Mafia strikes again! (concluded)

[Simetrical]

Of course there isn't anything you can say to convince me, I know for a fact that I am innocent.

There's no need to stress this point. Nobody is going to believe your word alone. It's perfectly possible that the evidence falsely points to you due to bad luck, but the idea is not to repeatedly say this, it's to convince us of it. Or, if you can't, you can still concede that the evidence points to you.

Ah, now I think we are getting somewhere, maybe just maybe...well I think I'll wait a little longer before tipping my hand.

You said you're a plain townie. Do you have anything else to tell us or not?

What changed I wonder?

Someone (other than the actual target, who's a given) objected. I didn't particularly expect anyone to.

I am hardly the only reasonable choice left. The only way that I can possibly be considered the 'only reasonable choice' is if we completely discount the probability of their being an Godfather. And if we simply accept your word that you are an innocent Mason and Townie, hardly what I would consider the 'only reasonable choice' left. And that is without considering the possibilty that Estlander is a Scum Inventor, he did after all blow up the innocent but not loquacious R.I.

I did not say you were the only possible choice, but the only reasonable choice right now. It's possible that anyone here is mafia, even though Estlander and I have relatively strong evidence that we aren't. But Estlander and I are not reasonable choices right now because no evidence points to us and substantial evidence counts in favor of our being townies, so there are better choices available. As for why you're a better choice than scottishranger or Evariste, well, that's simple. There are two possibilities:

1. There is no Godfather. Then scottishranger and Evariste are innocent and you are guilty.
2. There is a Godfather. Then it could equally be you, Evariste, or scottishranger, so you have a one-third chance of being guilty.

So in case 1 you're definitely guilty, whereas in case 2 you have equal chance of guilt. Even if we knew for sure that there was a Godfather, you're as good a choice as either of the other two, but since we aren't sure there is one, you're a better choice. Simple.

Now, you responded to my accusation of you by accusing me in response without giving any kind of evidence. That's not very good form, in Mafia (or in real life for that matter). I presented two serious barriers to sapi's hypothesis, and I reiterate them for you. Please tell me, if I'm mafia:

1. Who is a more plausible candidate for the second Mason?
2. Do you think that there's a scum cop in the game (two games running! does Jubal like no variety?) but no real cop?

scottishranger, Estlander, and Evariste, all of you please state whether or not you are a Mason. Thank you.

[Simetrical]

(I should clarify: you didn't give any evidence that would be remotely convincing to anyone else. If you are in fact innocent, that would be good reason for you personally to believe that I'm a scum-cop, since as sapi says, that's probably not much less likely than a Godfather. However, that's not evidence that's useful for presentation to any of us. If you don't have any evidence that you can show us, then perhaps you'd be best off recognizing that the evidence is against you and going quietly rather than making a big scene and protestation that's not going to get you anywhere.)

[scottishranger]

I am not a mason, but a plain townie. I am inclined to believe that Sim is the other mason, due to his vigorous arguments throughout.

[happyho]

There's no need to stress this point.

I never knew of the Full WYSIWYG interface until I read this thread. I had meant to only italicize the word "I", simply put I forgot to click on the Icon again to stop using italics. In other words I was intending on stressing the fact that only I knew of my innocence. Nothing more, nothing less, and the fact that you jumped on this one minor detail so fiercely at the beginning tells me you are desperate to pin this on me.

Nobody is going to believe your word alone.

Well no kidding.

It's perfectly possible that the evidence falsely points to you due to bad luck, but the idea is not to repeatedly say this, it's to convince us of it. Or, if you can't, you can still concede that the evidence points to you.

No I can't concede the evidence points to me, you are trying to make it seem like the evidence points to me. There is a difference.

You said you're a plain townie. Do you have anything else to tell us or not?

Obviously since you claim to be a Mason as well as Town Cop, that means that you clearly are not a "plain old vanilla Townie". There is a reason that I used a similar phrase twice. Let's just say that people develop patterns when they post. We all have habits and ways of addressing people when we post or communicate by, say pm, my hope is that a certain someone would have used the same posting style when he contacted others about...

Well let's not get too far afield here.

Someone (other than the actual target, who's a given) objected. I didn't particularly expect anyone to.

Yes, that was one thing that I was hoping for.

I did not say you were the only possible choice

Perhaps not, but you are clearly trying to do your best to make it seem like I am the only possible choice.

but the only reasonable choice right now

Reasonable by who's standards? Yours? Not by my standards, I at least have been honest enough to admit that there is the possibility that another could be the guilty one. You on the other hand seem quite convinced that I am guilty. That in itself is a little telling.

It's possible that anyone here is mafia

Yes, including you Simetrical. You have been quite consistent in avoiding mentioning the possibility that you could be a "killer". Wanting to avoid associating yourself in peoples minds along with Mafia is a good way to help hide yourself. Bravo, it's harder to believe someone is guilty of something if they have never been associated with said crime. If on the other hand a thief gets arrested for shoplifting, people aren't surprised and assume he's guilty.

even though Estlanderand I have relatively strong evidence that we aren't.

Relatively speaking that is weak as an argument for your innocence.

But Estlander and I are not reasonable choices right now because no evidence points to us and substantial evidence counts in favor of our being townies,

I admit that evidence does not seem to point to Estlander, you on the other hand seem to me as being the logical choice for the final Mafia. You hid in our midst and led all lynchings, made sure the Mafia kills were clean and random appearing. That is why Sapi was first to die, and also why Chandrashekar Azad died most recently.

so there are better choices available

So you would have us think. After all you said

but the idea is not to repeatedly say this, it's to convince us of it.

Maybe it's time you started holding to this, how many times have you just stated your own innocence? Including Estlander at the same time that you declare your own innocence is a good trick.

As for why you're a better choice than scottishranger or Evariste, well, that's simple. There are two possibilities:

1. There is no Godfather. Then scottishranger and Evariste are innocent and you are guilty.
2. There is a Godfather. Then it could equally be you, Evariste, or scottishranger, so you have a one-third chance of being guilty.

So in case 1 you're definitely guilty, whereas in case 2 you have equal chance of guilt

1. I have stated on several occasions that I believe that there is probably not a Godfather, if Evariste and scottishranger are neither one of them a Godfather, the only possible suspects are you, Estlander and myself since they have had their innocence confirmed.
2. I choose to act as though there is no Godfather, since the only possible candidates are those two or you, if one of them is a Godfather the odds of catching him are too low. Focus instead on the real goal of catching the final "killer" in our midst.

Even if we knew for sure that there was a Godfather, you're as good a choice as either of the other two, but since we aren't sure there is one, you're a better choice. Simple.

Again with the Godfather as a smokescreen tactic, hoping the play will succeed in diverting attention away from you and onto me. Something new please?

Now, you responded to my accusation of you by accusing me in response without giving any kind of evidence. That's not very good form, in Mafia (or in real life for that matter)

The last thing I need Simetrical is a lesson on manners from you. And let's be honest here, the amount of evidence you supplied against me is non existent. At best you supplied a little bit of hinting at things, none of that is evidence. Also I said that I didn't want to tip my hand last time I posted, I will wait until I have heard from the remaining members on whether or not they are Masons. Although I must say that you likely know the answer to that question.

I presented two serious barriers to sapi's hypothesis, and I reiterate them for you. Please tell me, if I'm mafia:

1. Who is a more plausible candidate for the second Mason?
2. Do you think that there's a scum cop in the game (two games running! does Jubal like no variety?) but no real cop?

1. no comment
2. no comment

scottishranger, Estlander, and Evariste, all of you please state whether or not you are a Mason. Thank you.

I also ask, again.

(I should clarify: you didn't give any evidence that would be remotely convincing to anyone else.

Neither did you really.

If you are in fact innocent, that would be good reason for you personally to believe that I'm a scum-cop, since as sapi says, that's probably not much less likely than a Godfather.

Again with the Godfather bit, a little repetitive by now. If you repeat it often enough some people might come to believe it, maybe.

However, that's not evidence that's useful for presentation to any of us. If you don't have any evidence that you can show us, then perhaps you'd be best off recognizing that the evidence is against you

This smells like a big old pile of moose pie. You yourself have presented ZERO evidence against me, simply hints and allegations along with an elbow nudge and wink-wink. By constantly pointing the finger at my "lack of evidence" you are hoping to avoid too much attention being focused on yourself. And your own GLARING lack of any real evidence against me.

and going quietly rather than making a big scene and protestation that's not going to get you anywhere.)

I'm not sure if this is something that I should take offense at, when have I ever made a "big scene and protestation" here at TWC? Where did that come from I ask? I really don't know what to make of that comment.

[Simetrical]

Perhaps not, but you are clearly trying to do your best to make it seem like I am the only possible choice.

I am not. Any choice is possible. I have said that repeatedly, including in the very post you quoted. I think that only one choice is reasonable, and I give reasoning for that.

Reasonable by who's standards? Yours? Not by my standards, I at least have been honest enough to admit that there is the possibility that another could be the guilty one. You on the other hand seem quite convinced that I am guilty.

You misrepresent me yet again. Anyone who has read this thread can see that that's completely false. Observe the highlighted portions and tell me with a straight face that I said I was certain of your guilt.

So I suppose, irrational though it would make him seem, for now we should go with happyho, as the only person not have been investigated and found clean. If there is a Godfather, anyway, it's as likely him as either of the other two. . . . So I vote happyho. My deepest apologies if I'm mistaken, to be sure.

happyho: clearly you're going to vote for me, especially if you are innocent.

. . .

In any case: as usual, I'm not afraid of discussion, so while I remain firmly convinced that happyho is the only reasonable choice given our knowledge, I will unvote happyho until the doubts about me are extinguished.

There's no need to stress this point. Nobody is going to believe your word alone. It's perfectly possible that the evidence falsely points to you due to bad luck, but the idea is not to repeatedly say this, it's to convince us of it. Or, if you can't, you can still concede that the evidence points to you. . . .

I did not say you were the only possible choice, but the only reasonable choice right now. It's possible that anyone here is mafia, even though Estlander and I have relatively strong evidence that we aren't. But Estlander and I are not reasonable choices right now because no evidence points to us and substantial evidence counts in favor of our being townies, so there are better choices available. As for why you're a better choice than scottishranger or Evariste, well, that's simple. There are two possibilities: . . .

So in case 1 you're definitely guilty, whereas in case 2 you have equal chance of guilt. Even if we knew for sure that there was a Godfather, you're as good a choice as either of the other two, but since we aren't sure there is one, you're a better choice. Simple.

Yes, including you Simetrical. You have been quite consistent in avoiding mentioning the possibility that you could be a "killer".

I'll repeat what I previously said about The Fuzz's defense of himself: "Again, a mischaracterization of suspiciously great magnitude. You're grasping at straws." Here are the posts where I addressed my being a mafioso, in response to accusations by others. Of course they're all denying it — even if it were true I'd hardly admit it — but I've highlighted parts where I note the uncertainty from your perspective.

Well, I've been a champion of one scum lynching so far, from start to finish (assuming it's actually a scum lynching, but I really have no doubts now). I must be real sneaky if I'm scum.

How is it possible to do too much to be town? Of course a good Mafia strategy is to have their members pretend completely to be town, but the town strategy is then identical, so you can't distinguish them in that case. Our only hope, as town, is to assume that the mafiosi either didn't think of behaving like town or aren't very good actors. Turning on ourselves because we're acting like good townies is kind of counterproductive no matter what strategies are being used.

Neutral and helpful? Me? I single-handedly led the (unfortunately rather mistaken) crusade against Arakorn-Eir, and along with pannonian I championed the attack against Dinadan. Again, a mischaracterization of suspiciously great magnitude. You're grasping at straws.

. . .

Now you're the one throwing suspicion on timing, as I did not. As you said yourself: people are on at various times. Pra and I happened to be on at the same time last night, evidently.

And I would too if I were scum, but as it happens, I'm not.

Full reveal time: I'm not just a Mason but the cop as well. There's no reason for you not to believe me, since you can be quite sure I'm a Mason, as Chandrashekar Azad figured that out. That means I'm town and have no good reason to lie to you about anything, unless to throw the mafia off (and declaring you're the cop is not known to do that). . . .

(It's quite a good strategy, and one I might easily use myself if I were mafia ― although as has been noted, evidence points to my being a Mason this game, and if Estlander admits he's an Inventor, there's evidence that I'm a cop besides.) . . .

Estlander, please admit that you're an Inventor and so confirm that I'm a cop. (Technically that doesn't ensure I'm town, because there was a scum-cop in the last game. However, if there's a scum-cop there's probably also a regular cop, and there's also the Mason evidence. I think that if Estlander agrees, it's pretty clear that I'm telling the truth about everything.)

I exclude myself and Estlander because I believe I've demonstrated for now that we're both innocent (and in any case I know we're innocent) . . .

Right, that's why I presented evidence that I'm a Mason and cop.

I am innocent. Tons of circumstantial evidence to support this. If you don't believe this, say so and I'll repeat it all over again for you.

Did I not say, repeatedly, that you should believe me solely because there was good circumstantial evidence? Did I not also mention at least once something to the effect of that I would in fact quite probably play this way if I were scum, and that because of that it would be unwise to judge me on my behavior, but that in this case the evidence tends generally toward my being town? Let me list the evidence:

1. pannonian is a known Mason. Chandrashekar Azad, a known townie, independently worked out by process of elimination that I was the only possible second Mason. As would be expected of the second Mason, I defended pannonian vigorously on day one. If you don't think I'm a Mason, could you give a single plausible alternative for who the Mason is?
2. Estlander and I can't both be mafia, because there's only one left at most (possibly the last one is a serial killer instead). So if I'm not town, Estlander must be town, and that means he is what he says: the inventor. And yet I said flat-out that Estlander is the inventor, when no one else had previously even speculated on who the inventor was, and he admitted it was so. If I'm the mafioso, can you explain how I possibly knew that Estlander was the inventor? What evidence is there during daytime discussions to possibly reveal that fact to anyone? There's no remotely reliable way to uncover the fact that someone's an inventor without being the cop, or a Mason along with the inventor (which would make me town), or possible using inventions (but that's impossible because the inventor is accounted for, and so are the two inventions used from before I revealed). Do you think I took a wild guess, with a large majority chance that I'd be wrong and give away my game? Do you think there's a scum cop but no actual cop (or that the actual cop would not do a reveal by this critical point)?

Those are my two challenges for you. Come up with any remotely plausible Mason from those alive, and come up with some way I could discern who the inventor is while not being a cop. Then it will be possible to say that I'm not town.

For the Mason bit, by the way, I would like to ask all alive to fess up if they're the Mason. Evariste, scottishranger, Estlander, happyho: can each of you please say straight out whether or not you're a Mason? There's no reason to hide it with the other Mason dead. (Even then I would see no reason, actually. In retrospect, it seems logical to announce Masonry immediately, and I'm kicking myself for not doing that. If pannonian and I had announced on the first day that we were Masons, I would have avoided this whole misguided suspicion.)

Quite frankly, sapi, while you understate my own arguments for townhood, you give none at all for my scumminess, other than my not being killed (I have offered one hypothesis for that, and will reiterate that along with a second one below). Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that I'm a smooth and convincing talker. That doesn't argue positively for my being either town or mafia, it just means you shouldn't take my detailed arguments as evidence for towniness.

Frankly, as anyone who knows me here can tell you, this is who I am: I post at great length and detail with logical arguments. Look at some of my posts from the Common Community forums: mostly the Athenaeum lately, also other places like the Mudpit when I used to go there. This is how I post everywhere. It didn't affect Barca's random assignment of my role.

They don't know who the inventor is. My other claims haven't even been tested, except retrospectively, so obviously those are easy to fake and I haven't mentioned them as evidence.

I have two hypotheses. One I stated previously, that there's a Godfather, which screws up the whole idea of investigations.

The second hypothesis hinges around the fact that yesterday, I tried to hint that it was probably in the mafia's best interest not to kill me because that would reveal my role and legitimize my case. (I can get quotes if you like, but as I said, I'm tired and a bit uncomfortable.) The idea was that I felt that that would actually be strongly against the mafia's interest, since I had people pretty firmly convinced and felt they could benefit much more from another night's investigations. Basically, I was trying to psych the remaining one or two mafiosi into killing someone else. Possibly I succeeded in doing so. In any case, Chandrashekar Azad was certainly the most thoughtful and penetrating left alive after me, so he was the obvious second choice.

These aren't the only possibilities. Nobody said this has to be standard Mafia, so who knows. Maybe happyho is a serial killer and Jubal decided that since serial killers are mentally disturbed, he kills a random person every night instead of a person of his choice. But I think those two are the most likely.

If you are in fact innocent, that would be good reason for you personally to believe that I'm a scum-cop, since as sapi says, that's probably not much less likely than a Godfather.

The entirety of the quotes above were devoted to illustrating that I'm not a mafioso. Could you explain how this constitutes "avoiding mentioning the possibility that [I] could be a 'killer'", please?

1. I have stated on several occasions that I believe that there is probably not a Godfather, if Evariste and scottishranger are neither one of them a Godfather, the only possible suspects are you, Estlander and myself since they have had their innocence confirmed.

If I'm guilty, then whether there's a Godfather or not is irrelevant except for the case of scottishranger, since you don't know that I've actually investigated anyone.

2. I choose to act as though there is no Godfather, since the only possible candidates are those two or you, if one of them is a Godfather the odds of catching him are too low. Focus instead on the real goal of catching the final "killer" in our midst.

Oh, I agree that the first assumption needs to be that there's no Godfather. In that case, if I'm town, you're the only suspect, and so I target you and say everyone else should.

let's be honest here, the amount of evidence you supplied against me is non existent.

If I am innocent, you're the best choice from our perspective. That much is clear, yes? If I'm innocent that implies that three others were legitimately investigated and found to be town, with you the odd man out. The only question is whether I'm innocent, and I've certainly presented enough evidence to content half of the players. I think the Mason question will strengthen the evidence for that, and the rest will follow.

Also I said that I didn't want to tip my hand last time I posted, I will wait until I have heard from the remaining members on whether or not they are Masons.

Fair enough, to be sure. I certainly won't vote for you or anyone until that's resolved and we hear any subsequent arguments by you.

Estlander and Evariste, please state whether or not you're Masons.

[happyho]

I am not. Any choice is possible. I have said that repeatedly, including in the very post you quoted. I think that only one choice is reasonable, and I give reasoning for that.

Yes you are, Simetrical, do you deny that in post 317 you voted on me fully expecting the rest to vote as you did?

Someone (other than the actual target, who's a given) objected. I didn't particularly expect anyone to.

Yes, that's right. Someone did, as I had been hoping.

and so I target you and say everyone else should.

Just like that eh? You target me so everyone else should. There is a very good reason that I voted the way I did. When Arakorn-eir named himself Mafia he had to die. The only possible way that I could have spared him and voted for someone else would have been if the Cop investigated him and said he was innocent. As it was the first night there was nothing that a Cop could have done. Arakorn-eir died because he chose to die. When it came to lynching Dinadan I went along because I had started to suspect him long before that, as you yourself pointed out several times before this.

Then The Fuzz, I admit that on this one I was more torn, I wanted to be as certain as possible and once I was I voted without hesitation. After the lynching of Sir Dinadan I saw that it took 4 Townies dying to get 1 Scum, it became obvious that it would be impossible for us to win at that rate, if The Fuzz was to die, it had to be for the right reasons. After the dust had settled I saw that my intuition was right. That's one of the reasons that I shall continue to follow my gut instincts.

You misrepresent me yet again. Anyone who has read this thread can see that that's completely false. Observe the highlighted portions and tell me with a straight face that I said I was certain of your guilt.

Hardly. I just quoted your post in which you are leading the charge against me, one that you expected would lead to my demise. Not only that, but you seemed to imply I was a crybaby that was better off accepting the fact that I was about to be lynched.

then perhaps you'd be best off recognizing that the evidence is against you and going quietly rather than making a big scene and protestation that's not going to get you anywhere.)

Sounds to me like you were convinced of my guilt. And that you believed I would react in an immature manner.

So I vote happyho. My deepest apologies if I'm mistaken, to be sure.

Apologizing as you hang an innocent man is no good. You should know better than that.

I am telling you with a straight typing hand that you are the one misrepresenting things, not me. To be honest you succeeded in overwhelming me with info again, I don't have the time tonight to read all of that once again. I'll comment further once we have heard from the rest about they being Masons or not.

Certain things have become clear and several questions will need to be answered. And to the other players, don't be shy about sharing your thoughts. We could very well decide to hang one of you if you stay too silent, it is possible that Simetrical and I are both innocent and could convince each other of our respective innocence.





hahahahahaha!

[Simetrical]

Er, seems we lost some posts since the last backup. As I'm sure we all recall, it's now confirmed that everyone but me denies being a Mason, and we were going to ask Jubal_Barca to confirm that there must be more than one Mason, as in a standard Mafia game. Jubal?

[sapi]

That's pretty much as I recall it, too

[Jubal_Barca]

there must be AT LEAST 2 masons.

[sapi]

It still doesn't feel right; but I can't see any reason for the real mason not coming out at this stage; so I guess we trust Sim

[Jubal_Barca]

I haven't been keeping track, can anyone do a VC please, I'm quite rushed off my feet busy atm.

[happyho]

I can't be bothered to try and redo the posts that have gone missing. If you you three (Evariste, Estlander, scottishranger) are unable to get the motivation to make a proper game out of this, please vote for me to end my part in the game. As it is this is not interesting enough to justify my continued participation, if you three do want to make a game out of this I will resume my own defense, if you simply want to end this now, say so.

*Walks up to tree, looks around and shrugs seeing nobody around. Stands on stool and puts noose around neck. Waits for nightfall.*

Voting happyho.

[Enemy of the State]

Sorry, i felt i had nothing good to post as Sim had already given good evidence against you and proof that he is innocent.

[happyho]

Sorry, i felt i had nothing good to post as Sim had already given good evidence against you and proof that he is innocent.

That is a little bit better Estlander, but let's be honest here, that's not what I had in mind. If you are so convinced of my guilt, vote for me. You say Simetrical has convinced you? Which parts? What is there that strikes you as truth? Aren't there any holes in what he has presented? Don't you try to read in between the lines and see if he or I am dropping hints and clues for you? Hasn't he made any errors in judgment? Aren't there any inconsistencies in what he has presented? I certainly think so, even if he IS the last Mason I can think of at least TWO situations in which he's the one we need to hang.

[Simetrical]

Jubal_Barca, is it guaranteed that Masons are town? You couldn't have, e.g., a Mason serial killer? And is it guaranteed that if someone is town, town does not need to kill them to win?

[pannonian]

Jubal_Barca, is it guaranteed that Masons are town? You couldn't have, e.g., a Mason serial killer? And is it guaranteed that if someone is town, town does not need to kill them to win?

Isn't a group of mason serial killers basically another mafia faction?

[Simetrical]

I really don't know. Normally you wouldn't call them Mason serial killers, you'd call them another mafia faction. Better question, then: if we know that one Mason is town, do we know the other is? Could be one Mason is a serial killer and the other doesn't know it, in principle, except that that would contravene the normal definition of a Mason.

But to be honest, whatever the answer is, the way forward is clear here. happyho, I have to say that you're not being a very good sport. It's been clearly established in everyone's eyes but yours that I'm town. You say that I'm not for the sole reason that I (along with, I think, everyone else at this point) suspect you above anyone else, not because you have good reason to think I'm actually the person we should lynch. You allude to ways I could be the right target but refuse to share them with, purportedly, your fellow townies, because you're angry at them for suspecting you too (are you forgetting that even if you die you still win or lose with the surviving townies?). I don't think we're going to get anywhere further, if there is anywhere further to go, if this is the way you're going to behave.

I vote happyho.

[Simetrical]

I count Estlander, happyho, and myself voting for happyho, so that looks like a lynch.

[Evariste]

Oops, I'd forgotten about Mafia.


It looks like happyho's going to go, anyway (something I tend to agree with, even though Sapi's thoughts about Sim are worth considering).

Also, it looks like my post got lost. I'm not a mason.

[Jubal_Barca]

So, out goes Happyho...

Who hangs himself...

Damnit, why are only townies ever suicidal?

Happyho, TOWNIE, has been killed.

This means it's night! Choices to me please...