Minr Mafia XXII - Spirits (Game Over)

[Peregrin]

The way I see it, there are three possibilities for a no-alignment.
1) He started with no alignment, and throughout the game he would be able to be converted to another alignment.
2) He started out as some alignment, and was mid-process being converted.
3) His alignment was hidden, as Boreal suggested.

Regardless, it seems he was not innocent at this time, and whether by luck or not, Parry and Doyle seemed on the right track.

Now that we, sadly, know Parry is innocent, would you mind expanding on why you were so quick to take his side, @Arthur Doyle ? Do you maybe have some information we do not?

I think the first possibility seems most likely and, above all, the most interesting gameplay mechanic. Perhaps there are roles on either side that, when in contact with the no-alignment player, could convert them? I am, of course, not insinuating that I am such a player.

 

[Barton Hepburn]

Surely if he was at some point being converted he would have started the game as an independent alignment instead of just no alignment.

 

[Victor Pritchett]

Is there a possibility that there may be a killing role that conceals the alignments of those killed? Or possibly an item of some sort that could be used? Due to past... investigations, I believe this could happen.

 

[Peregrin]

Surely if he was at some point being converted he would have started the game as an independent alignment instead of just no alignment.

the way I see it, independent means that you can win alone. Perhaps their win condition involved joining a team and then winning with that team?

 

[Arthur Doyle]

Robert Blake, you said "Arthur Doyle, why did you have such a vendetta against Dr. Watson, even going so far as to contact me (I'm not sure about anyone else), telling me without proof that I should vote Dr. Watson?"

How is that a vendetta. We all just met. He to me made more sense than any of the others. I'm guessing right, unlike others who are killing innocents. This actually makes me suspicious of you. If I was mafia, wouldn't I have knowledge that would assist me in actually voting for Innocents?

I was right to be suspicious of Dr. Watson, since he wasn't innocent.

As for why Dr Watson died, he could have been a victim of a curse which would also kill whoever killed the chosen player (in this case Parry). Let's think about who keeps killing innocents. Look at people's track records.

 

[Arthur Doyle]

This was the unsolicited mail I got from Dr. Watson:


Dear Sir Doyle,

...Greetings. I have heard that you are familiar with my old companion, Mr. Sherlock Holmes. While I have fallen out of contact with him, I trust that any of his acquaintances are of good company. ...This is to say, I wish to work with you in the future. Please allow me to know your thoughts on the matter of the crime.

In good faith, Dr. Watson


It just struck me as weird, and made me suspicious. This was the beginning of our short discussion.

 

[Arthur Doyle]

I know who I'd vote for right now, so convince me why it shouldn't be you? Here's my reason:

"I'm guessing right, unlike others who are killing innocents."

 

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Let's think about who keeps killing innocents. Look at people's track records.

The partial issue with that is that we've been just grasping at straws, or with the first vote; voting a silent member. We have had no information shared on this thread with any kind of proof whatsoever. Everything we have is solely based on private msgs at this point. Looking at people's track records won't get us far since there is nothing on this thread to look at that's meaningful at the moment. Hopefully that changes soon. If you have anything, or if anyone else does, it would be beneficial to start talking, I know that runs the risk of getting attention but it will give us a place to start.

 

[Meriadoc]

How is that a vendetta. We all just met. He to me made more sense than any of the others. I'm guessing right, unlike others who are killing innocents. This actually makes me suspicious of you. If I was mafia, wouldn't I have knowledge that would assist me in actually voting for Innocents?

I was right to be suspicious of Dr. Watson, since he wasn't innocent.

As for why Dr Watson died, he could have been a victim of a curse which would also kill whoever killed the chosen player (in this case Parry). Let's think about who keeps killing innocents. Look at people's track records.

We don't know if Watson was guilty, nor do we know if he was innocent. His alignment wasn't revealed, so there's no way of us knowing what group he was sided with, or if you are "guessing right."

Our job in this game is to question everything we can, even minor details or hunches, just like you have done in the past with Dr. Watson and just like Robert Blake is questioning you now. While yes, we've lost innocents, there's no need to throw your potential allies under the bus for decisions that were, at the moment, perceived as the right choices to make.

We should be working with each other, not against one another.

 

[Arthur Doyle]

Meriadoc, only Dr. Watson has started a communication with me so far.

 

[Meriadoc]

Meriadoc, only Dr. Watson has started a communication with me so far.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you mean by this message, but I'm not quite sure how that relates to what I posted.

 

[Howard Lovecraft]

Okay Doyle, I've been suspicious of your actions for a while now, so I think I'll run through your questionable activity so far:

right at the beginning of the game, you try to throw suspicion on Meriadoc through lying:

Meriadoc, you said that Mrs Coulter said "If nothing useful is gathered, it'd probably be most effective to do what Mrs. Coulter suggested - focus on the people who aren't posting." Your wrong there buddy. Mrs Coulter didn't say to focus on people who aren't posting.

I'm suspicious of you're motive for lying about that.

After getting caught in your lie, you try to throw suspicion on Mrs Coulter:

I'm suspicious of anyone who tries to target someone for not posting. Maybe they want us to target that person so they don't get targeted?

And now, for the supposed 'suspicious' Watson message which you used to try and encourage us all to vote out Watson.

There was something weird in a message he sent me. I'm not sure if your allowed to share those though.

I also received a similar message from Watson before he died. I see nothing suspicious in his message to me or his message to you. It honestly just seems like he was a regular player trying to reach out for information and teamwork from the players around him.

It's not concrete evidence by any means, but I just wanted to get my suspicions out in the open in case others have info to bring forward.

 

[Arthur Doyle]

Meriadoc, you said

"While yes, we've lost innocents, there's no need to throw your potential allies under the bus for decisions that were, at the moment, perceived as the right choices to make."

I was simply stating that the only player to initiate conversation with me was Dr. Watson. I thus have no allies. So far inaction through voting has killed only innocents. *Clapping*

At least I'm trying to kill mafia. I'll be going through all the messages tomorrow to try to figure out who the liars are.

 

[Mr. Fitzgerald]

Do we have anyone suspected to be mafia?

 

[Robert Blake]

Arthur Doyle

A: Like I said before, I was asking why you didn't present proof, or even imply that you had any before telling me to vote Watson. That seems like a vendetta to me. I'm not saying you were wrong to suspect them, I'm asking why you were suspecting them without a proper lead

B: As meriadoc said, we do not know the alignment of Watson. You currently have no evidence that you were correct. But, with that, I wasn't questioning your correctness, but your motives

 

[Arthur Doyle]

Howard Lovecraft, Okay Doyle, I've been suspicious of your actions for a while now, so I think I'll run through your questionable activity so far:

right at the beginning of the game, you try to throw suspicion on Meriadoc through lying: LYING HOW?
↑
Meriadoc, you said that Mrs Coulter said "If nothing useful is gathered, it'd probably be most effective to do what Mrs. Coulter suggested - focus on the people who aren't posting." Your wrong there buddy. Mrs Coulter didn't say to focus on people who aren't posting.

I'm suspicious of you're motive for lying about that.

After getting caught in your lie WHAT LIE?, you try to throw suspicion on Mrs Coulter:

 

[Arthur Doyle]

4 dead innocents (assuming Watson too) out of 21 passengers.

Assume we started with 4 mafia and 17 innocents/neutrals.

Over a 60% chance we get at least one mafia member.

 

[Arthur Doyle]

Robert Blake, just felt that something was off with him. Wanted to make something other than a random vote.

 

[Robert Blake]

4 dead innocents (assuming Watson too) out of 21 passengers.

Assume we started with 4 mafia and 17 innocents/neutrals.

Over a 60% chance we get at least one mafia member.

Is this saying that it is likely that Watson was likely mafia? If so, the chance, assuming your assumptions is 4/18 that he was mafia. Also, remember that neutrals probably exist as well.

 

[Arthur Doyle]

If he wasn't it's still 48.9%. We are either unlikely, or some people are working together to eliminate known innocents.