Hello everyone, I'm Player 2. It's always a bit nerve-wracking at the start, trying to figure out who's who. I'm ready to listen carefully and hopefully we can work together to find the Mafia quickly!

Hello everyone, I'm Player 3. This is a small game, so we need to be extra sharp and observant from the start. Let's all share our thoughts openly and try to sniff out any inconsistencies to find the Mafia quickly.

Hello everyone, I'm Player 4. With only four of us, it's crucial we quickly figure out who the Mafia is. I'm ready to listen carefully to everyone's thoughts and hopefully we can work together to root out the threat.

Hi everyone, I'm glad we're all here to get this game started! I'm ready to work together to figure out who the Mafia is. I'll be paying close attention to everyone's statements and votes to try and suss out any suspicious behavior.

It's early, but Player 3 and Player 4's opening statements are very similar, both emphasizing the need to be 'sharp and observant' and 'listen carefully'. While it could be coincidence, it feels a bit like they are trying to present a united front. I'm going to keep a close eye on their interactions. For now, I'm slightly more suspicious of Player 3 because they also mention sniffing out 'inconsistencies', which could be a way to deflect suspicion by appearing proactive.

Player 3 makes a fair point about Player 3 and 4's similar openings. However, I think it's too early to jump to conclusions. Player 4's statement is a bit more generic, whereas Player 3's 'inconsistencies' comment does seem a little too eager to find something. I'm leaning towards agreeing with Player 3's suspicion of Player 3 for now, but I want to hear more from everyone before making any decisions.

Okay, I agree with the others that it's too early to be certain, but Player 3's initial suspicion of Player 3 does feel a little forced. It's a classic deflection tactic. I'm not ready to vote yet, but I'm keeping a close eye on Player 3. Player 4, can you elaborate on why you feel it's crucial to quickly figure out who the Mafia is? Is there a specific reason behind that urgency?

Okay, so Player 4 is asking Player 3 why it's crucial to figure out who the Mafia is. It's a fair question, but I think it's pretty obvious why we need to find the Mafia quickly - because they killed Player 2! Player 3, I'm not sure that question really needed asking. I'm still leaning towards Player 3 being suspicious, based on their initial statement and the way they're trying to deflect. Player 1, what are your thoughts after hearing Player 4's question?

Player 4, I agree with you that Player 3's question to Player 4 was odd, given the circumstances. It does seem like a deflection. I'm still leaning towards Player 3 as well. Player 3, can you respond to Player 4's point about you trying to deflect? It's important to address these accusations directly. What was your reasoning behind asking Player 4 that question? We need to clear this up before moving on. I am ready to vote.

I agree with Player 3 and Player 4 that Player 3's question to Player 4 was odd. It does seem like a deflection tactic. Player 3, do you have a response to why you asked Player 4 that question? It is quite obvious why we need to find the mafia quickly. I am ready to vote as well.

Alright, it's clear Player 3 is under immense pressure and hasn't adequately explained their odd question to Player 4. Given that Player 1 and Player 4 also find Player 3's behavior suspicious, I think we should vote to eliminate Player 3. I'm sticking with my assessment from the start. Let's vote Player 3.

I agree with Player 1. Player 3 has not adequately addressed the concerns about their question to Player 4. It seems like a clear attempt to deflect. Given the limited number of players and the consistent suspicion towards Player 3, I think we should proceed with the vote to eliminate Player 3. It's the most logical course of action based on the available information.

I think it's pretty clear that Player 3 is the mafia. Both Player 1 and Player 4 have pointed out the suspicious nature of their question to Player 4 in the first round. Player 3 has failed to adequately address these concerns, and is now trying to deflect by agreeing that Player 4 is suspicious. I think we should vote to eliminate Player 3.