gonnano defended Hoopla several times from AGar. gonnano quickly supported Hoopla's suggestion for a "protection role mass claim" on Day 1... In fact, I was left with the impression that gonnano seemed to agree quite a lot with Hoopla - maybe this is an argument against them being partners. What about their interactions on Day 3? Well, gonnano suddenly appeared during Hoopla's interrogation of redtail896 and then at one stage Hoopla asked: "Where's gonnano? I don't like how he's slinked off" - as if Hoopla were relying on gonnano's presence (in order to accomplish some kind of a plan?). Also, taking into consideration Hoopla's previous attitude towards gonnano, that surprisingly sounded like a negative comment (to prepare for the "attack" on gonnano that followed?). Unlike redtail896, gonnano obviously considered that Hoopla's "Gunsmith" claim might not be true and even stated at one point believing that Hoopla is a mafioso. Another thing - gonnano pointed out a few times inconsistencies in what Hoopla was saying, which I thought was good... But it could also be interpreted as making sure to remove links to a mafia partner. What I found really peculiar was gonnano's reaction to Hoopla's unclaim - until then gonnano seemed so suspicious of Hoopla but accepted the unclaim so easily, without asking any questions?! And then gonnano said: "If we're assuming that Hoopla, myself, redtail, G&H, and AGM are all town, on some pretty good reasoning" - what was the pretty good reasoning for Hoopla - the unclaim? Finally, while Hoopla was insisting on gonnano's having a gun, Hoopla stated that one of them MUST be lynched today. But then the unclaim came so neither of them has to be lynched anymore - which would be nice for them if they were partners, wouldn't it?

So I'll be considering the possibility of Hoopla being partner with redtail896 or gonnano. However, there is a problem. If we assume that Hoopla and one of redtail896 and gonnano are mafia partners, that would mean that AlmasterGM is not a mafioso. But then we come again to the fact that Hoopla repeatedly stated that EXACTLY ONE of Zachrulez and AlmasterGM is a mafioso. If Hoopla is a mafioso, I can't understand the purpose of making that statement if it were true...

The situation is quite complicated. I hope the other players will share their thoughts (ConfidAnon still hasn't said anything on Day 3)...

About the mass claim - as you might have guessed, I won't participate. To tell you the truth, I'm not fond of mass claims in general - while they might seem exciting, I don't like their effect on a game. I prefer it when people are basing their thoughts on what's happening during the game - interactions, discussions - and not on revelation of roles. But, of course, my personal preferences won't change anyone's mind.

[Good and Honest]

During the trialogue between Hoopla, redtail896 and gonnano, gonnano proposed a plan which redtail896 supported - that Vel-Rahn Koon should be lynched today. I'm not happy with that. It's one thing to suspect someone but another to suggest it as a plan for the whole town to lynch someone just because you suspect them... I don't think that means gonnano and redtail896 are mafia partners (in fact, it's hard for me to imagine redtail896 being a partner with anyone but Hoopla) but I still wanted to mention it.

Vel-Rahn Koon, you sound like you've given up and that's a pity. You shouldn't think that you can't help in any way. You say that you're seeing my posts - but do you actually consider what I'm saying in them? For example, we seem to be interpreting something about Zachrulez's post #462 in completely different ways - I'm talking about the sentence "It's less interesting that pretty much every point that ConfidAnon made against me (minus the wagon hopping point) could easily be made against him and more interesting that KKN seemingly isnt interested in him". If I'm understanding you correctly, according to you, this sentence is trying to move the focus to ConfidAnon (and away from Kid Know Nothing?). In my opinion, this sentence is trying to move the focus away from ConfidAnon (and most probably to Kid Know Nothing). So, if you consider my interpretation, does that change your perception of ConfidAnon and Kid Know Nothing?

Also, you say that I'm not commiting towards one or two players being more likely mafiosi - well, doing that is not really usual for me since I prefer to explore different possibilities, not just the "more likely" ones. I understand you don't like my approach. I can't say I don't like your approach but some of the things you've written actually sadden me: "I think both CA and AGM are clear due to their interactions with Zach" - OK, you may think their interactions with Zachrulez make it less likely for them to be mafiosi but to say that they are "clear"... And especially this: "I think Hoopla's TWO gambits is too over the top for scum to do, and if Hoopla is scum I'm just going to have to live with it" - really? So if in a game an unlikely scenario turns out to be true (and for me games where the unlikely scenario is true are the most exciting), you'll just "live with it"? It sounds to me like you're hoping that in every game a likely scenario is going to be true - because you wouldn't explore the unlikely ones anyway... I have to say I don't think this is a good attitude.

So, Vel-Rahn Koon, you mention gonnano as your only question mark. But you state that you haven't looked at gonnano closely. Why don't you do it? You also say you disagree with Kid Know Nothing's post - but would you clarify what exactly you disagree with? You can certainly help in developing the discussion and gathering information if you're willing to.

AlmasterGM, you state that I may be a partner of Zachrulez's because Zachrulez attacked and accused me. There's nothing wrong with this argument. However, you yourself have also attacked and accused me... I find it funny that you're using an argument that can be used against yourself.

Also, once you realized that Hoopla had unclaimed "Gunsmith", you only talked about how the events that had happened didn't prove redtail896 was an innocent townsperson. It's interesting that you didn't say anything about gonnano and you didn't seem to consider the possibility of Hoopla being a partner with one of redtail896 and gonnano.

I find AlmasterGM's post#624 confusing - from it it sounds like at the time AlmasterGM hadn't realized that Hoopla had unclaimed - although both redtail896 and I had talked about the unclaim. It's even stranger that Hoopla didn't immediately point that out - this happened only after AlmasterGM and Hoopla made a couple more posts. As a whole, to me the whole dialogue between AlmasterGM and Hoopla during the last few pages felt somewhat peculiar. And it all ended with Hoopla telling AlmasterGM to vote ConfidAnon and AlmasterGM doing it!? It also shocked me how AlmasterGM suddenly decided that "ConfidAnon can die" - that reminded me a lot of AlmasterGM's unexplained vote for Elleran on Day 1...

I have to say ConfidAnon's behaviour is quite puzzling. I can't determine whether this is a case of a player feeling "lost" in this game or a player wanting to appear "lost" in this game...

redtail896, in post #557 you say "VRK wanted to shift Zach to CA". I don't know whether I'm understanding this right so would you, please, explain it to me?

gonnano, regarding your plan from post #633 - I'm not sure what you mean by "information roles". If you clarify this, I think I'll be more capable of understanding your plan and commenting on it.

Kid Know Nothing, I hope you'll have Internet access in the near future as I'll be glad to read more about your thoughts.

[Good and Honest]

...gonnano, did you really have to put me in this situation? Couldn't you have been less specific and given more general information about your role?...

Well, this is definitely a special situation. I won't let people lynch gonnano because they think gonnano is lying.

gonnano is telling the truth.

[Good and Honest]

You can certainly lynch gonnano or me if you think one of us is a mafioso. But now you won't be doing it because you think gonnano is lying - and that's what matters to me.

[Good and Honest]

Even if the other players decide to lynch gonnano or me, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use the time we were given for gathering as much information as possible.

I'm not impressed with the activity on Day 3 in general. ConfidAnon is continuing as usual... Actually, today ConfidAnon is doing even less than usual - after at least having done one or two things on Day 1 and Day 2... After seemingly giving up, Vel-Rahn Koon has also disappeared recently - even though I specifically encouraged Vel-Rahn Koon to help develop the discussion. Apart from one post about Vel-Rahn Koon, Kid Know Nothing has also been quiet. And I don't think AlmasterGM has done much, either - at first AlmasterGM strangely didn't understand that Hoopla had unclaimed; after realizing that, in my opinion, AlmasterGM didn't quite explore the situation. And since then AlmasterGM has only been urging people to vote.

What disappoints me the most is that it looks like for the most part people aren't commenting on my thoughts and observations - I feel as if I'm only imagining that I'm playing with other players...

Hoopla, from your post #530 I got the impression that you were working on a new analysis which you were going to reveal shortly. I hope you're planning to do that before the deadline. Also, after unclaiming "Gunsmith", you told gonnano: "You're lucky you aren't being confirmed town based on believing my claim or not, and not finding my breadcrumb. You're town because of something else you said, that you almost certainly wouldn't if you were mafia". Will you, please, share what was it that gonnano said that at the time made you believe that gonnano was an innocent townsperson?

Something that happened during the trialogue between Hoopla, redtail896 and gonnano has caught my attention. In post #588 gonnano says: "I'll go ahead and say now what I was planning to say later, which is that I thought Hoopla might be a tracker who saw me target nobody and saw redtail target shotty, then was trying to get more info from redtail by claiming gunsmith". Taking into consideration that Hoopla has now claimed to be a "Tracker", that was quite a curious sentence. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what it means.

...Just like I still can't decide how to interpret redtail896's question to Hoopla, which I mentioned earlier: "What in your analysis is such a smoking gun?". Especially now that redtail896 has claimed to be a "Vanilla Townie"... I'm wondering about something. When Hoopla accused redtail896 of having a gun, redtail896 denied that and then said: "I just double checked my role pm. I don't own a gun". Has there been any game where a "Vanilla Townie" has had a gun? Did redtail896 really have to double check? It's not impossible, of course - I often double and triple check things I'm sure about - but I find this noteworthy.

I asked what redtail896 meant when saying in post #557 "VRK wanted to shift Zach to CA" but received no answer. Since there isn't that much time left and I want to say something about this, I'll just have to hope my interpretation is correct. I assume redtail896 meant that during Day 2 Vel-Rahn Koon as a whole avoided commenting on Zachrulez, instead concentrating on ConfidAnon. While I agree to an extent, I actually felt that during Day 2 Vel-Rahn Koon's focus was largely on me - early in the Day Vel-Rahn Koon mentioned me as a main suspect. After that Vel-Rahn Koon interacted mostly with me, in the end announcing intending to vote for me. What I mean is that if Vel-Rahn Koon were trying to shift attention from Zachrulez to someone else, that "someone else" was more me than ConfidAnon.

I have talked about the possibility of Hoopla and AlmasterGM being mafia partners so I guess I should point this out: when redtail896 mentioned AlmasterGM as suspect number 2 (after Vel-Rahn Koon), Hoopla replied: "I think you're stretching it with the AGM suspicion. Don't you think a more natural scum reaction would be to try and diffuse the Zach wagon by starting another?". redtail896 agreed with that point but added: "However, what do you think of the other elements of my suspicion?"... However, there was no answer as in Hoopla's next post Hoopla claimed "Gunsmith" and asked why redtail896 had a gun. The attention just went in a totally different direction...

I still don't know why redtail896 was so confident Hoopla's "Gunsmith" claim was true. Hopefully redtail896 will explain that at some point.

It looks like ConfidAnon is playing in quite a few games. That might be an explanation for ConfidAnon's inactivity here... but it doesn't mean people shouldn't pay attention to ConfidAnon. In any case, I wonder why you decided to participate in so many games at the same time, ConfidAnon?

So far I haven't commented on Kid Know Nothing much and that's not good since every player should be examined. Kid Know Nothing, you didn't answer me when I asked you about your mentioning that your vote for AlmasterGM on Day 1 "held little in the way of reasoning". If you thought it "held little in the way of reasoning", why did you vote for AlmasterGM? That came all of a sudden as before that you hadn't talked about AlmasterGM; you had concentrated mainly on ConfidAnon. As a matter of fact, in your post previous to the one where you voted AlmasterGM, you stated your vote would be on ConfidAnon.

This brings me to my other question - you focused so much on ConfidAnon at the beginning of the game... but after that almost didn't mention ConfidAnon. Why? On Day 2 redtail896 asked you to what extent your case against Zachrulez could apply to ConfidAnon and in post #457 you answered: "I was going to look into him next, actually. Sometime later tonight"... But at no point did you mention the results of looking into ConfidAnon. In that same post #457 you said: "CA, why are you finding it hard to make a post in this game? There is plenty to comment on. If you'd like, I can certainly give you a lot to answer" - but you didn't. It's true that later gonnano asked ConfidAnon several questions but, if you had questions yourself, you could have also asked them.

I see the last few comments. Hoopla, my confirming gonnano's words has nothing to do with whether I'm a mafioso or not. This was a very particular situation where another player's fate was depending on me in a very special way so I just couldn't remain silent. In any case, I'll repeat that even if you decide to lynch one of us two, as much time as possible should be used for discussion. I have the bad feeling that the lack of comments on Day 3 might prove to be a problem in the future...

[Good and Honest]

I don't see why I shouldn't explore Hoopla's potentially being a mafioso. I don't know what would be "far too weak" but there is always the possibility that some of the players didn't reveal their true roles - although Hoopla seemingly doesn't really want to consider this.

gonnano, what about AlmasterGM made you reconsider your plan? By the way, if you had looked more closely at my previous three games (especially the third one), you'd have found out that as a mafioso I would never kill anyone at all.

redtail896, what caught my interest regarding your question "What in your analysis is such a smoking gun?" was that it included the word "GUN". And while it may just be a coincidence that later Hoopla claimed to be a "Gunsmith", I hope you'll agree that this was curious.

I think Hoopla's post #729 gave me an insight. I honestly believe redtail896 may be a "Serial Killer". And since you want an analysis - perhaps you double checked your Role PM to see if a "Serial Killer" has a gun. If I'm not mistaken, a "Serial Killer" typically has a knife, not a gun. If that were the case here, it would explain why you sounded so confident when repeatedly stating you didn't have a gun. Also, if what Hoopla says about immunity to night kills is true here, when you combine that with the fact that many of the players have mentioned you as a likely innocent townsperson (i.e., someone who won't be lynched), your approach to this game would definitely make sense as a "Serial Killer". Most of the time I don't share such thoughts but it would be amazing if I turn out to be right... So, redtail896, if I'm wrong, I'm really, really sorry...

[Good and Honest]

I have a lot of things to say but I don't think I'll be able to write them all at once...

First of all, a belated "Welcome to this game, Equinox"! It's a pity that I wasn't "alive" when you came; it would have been really interesting for me to play with you!

I had hoped I'd never be a mafioso in a game of Mafia but, unfortunately, it happened in this game. I try not to take into consideration my role so I don't think I'd have played differently if I weren't a mafioso. In any case, I get no enjoyment at all from being a mafioso, I actually feel bad (Equinox, I think you have similar feelings), so I basically played this game just so the other players could enjoy it...

As I said on Day 3, "I have the bad feeling that the lack of comments on Day 3 might prove to be a problem in the future...". A few players said little on that Day. But if I thought Day 3 was bad, I had no idea what a disaster Day 4 would turn out to be.

During Day 4, the discussion mostly revolved around making guesses about something which I HAD DIRECTLY SAID! In my post #746, I told gonnano:

"By the way, if you had looked more closely at my previous three games (especially the third one), you'd have found out that as a mafioso I would never kill anyone at all"

Equinox, you were right to point out that I had given a link to my first game on this site, where I explain some things about my playstyle. However, you didn't mention that later I gave links to my second and third games as well - and in the third one I do say directly that I would never kill as a mafioso. But you didn't even need to look at that game since I stated the same thing in this game! I was flabbergasted that no one mentioned this - it made me wonder whether people in this game actually read what I wrote...

So, since I wouldn't kill, Zachrulez was lynched on Day 2 and according to Hoopla's "Tracker" results Kid Know Nothing had gone nowhere on Night 2, unless Kid Know Nothing had some very special abilities ("Tracker" immunity?), it was absolutely obvious that Kid Know Nothing couldn't be the third mafioso! So, when I read that you had lynched Kid Know Nothing on Day 4, I literally slapped my forehead in disbelief and disappointment... It was then that I came to the conclusion that the town would lose.

Kid Know Nothing, at the beginning of Day 4 you said that you'd like to ask me a few things. It will be very interesting for me to see your questions!

I'll share more thoughts in my next post.

[Good and Honest]

I play Mafia because I love the feeling of being a detective and trying to solve a mystery case... So I tried to solve this case, too - unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to solve it completely since I couldn't inspect myself...

I can't really determine whether a single player is a mafioso since there can be numerous explanations for everything. I'm trying to solve the cases mainly by looking at the interactions between the players and thinking about possibilities - which of them could be mafia partners... This game was more difficult for me than the Newbie games I have participated in since there the mafiosi are only two while in Mini Normal games they are often three; furthermore, the number of players is bigger so there are more interactions to pay attention to.

When I saw Hoopla's "Paranoid Gun Owner" claim right at the beginning of the game, that felt very funny to me since I had looked at Mini 973; anyway, I thought Hoopla would do it here again regardless of role in the game.

Then there was AGar's reaction to the claim and the dialogue between Hoopla and AGar. When playing Mafia, I'm looking for strange interactions and that dialogue really seemed peculiar to me - I had the feeling they could be mafia partners who had decided before the start of the game that they would have such an interaction...

drmyshottyizsik's actions didn't surprise me at all. I didn't even want to consider the "Doctor" claim - I felt that even if drmyshottyizsik had another role, later an explanation like this could be given: "But I really am a Doctor - Doctor Myshottyizsik!"...

drmyshottyizsik was a very easy target, whom I thought the mafiosi would be likely to attack - and Zachrulez and AlmasterGM were the ones who seemed most eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik in some way. So at that point I had solved the case as much as I could (I suspected two thirds of the mafia)...

Then there was Hoopla's attack against Elleran, which I didn't like - especially since it was Hoopla who mentioned Newbie 957, where Elleran was an innocent townsperson and showed a similar behaviour to the one in this game... but that didn't seem to change Hoopla's mind at all.

At one point AlmasterGM also voted for Elleran without any reasonable explanation... Later I would ask AlmasterGM numerous times about that (other players also commented on it) but without an answer - which increased my suspicion.

I noticed that Zachrulez and ConfidAnon didn't really do much during Day 1 so I thought that maybe either one of them or both could be mafiosi who didn't want to get involved in the discussion...

The interactions between AGar and gonnano seemed strange to me but not really in a way that made me think they were partners (although I didn't exclude that possibility) - I thought they were more likely a result of Mini 992, where they played together.

When I refused to participate in the "protective role" mass claim, Hoopla suggested that I be lynched... and both Zachrulez and AlmasterGM were quick to agree - once again choosing a relatively easy target... By the way, in my third game on this site, I said that I think that if I'm a mafioso in a game, my partner(s) would be the one(s) most willing to get rid of me... People in this game should have really explored this possibility.

I actually thought ConfidAnon might have been so quiet on Day 1 because of being a "Cop". At the beginning of Day 2 ConfidAnon immediately accused Zachrulez... who was a mafioso. Although their mutual attacks also seemed somewhat strange to me, especially since I had asked them on Day 1 to share thoughts on each other - which, if they were partners, could have made them simulate some interactions between each other.

I don't approve of Hoopla's decision to stop interacting with me. It deprived the town of a lot of potential information since I had asked Hoopla quite a few things. In fact, it could have been exactly a mafioso tactic to reduce the amount of information...

I was also very confused why gonnano suddenly decided to stop answering my questions. I couldn't understand what gonnano would achive by doing this - especially after talking about asking the "right" questions but never doing it. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure why I wasn't asked almost any questions in this game.

During Day 3, there was the famous trialogue between Hoopla, redtail896 and gonnano regarding the "Gunsmith" claim... It really seemed to me that something wasn't right about that trialogue - as if Hoopla and either redtail896 or gonnano were mafia partners trying to prove they are innocent... Then there was AlmasterGM's puzzling reaction to that situation (as if AlmasterGM hadn't realized Hoopla had unclaimed) and the even more puzzling fact that Hoopla didn't point that out immediately - that was another peculiar interaction which could mean the two were partners. As you can see, I could imagine Hoopla being a partner with quite a few of the other players... While I was sure that redtail896 could be a mafioso only if Hoopla was one as well.

On Day 3 I explored the possibilities of Zachrulez being a partner with each of the other players "alive" and I was very disappointed that no one seemed to pay attention to my post. By the way, the one thing that most made me sure someone couldn't be a partner with Zachrulez was when during Day 1 gonnano asked what Zachrulez's position on the "protective role" mass claim was but then added: "EBWOP: Or whatever else you want to say. Not trying to force anything". I really couldn't imagine someone saying that to their partner.

At the beginning of Day 3, Hoopla mentioned making a new analysis of Day 1 and Day 2 and promised to reveal it later. At one point I asked about it but Hoopla didn't share it... That was one more thing that could possibly have helped the town.

As I said, I try not to take my role into consideration. However, this game was special since another player's fate depended on me - gonnano was my Lover. I don't think it was a good idea for gonnano to reveal that we were Lovers but I couldn't let the other players lynch gonnano because they think gonnano is lying... That was certainly one of those mythical "special situations" where I revealed something about my role. I have to say that in my opinion the players' decision to lynch gonnano was very risky - it was completely possible that we were both innocent townspeople.

In this context, I'll remind you Hoopla's post #697 which is about the huge "statistical unlikelihood" of there being Lovers in a Normal game and one of them being a player who doesn't want to reveal anything about their role (me). OK, but, as statistically unlikely as that is, this was the case here! That's why I think people shouldn't think only about the most "possible" and most "likely" solutions. And I did tell Hoopla that the fact that something is "unnecessary" doesn't mean it can't be done - when Hoopla was claiming that Zachrulez voting for a mafia partner (AlmasterGM) during that particular situation on Day 1 would be "unnecessary"...

When Vel-Rahn Koon seemingly gave up, I felt that was genuine, I didn't really perceive it as a mafioso trick. I tried to encourage Vel-Rahn Koon not to give up...

Vel-Rahn Koon, in my post #660 I wrote some things to you, including some thoughts about our differing approaches towards the game. Later you repeated the same things you had said that provoked me to write what I said in post #660 and it seemed to me that you hadn't really paid attention to my post. I hope at least now you'll take a look at it.

Kid Know Nothing seemed to have a special attitude towards voting and wrote a couple of long posts... That reminded me in a way of my playstyle and writing style. I think this influenced me as I didn't really suspect Kid Know Nothing during the game.

Hoopla's post #729 gave me an insight (or at least I believed so at the time...) - redtail896 had to be a "Serial Killer"! During the whole Day 3 redtail896's actions suggested to me very clearly that redtail896 had a special role. So I was shocked when redtail896 claimed to be a "Vanilla Townie" and I couldn't believe it. I thought about the fact that a "Serial Killer" usually has a knife and not a gun - that would explain why redtail896 stated so convincingly not having a gun (but after double-checking!)... And if Hoopla were right in thinking that a "Serial Killer" would have an immunity to night kills, that would also explain redtail896's behaviour during the whole game - since redtail896 wouldn't have to be afraid of being perceived as a threat by the mafiosi...

For once I felt excited during the game - I thought I had solved a case (the "Who's the Serial Killer?" case)... That's why I did something not typical for me - I shared with the other players this quite direct suspicion... redtail896's next post didn't include any comments on my theory and that increased my belief that I was right... However, no one else commented on my theory, either, which really disappointed me. I was sure that if it did turn out that redtail896 was a "Serial Killer", redtail896 would win the game.

In my next post I'll talk about the developments in the game after I "committed suicide".

[Good and Honest]

Hoopla, it's very interesting for me to have a discussion with you but that will happen in a future post as I want to finish with my thoughts on the game first.

...So, as I said earlier, Day 4 was a complete disaster. Kid Know Nothing came to a very good conclusion (that I wouldn't kill, thus Kid Know Nothing's innocence being proven)... but that wasn't necessary since I had directly said that here! And then people wondered how could Kid Know Nothing possibly know that... At least ConfidAnon (in what proved to be ConfidAnon's last post) tried to explain the situation around Kid Know Nothing - which was not something a mafioso was likely to do.

Then Equinox replaced ConfidAnon. I was very curious what insights Equinox would offer but, alas, Equinox didn't manage to read everything that had happened.

Kid Know Nothing, I have to say I wasn't very happy with your post #800 where you said that I had made "a lot of very poor points". Of course, since they are my points, I disagree - that's not the important part. The question is: Why didn't you mention any of those "very poor points" while I was still "alive"? It seemed to me very easy to make that statement when I couldn't answer...

At the beginning of Day 5, both Equinox and AlmasterGM quickly voted for a "No Lynch" - that somehow felt like one of them was pretending not to have anything to do with the fact that no one was killed during Night 4...

However, at the time I was focusing almost solely on redtail896, who was wondering: "Why wasn't I killed?"... I thought that, being a "Serial Killer" and having an immunity to night kills, redtail896 was trying to make the mafioso accidentally admit in some way having tried to kill redtail896 and failing...

As you can see, I was really obsessed with my "redtail 896 is a Serial Killer" theory... So when redtail896 was killed during Night 5, I felt quite stupid. Once again, redtail896, I'm sorry!

I agreed with some of the points Equinox made about AlmasterGM but I found the explanations Equinox made somewhat confusing and I couldn't really accept them. Anyway, when Equinox voted for AlmasterGM at the beginning of Day 6, I found AlmasterGM's reaction very remarkable - it didn't indicate at all that AlmasterGM was even considering that Vel-Rahn Koon could be the last mafioso...

Equinox, I like the fact that you are using red text to show that you're telling the truth. But what is the meaning of the blue text? By the way, I knew about Newbie 940. Your emotions there felt genuine to me and I think I'd have chosen Nachomamma8 over you as the mafioso...

I was happy to see Vel-Rahn Koon acknowledge on the last Day that "just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible"...

I hope everyone enjoyed this game!

Thank you all for playing with me!

And thank you, Espeonage, for moderating our game!

[Good and Honest]

Well, I just can't agree that my playstyle is "detrimental to the town". What I'm trying to do is interact with everyone, ask questions, share observations - i.e., I want there to be as much information as possible to help solve the case. Of course, everyone's free to interpret that information however they wish. I'll once again give my second game on this site (Newbie 975) as an example - there I was killed on Night 1! And in the post-game comments the mafiosi explained that they killed me first because I was "very investigative". Here's a direct quote from one of the mafiosi: "Your play is potentially useful to the right town, and dangerous to an anti town force". So if the mafiosi perceive me as such a big threat, is my playstyle really "detrimental to the town"?

Then in my third game (Newbie 983) one mafioso was lynched on Day 1. On Day 2 a couple of players were convinced that another player was the second mafioso. I pointed out some things about the interactions between the mafioso and the suspected player which, in my opinion, showed that they weren't partners... while I pointed out that there was nothing in the interactions between the mafioso and a third player that showed they weren't partners (and that third player did turn out to be the second mafioso!). Also, as the suspected player, who was an innocent townsperson, noted, I was the only one to really interrogate the second mafioso on Day 1... Once again, I don't see how that was "detrimental to the town".

By the way, during this game drmyshottyizsik only made a couple of statements without any explanations. There was one exception - post #464, where drmyshottyizsik gives reasons for suspecting Zachrulez. Who asked drmyshottyizsik to give those reasons? I.

I do agree (and I have said it myself) that my playstyle is detrimental to the MAFIA - regardless of my role in any particular game. But I don't quite understand why anyone (apart from the mafia) would want to lynch me for that...

And now about Hoopla's points:

Hoopla, reading a mystery book is a good suggestion but that's quite a different experience because it's not interactive. Yes, I might have my suspicions about who the criminal is but it's the detective in the book that makes all the investigations and I can't ask the suspects any questions, I can only read the detective's questions. That's the great thing about the game of Mafia - it's interactive so I can really feel like I'm the detective. And I do think it's best (and certainly most interesting) when each player interacts with each other player...

I'm not sure why you're constantly repeating that I'm saying nothing or that I'm not giving any analysis at all. I feel like I have said quite a lot of things (in fact, here I have said more than in any of my previous three games) and I do think I have given analysis (then again, like I discussed with redtail896, maybe we mean different things with "analysis")...

I'm not really fond of focusing on the "likeliest" scenario because (as I have said before) I don't like easy solutions. Let's talk about mystery books again - imagine that there is one main suspect for the crime... and in the end it turns out that exactly that person is the criminal! Not very interesting, is it? That's why in mystery books the main suspect usually isn't the criminal... Of course, the game of Mafia is not quite the same but I have seen games on this site where the "likeliest" scenario isn't true... In any case, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering the different possibilities (no matter how "likely" they are) - in fact, for me that's one of the most enjoyable things in the game!

By the way, I'm not sure if anyone learned that AlmasterGM was a "Roleblocker" in this game. Also, if Zachrulez and AlmasterGM are willing to, they may post the QuickTopic so that AGar can find out what their reasons for the Night 1 kill were...