Mini 427 - Clue Mafia 2 - GAME OVER

[BillyTwilight]

Accuse: Billy Twilight

HA! A preemptive strike!

Accuse: DoS

for weak trend setting.

[BillyTwilight]

Accuse:chaotic_diablo

You call that dancing?

No, it's a sexual assault with my ass. Next question.

You call that a sexual assault with your ass?

[BillyTwilight]

unaccuse

These games are ridiculously slow.

Accuse: Battle Mage

. Haven't done that in a while; it's fun, you guys should try it.

[BillyTwilight]

unaccuse

BM, I don't think you needed to claim at that moment. You were only at L-2 and it's obvious that wagons form and disperse in these Clue games like cigarette smoke anyway.

Mod, can we get a vote count please?

[BillyTwilight]

I think you overreacted BM. MBL's vote has been on you as more or less a placeholder and holdover from his random vote; TCS has been vote hopping in these Clue games a lot, my vote for you was the same kind of random-joke vote that we have been putting on each other in these 3 games since they started. You weren't in real danger of a lynch, at least not until the deadline got closer.

I am worried a lot by MBL. He hasn't unvoted BM after his claim or commented on it at all and he's only posted twice. He's been fairly active in the 1st Clue game the last couple of days, so he isn't lurking because he forgot about the game or because there is nothing to say in the current converstaion.

Major FoS: MBL

.

[BillyTwilight]

I don't like TCS' post either. I despise MBL's post. MBL, how about you actually address the issues raised instead of misrepresenting what I have said. I am

not

showing a double standard. I attacked you in Clue 1 because you posted little in Day 1 then came out with a full attack against the most lynchable player on Day 2 while misrepresenting my arguments in that attack. I attacked you in this game because you were obviously active in the game as a whole, but posting nill in this thread. If you can't see that as suspicious play then... I don't know, I guess we won't see eye-to-eye very often.

FoS: Ecto

. TCS didn't "badger" a claim out of BM. In fact in the post before BM claimed TCS told BM that he was not asking for a claim. BM claimed in fear of a speedlynch when the only person (or persons, if you take MBL's version of events as truth) who have shown a propensity for speedlynching were

already

voting for him. BM's play was bad, plain and simple.

Still, something seems odd about TCS' current posting. I don't specifically agree with Jack, as I don't see TCS claiming that his pressure vote is a sign that he is town, but I don't like how TCS backed up my FoS of MBL so quickly. I think maybe he thinks that buddying up to me in this game after defending me in Clue 1 will make me think he is town here as well.

[BillyTwilight]

Singing telegram girl. Roleblocker.

Liar.

unaccuse, Accuse: TCS

.

[BillyTwilight]

I'm the singing telegram girl.

[BillyTwilight]

Jack, BM is correct. I have not claimed a role, just character name.

[BillyTwilight]

scratch that. didnt BillyT already claim something?

I claimed a character name, not a role.

And I don't like soups.

[BillyTwilight]

So who would have eaten the soup and who would have pitched it, and why?

I wouldn't have eaten it, mostly because it is an unknown and who knows what that could mean with MoS modding this game. I figure that with the way these Clue games are set up, MoS has to be modding at least one of them with some crazy atypical roles/gameplay, etc. Throw that in with some random soup showing up would make me extremely nervous about chowing down, whither it was cold outside or not.

Don't like CES or BM voting for MBL. BTW, aren't we supposed to be using Accuse in these games instead of Vote? BM claimed cop day 1 but I'm beginning to not like that claim. His post #164 makes me wonder about his claim now, and the nonsensical attack on MBL for not participating in an unknown variable bothers me. Couple that with the fact that BM claimed so quickly on day 1 (at Lynch-1) makes me nervous about that claim.

[BillyTwilight]

Why is everyone so concerned about the soup? It's a wild-card and nothing about MBL's reaction to it is scummy.

Going to reread and give a player analysis; expect it sometime tomorrow. [/hopefully]

[BillyTwilight]

thats odd. especially because you suggested at the start of the day, that you wanted him dead.
which is it?
oh and your failure to come up with even the faintest excuse for your lurking, is poor.

Oh, BM wants you all to stop playing until these questions are answered:

MBL- what are your views on Billy Twilight?
do you believe that he is TCS's scumbuddy, or genuine town?
who do you consider the play for today?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Twilight seems fine. I don't know who today's play is. We've only just begun and you've told everyone not to say anything because you're retarded.

Any more questions before we resume?

Vote: BM

. Don't like his claim anymore, didn't like the timing of it, don't like the way he's handled it (ie post #164). I don't like how he is pushing this soup thing either. The first part of the above quote might be a mental slip, accusing MBL of "wanting me dead" at the start of the day. The only thing that MBL did was post a joke post ("passes the soup to Billy") which probably had more to do with the argument we were having in Clue 1 than in this game, yet BM took that as "wanting BT dead". This is stated in such a way that makes me thing BM knows exactly what the soup does - a Freudian slip, perhaps.

[BillyTwilight]

Wow, this game is getting nowhere. Not unvoting BM atm. It's easy enough with a fake cop claim to claim an investigation on the person bringing an attack on you to get them to back off. Mostly I just haven't reread to get my bearing straight in this game. I'll try to do that this evening.

[BillyTwilight]

Wow, this game is getting nowhere. Not unvoting BM atm. It's easy enough with a fake cop claim to claim an investigation on the person bringing an attack on you to get them to back off. Mostly I just haven't reread to get my bearing straight in this game. I'll try to do that this evening.

that makes little sense. You have been acting quite scummy today. what would i gain by claiming an innocent investigation on you?
your attitude confuses me.
BM

You want to think that through again? You claimed an investigation on me, now you are accusing me of acting scummy? And it makes perfect sense. You are afraid of getting lynched on D1. You claim cop. No counterclaim, so it keeps you alive. Day 2 I speak up and say I don't like the cop claim. You can't say you got a guilty on me because once I am lynched you go down the next day, so you have to say you have an innocent on me in an attempt to appease my suspicion of you. How again does that not make sense?

[BillyTwilight]

You guys aren't paying attention; I would have expected more out of you Alko.

Here is the way I see it. MBL had to choose whither or not to eat some soup. More than likely the soup came from another player in the game, unless it's some strange game mechanic that MoS instituted in this game. Going on the assumption that it's the first and not the latter, someone in the game now knows what the soup does. For everyone else it is an unknown quantity. MBL decided not to eat the soup, which is fine by me, I wouldn't have either. However, he made a joke about passing the soup to me. At the time we were fighting in Clue 1, so I took it as a joke. Of course the soup was trashed, and we spent a page or more talking about it and guessing at what it would have done. Later, BM asked MBL what he thought about me, and MBL said that "Twilight seems fine."

BM said,

thats odd. especially because you suggested at the start of the day, that you wanted him dead.
which is it?

Now, we had just had a big talk about what the soup would do, and the conclusion effectively was "No one knows." However, in the above quote, BM took MBL's "passes the soup to Billy" post as wanting me dead. I found this to be a slip up, especially considering BM had several times said that he wasn't sure what the soup did. It's the only "slip" in the game with relation to the soup, where someone made a post about the soup that seems to have intimate knowledge about what the soup would do.

So then I looked at the rest of BM's play. The claim came early, at L-2 when there was not an imminent threat of lynching. On the second day, BM asked town what he should do with his result, which to me is strange because it comes more from an appease the town attitude then this is how I am going to play attitude. I am not convinced that their

is

a cop in this game; with three games running concurrently, it would not surprise me at all for MoS not to put a cop in at least one of them. BM could have gotten lucky with his cop claim, in that their would be no counterclaim. I therefore voted for BM, upon which he claimed that I was his not-guilty investigation. Look at posts 160-164. I don't think that BM is behaving towards me the way he would behave towards someone on whom he had gotten a not guilty investigation. If BM is scum, and faked his cop claim, he would have to give us confirmed townies, because giving us a guilty and a subsequent mislynch would immediately get him lynched the next day. Since I was the only person voting him and attacking him at the time, he claimed a not guilty on me in order to get me to back off.

Of course all of this depends on whither or not his post #225 really is a Freudian slip of sorts. Maybe I am reading way too much into it. I just don't see how anyone could take MBL's comment about passing the soup to me as anything other than a joke, and then turn it into MBL wanting me dead, unless part of their psychology was knowing that the soup killed the eater.

[BillyTwilight]

Bah, I just got home from work and reread my post, and even I don't believe it now. I looked back through day 1; although I still don't like how quickly BM claimed, I must admit that it makes sense for me to be his investigation target. Also, his #225 can be interpreted as MBL got rid of the soup cuz MBL thought it was dangerous, and if MBL thought it was dangerous then passing it to Billy must mean he wants Billy dead. Still don't see that in MBL's quote, but I can see how another player might take it that way. Couple that with the fact that we have three similar games running concurrently, I can see BM's play at the beginning of day 2 being slightly confused, and I don't know how BM plays as a cop anyway, so....

Unaccuse

.

I've been playing dumb, and I think I am trying too hard in this game; I locked on to not liking BM's claim and then tried to find something scummy in his posts. I'll reread more thoroughly and see where my suspicions lie.

[BillyTwilight]

"I would have expected more out of you Alko. "

I haven't read everything you've posted yet, but two things I'd like to say:

1.) I was away for a week, so I need to refresh what I think in this game, and I've had my focus elsewhere. Yes this is a bad reason, but it's true. When I posted, I tried to focus towards players that have been under the radar or that I had little to no notes on, and found virtually no posts to dissect, so I had little to say. I haven't bothered yet to move on to the players that we've been discussing or have discussed more thoroughly before.
2.) With players like BM, you need to look at him from a different perspective, and it becomes more difficult. While at Thespival, LyingBrian came and when he played FTF mafia, he appeared incredibly scummy, but was town. I watched his play, learned that his playstyle frequently threw up scummy flags, but I also found out how different his play and reactions were from normal players. BM is much the same way. After trying to analyze how he played and how his reactions differed, I became better at telling protown LB versus scum LB, and I think we need to work with BM much the same way. It's a difficult process to implement, and more difficult to explain, but I hope you see what I'm trying to say.

Alko, I meant no offense and I was wrong to boot. I was being dumb.

[BillyTwilight]

Haven't had a chance to reread... but I finished HP7, so my spare time is now back. Will try to post by tomorrow something constructive.

[BillyTwilight]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. That puts MBL at -1. Any of you guys give anything resembling a good reason to have MBL that close to a lynch?

[BillyTwilight]

i'm ok with an MBL hammer. BT is likely to be his buddy.

Well, so much for your investigation on me being innocent, huh?

[BillyTwilight]

i'm ok with an MBL hammer. BT is likely to be his buddy.

Well, so much for your investigation on me being innocent, huh?

ah crap lol. getting confused between this and Clue Mafia 1.

Meh. Well, we are having a bit of a row in Clue 1, so I would be inclined to believe that your telling the truth... although MBL isn't alive in Clue 1 currently. But this is the second time that you have insinuated I am scum after claiming an investigation on me (post #s 261 and 263); your claim is looking weaker and weaker.

ok sure. I don't know who here actually knows anything about these films, but my role name is:

The Chief/Evangelist

.
If i get clearance from the Mod that i can paraphrase the flavour of my role pm, i will do so.

It's been years since I have seen the movie, but I don't *remember* this character. In the movie, the chief was the chief of what?

EDIT: Just looked through the script (great movie, btw) and found the chief/evangelist. For the time being I am content to believe BM, but please be more careful with "confusing" the threads. I don't think I could take that as an excuse for another slip-up.

[BillyTwilight]

I am going to be out of town for the next week, with no internet connection (going camping in the great wild, yay!). I'd prefer not to be replaced. This will be my last absence till probably Christmas. Posting this in all of my games.

[BillyTwilight]

To be honest, I'd like to hear more from Jack. The first game I played on this site had Jack in it as town, and he was very vocal and active in that game. His one-liners and the general lack of substance in his posts is bothersome to me.

That's pretty much Jack's usual style. I wouldn't read to much into it. Now, Jack claiming to "not remember" why he is voting MBL when merely 13 posts beforehand he was yaying a MBL lynch

is

disconcerting. But that post might have been merely pleasure at one of the slowest games in history finally moving forward, so....

TBH, I'm beginning to wonder about MBL. I'd expect a better defense than "please don't lynch me" from him.

[BillyTwilight]

BattleMage, do you have an investigation for us?

[BillyTwilight]

picked up prod, will reread and post when I get a chance.

[BillyTwilight]

Got my prod for Clue 1; I'll reread and post here as quickly as possible, hopefully before the weekend is up.

[BillyTwilight]

Okay, I had some time tonight to get back into this game a little and wanted to answer this post myself. I'll try to actually have a look through and give my take on the other players later this week.

I wanted to get fresh eyes on this game, so I went back to page 1 and started reading, trying to determine who scum might be. We were building a TCS wagon when BT chimes in with some dirt tossed TCS way, but not vote or fos. I thought distancing, someone else thought the same thing.

I don't like TCS' post either. I despise MBL's post. MBL, how about you actually address the issues raised instead of misrepresenting what I have said. I am

not

showing a double standard. I attacked you in Clue 1 because you posted little in Day 1 then came out with a full attack against the most lynchable player on Day 2 while misrepresenting my arguments in that attack. I attacked you in this game because you were obviously active in the game as a whole, but posting nill in this thread. If you can't see that as suspicious play then... I don't know, I guess we won't see eye-to-eye very often.

FoS: Ecto

. TCS didn't "badger" a claim out of BM. In fact in the post before BM claimed TCS told BM that he was not asking for a claim. BM claimed in fear of a speedlynch when the only person (or persons, if you take MBL's version of events as truth) who have shown a propensity for speedlynching were

already

voting for him. BM's play was bad, plain and simple.

Still, something seems odd about TCS' current posting. I don't specifically agree with Jack, as I don't see TCS claiming that his pressure vote is a sign that he is town, but I don't like how TCS backed up my FoS of MBL so quickly. I think maybe he thinks that buddying up to me in this game after defending me in Clue 1 will make me think he is town here as well.

Then TCS' wagon builds some more until finally he asks to be able to claim. BT counterclaims and we lynch TCS. The thing is, TCS didn't even fight. His was the very next post after BT countered and he says "Damn" ie I'm scum. Now roleblocker can be proven, but he didn't offer that up (not that he could have, but he could have bought some time). I would say let's see if BT can prove his roleblocking ability, but he was very careful back then to say he had

not

claimed a role at all, only the name.
Jack asked if this was a bussing, BM asked the same question later but what happened then was that the soup came out. We got on to that discussion, and the question of Billy never was answered by anyone. On a side note, Billy was offered the soup and turned it down. Dahen later posted a breakdown of why scum would be more likely to turn down the soup than town would be. I couldn't refute his logic then, nor now.

For the most part, others have pointed out the flaw here. My vote on TCS was hammer, defending himself would do no good, etc. etc. As far as the soup goes, Dahen and I had different takes on it. I don't fault MBL or anyone (including myself) for not partaking in an unknown action in the game. A difference of opinion doesn't make me or anyone else scum. I'd like to point everyone to post post #199. I find it odd that you are retroactively trying to hold that my position in regards to the soup was somehow scummy when you held effectively the exact same position at the time.

Now later on BM does get an innocent investigation on BT, so he's ok right? No, he then tries to get BM lynched with this deal about a "fake claim". Now I admit that it is plausible what he is saying (which makes it even better for scum), but he really wants to lynch a claimed cop with 9 still alive and 1 scum down? I dont think so. He wants his cake (an innocent investigation) and wants to eat it too (lynch the cop and get 'confirmed' while doing it).

Big problems here. First, I initiated my attack against BM

before

he claimed that I was his not-guilty investigation. The "Now I admit that it is plausible what he is saying (which makes it even better for scum)" statement doesn't even make sense. If BM is lying then it's because he's either scum or an SK or some other anti-town role. Lynching him and discovering this would only make his "investigation" moot, meaning I'd be in hot water again. It would make no sense for me to attack a claimed Cop in the game if I was scum and

investigative immune

. More on the Godfather topic later.

Now think back to TCS, why would he fold so easily? He knew that BT would come up innocent on the counterclaim and knew his role. When TCS claimed Billy's name role, Billy spotted the setup (TCS was going down) and took advantage of the situation for a little "confirmation" on Billy.
I think BT is the Godfather, whether he really is the Singing Telegram Girl or not.

I don't know what TCS was thinking. However, claiming your scum partner's rolename is a bit telegraphing, even for TCS. As for the Godfather bit, there are some big holes in it. First off, I attacked BM off the bat, before he gave up his investigation target. In post #164, BM had claimed to have an innocent investigation. If I was a Godfather I certainly wouldn't have wanted to lynch BM until I knew for sure who the target was. I was taking a big risk that his lynch would backfire and get me lynched if I was scum, a risk I would absolutely have no reason to take as an investigative immune mafioso. Also, I wouldn't want to lynch him in the first place. I'd much rather let it play out and stay quiet about things until the endgame, since this is a closed setup and town has no way of knowing if there is even a Godfather in the game at all. I went after BM because I believed his claim was bogus, not as some way to "get myself more confirmed". At the time, him giving me up as his investigation made me think he was even more likely scum because it was a convenient way to try to get me off his back, and he subsequently forgot on several occasions that I was his innocent investigation.

Also, I firmly believe that there are 3 scum in the mafia, TCS being one of them. 2 player scum groups in a 12 player setup are unusual, unless it's a mountainous setup, which typically don't include cop or other town power roles. Given we already know there was an Inventor and BM has claimed cop in this game, I can't see a 2 player scum group unless there are two of them. We had 2 kills last night and no kills on night 1, so it's hard to say, but my gut feeling is we are dealing with 3 mafia and 1 SK or a vig. This might be swayed by the crazy nature of Clue 3, but I just don't think we have 2 2-person mafias in the game. Either way still points to TCS not setting up a buss in the fashion he did.

If there are 3 mafia member, then (according to Ecto) I am the Godfather and there is another member out there. If that is the case, WHY THE HELL WOULD TCS SET THE GF UP FOR THE HAMMER AND NOT THE OTHER PLAYER? He had to have known that the possibility of his partner hammering could give him some heat. If so, he'd be dumb not to "set-up" the lynch with the lesser valued player. If I was the GF, there is no way in hell I would have hammered him then, either. I might would have applied pressure and tried to get him lynched, maybe even hammered him myself farther down the line, but there is no way I'd have done it based solely on my name claim.

For a 2 mafia setup, the last part of that still applies. TCS would be taking WAY too large a risk that the hammer would come back to get me lynched, and the game would be over for us, and I certainly would have been a hell of a lot more discreet in hammering, maintaining pressure and waiting for the hammer to fall from someone else or even from myself when I could have gotten away with it without name claiming.

Lastly, TCS would have been taking an enormous risk that I

wouldn't

hammer him, and that he might actually have been able to talk himself out of a lynch. If at any point I had been night killed and/or lynched, TCS would have been immediately lynched upon my role reveal.

I think TCS took a calculated gamble. If he claimed something that no one was he might or might not have manage to avoid the lynch. That is true as well if he claimed his own name. If he thought that he was going to be lynched, then why not claim a name he wasn't - especially since it could cause that player trouble down the line.

The main rebuttal is that your argument hinges on several points, each one possible but all together unlikely.

1.) I am a Godfather or Battle Mage is lying.

2.) If I am a Godfather I decided to take an enormous risk and attempt to get BM lynched.

3.) TCS never thought that nameclaiming his partner's name and having them hammer would raise suspicion in the eyes of the rest of the players.

4.) TCS took the risk that I wouldn't hammer him, he would avoid the lynch and if I was ever killed he would be instalynched the next day.

5.) Depending on the number of players in the scum group, TCS was either giving over the Godfather instead of his fellow goon or was giving over the only other member in the scum group and thus his only chance of winning the game.

Taken all together you should see that this is just silly. It's much more likely that TCS thought he was doomed for a lynch and wanted to see if he could link himself to a townie by claiming a name and getting himself hammered.

As a last thought on TCS, it might simply be that he didn't want to claim The Cop. Ancalagon was The Cop in Clue 1, and died on night 1, on May 20th, 2007. TCS claimed in Clue 2 on May 24th, 2007, which means Ancalagon's death would have been fresh on his mind. There had been no deaths in Clue 3, so TCS would have no way of knowing if there was The Cop in Clue 3. If there was, he might have guessed that that player was town. TCS might have thought that MoS would be sneaky enough to have The Cop in all three games , but scum in only 1 of them. He might have feared that if The Cop from from Clue 3 thought the same thing, that player would hammer regardless of what alignment TCS claimed with the role. All TCS knew was that he was Colonel Mustard, Sk, in Clue 3, that town-The Cop had all ready appeared in Clue 1, and that if there was a town-The Cop in Clue 3, that player might just take it into his head that that was a good enough reason to hammer on day 1 in Clue 2. He might have thought it safer to simply claim what he thought was an unlikely role from the movie.

[BillyTwilight]

This is my main point towards BT's post (BM: This does not mean we should all wagon BT now):

It would make no sense for me to attack a claimed Cop in the game if I was scum and investigative immune.

As a GF, I would definately try to get the cop's attention in order to get an investigation of myself. This means A) false information to the town, B) lack of true information to the town. The GF is NOT more important generally than a goon. The ONLY advantage the GF has over goons is the ability to get away with an investigation. As soon as the cop dies, the extra importance of the GF is gone.

Yes, exactly... and thus, the advantage of the Godfather is also gone. As a GF you want to get investigated, but you also want to avoid doing things that are going to get you lynched. You can't make it obvious that you want an investigation of yourself. Attempting to lead a lynch against a claimed cop seems clearly to fall into that category.

I don't know what TCS was thinking. However, claiming your scum partner's rolename is a bit telegraphing, even for TCS.

Sorry for not understanding the word "telegraphing" in this context, but I definitely can see reasons to try to create confusion as dying scum.

Telegraphing = making a really obvious play that should be considered bad play. Like a quaterback in American football staring at a receiver for an entire play and then throwing the ball too him, where it's easy for the defense to see that he is going to make that pass and then they have a chance at breaking the play up or forcing a turnover.

If I was a Godfather I certainly wouldn't have wanted to lynch BM until I knew for sure who the target was.

See my reasoning above. You would sure have reasons: 1) You would want BM dead. 2) You would want an investigation from him. It does not matter for BT-scum who was the target.

This contradicts itself. I would want him dead... but I would want him to investigate me too. I can't have it both ways. And it

does

matter. First, BM had already claimed a non-guilty investigation. I would therefore (as a GF) not worry about him exposing any partners I might have, and I certainly wouldn't have to worry about myself. I'd much rather at this point wait for him to reveal his investigation. Pushing him for a lynch is not a good way to do that; the main drawback is I have to answer for trying to lynch a claimed cop, generally suspicious play for scum. I'd play it a little cooler and wait till later in the day to see if we could convince BM to give over his investigation. Perhaps I would wait till it looked like a deadline was looming or even a lynch was about to happen, then discreetly ask for BM to go ahead and reveal his innocent so that we would know the innocent player before going into the night phase where BM might die and his investigation results would die with him.

I was taking a big risk that his lynch would backfire and get me lynched if I was scum, a risk I would absolutely have no reason to take as an investigative immune mafioso.

If we lynched him and there are no more cops, your immunity means nothing. Sure, you would be at risk but you would have protected your goon (assuming there is one). Also, "risk" implies a chance of actually pulling it off and staying alive.

I don't see how this contradicts my point. Yes, I'd be protecting my goon, but suppose we

had

lynched BM, then later lynched a goon who had some ties to me. I'd have to defend myself for attacking a claimed cop and getting him lynched, which is something that is particularly difficult to do as scum, and a risk I simply didn't need to take, especially considering anyone attacking me could play the GF card against me.

This might be swayed by the crazy nature of Clue 3, but I just don't think we have 2 2-person mafias in the game

Well, I don't think we have that because it's uncommon, but I think it's possible and I don't understand why Clue 3 in particular would speak against it.

My point is that I don't really think MoS would run two of the three games with a pretty crazy setup. That's outguessing the mod to an extent, but it's my opinion. Not to mention I described both possible setups and refuted BT=scum for both setups.

If that is the case, WHY THE HELL WOULD TCS SET THE GF UP FOR THE HAMMER AND NOT THE OTHER PLAYER? He had to have known that the possibility of his partner hammering could give him some heat. If so, he'd be dumb not to "set-up" the lynch with the lesser valued player.

You say that he should have know it generated some heat. I don't agree. I think that IF he did this, he did it because town would be more inclined to believe the poor guy that was almost set-up by the mafia by the claim. But assume that you are correct and that it would generate heat, then BT would be a very good target for an investigation. This investigation would be beneficial to scum if BT is a GF or at least OK if BT is town. However, it would be horrible if BT is goon.

I'll grant you this possibility. So, the four choices for TCS:

A.) Intentionally set up the GF, the pros are that the GF is investigative immune, the cons are that the GF would be highly suspicious from that point on in the game. If his partner doesn't hammer then possible multikill for town later (see below).

B.) Intentionally set up the goon, who if investigated would immediately be lynched by the town and if not investigated would be highly suspicious from that point on in the game. If his partner doesn't hammer then possible multikill for town later (see below).

C.) Fake claim a rolename. If someone in the town has that role then suffer a hammer (which might be offset by the fact that he was likely to be lynched anyway) but irrevocably tie that player to himself and cause confusion for the town for the rest of the game, maybe resulting in a mislynch down the line somewhere. If no one has that rolename then possibly talk himself out of a lynch which might have occurred anyway.

D.) Claim his real rolename. Might talk himself out of a lynch.

Of the four I find case "C" to be the

best

play for scum. There is really only one advantage for A and B, being that it might make his partner look more confirmed. But in a game where players are naturally suspicious of other players bussing or trying to make their partners look better, and especially in this case, where the closed nature and flavor of the game make that suspicion even larger due to the way the roles have worked in the three games, I think one can discount this play as making their partner look more confirmed. Furthermore, I think TCS is more than experienced enough to come to that realization. Also, if TCS felt he was going to be lynched then there is absolutely no drawback for C. Since you are arguing that TCS was asking for a lynch from his partner (A and B), then by your reasoning you have to admit that TCS thought he was going to be lynched. In that case, there are distinct disadvantages for points A and B, and no drawbacks for point C. Again, C is the

best

play for scum, given that situation.

Lastly, TCS would have been taking an enormous risk that I wouldn't hammer him

Why is this a risk? If you would choose not to hammer him, then you would do so because you would think it's beneficial to scum. Why is that a risk from TCS' stanpoint?

MULTIKILL. If he made that play and his partner failed to hammer and he managed to avoid a lynch, then if his partner EVER died, or had their role revealed in any way, TCS would immediately go down in flames as well. Scum simply cannot afford that. At most we are dealing with a three person scumgroup. If TCS made that play and his partner didn't hammer then, he'd be taking an enormous risk that if at any point in the game his partner was lynched, night killed, or otherwise role revealed, he would die as well, wiping out 2/3rd's of his chance to win (and in the case that you are making, taking the godfather, probably the most important member of the group with him).

These are my points against BT's reasoning.
My strategy is to find everything that is not right and then compare what fits together in the best way combined which is most likely from the setup.

Next, I will look at Ecto's soup-turnaround and the circumstances of his quick vote at the start of this day. I will also try to see where I end up if I assume TCS thought he would stay alive but didn't want to claim "The Cop" (i.e. setup speculation [yes, I like it]).

Like to hear more on this dahen. Right now I am not particularly suspicious of Ecto, and people pushing this soup business seems scummy to me.

[BillyTwilight]

I'll try to post in this game later this afternoon. I haven't had a chance to reread and get caught up in the game. I'll try to get to it today.

[BillyTwilight]

I'm here, but the past week has been too hectic to post. I'll try to actually live up to posting here as soon as I can.

[BillyTwilight]

I am agreeing with Ecto here. chaotic_diablo's vote was just.. weird.

Vote: chaotic_diablo

.

I'll reread c_d and see if anything else in his play is in keeping with him being scum. If he otherwise looks clean I'll reconsider this vote.

[BillyTwilight]

Not currently interested in an Ecto lynch.

Still need to reread c_d and see if I want to keep my vote on him. I've been terribly lazy in this game. Sorry guys.

[BillyTwilight]

Same here. Waiting on BM.

[BillyTwilight]

All right, I've actually taken the time to give this game a read through for the first time in months. Here are the remaining players and how I feel about them.

Battle Mage

Claimed cop on day 1, post #88, in a suspicious manner (I still feel the claim was unprovoked). This is the first serious event in the game. He claims at L-2, with both myself and TCS (both of us at the time had garnered a quicklynch reputation based on play in Clue 1) already on his wagon. There was no one threatening a lynch or even an L-1 vote at the time, and wagons had been forming and dispersing quickly at that stage in all three Clue games.

Day 2 votes for MBL for pitching the soup and general scumminess (I don't agree with this logic). Initially asks the town on wither or not he should reveal his innocent investigation, and he doesn't reveal his innocent until I vote him and begin attacking his claim, at which point he reveals that I was his innocent. I talked about this a lot at the time; my ultimate conclusion then was that I was being too paranoid and reading way to much into the game. Since then I have rethought about it a bit, and I am starting to lean towards not liking BM's claim again. More on that later. Post #297 he okays a hammer vote for MBL and claims that I am likely to be MBL's partner, although he already had an innocent on me. He passes this off as confusion about which game is what. He name claims as

The Chief/Evangelist

. Day 2 ends with random noise and a attempted lynch of MBL.

Day 3 is where things get interesting. A Very Important Post (

AVIP #1

) is #366.

BattleMage, do you have an investigation for us?

yes i do, but unfortunately it is of very little use.
Last night i targetted Skruffs. I did get a 'town' result, so i'm now certain that i am sane. Sadly this info isnt greatly useful today...

BM

We'll get back to that one later. He wants to rethink his desire to lynch MBL. Eventually he starts sporadically voting people. It's on Ecto for a while, then he moves it onto Erg0 for no reason that I see. Very little content from him until he hammers C_D a tthe end of the day, with no reasoning presented other than "Just need to get this game moving".

Day 4, and we have

AVIP #2

, post #552:

sorry to disappoint guys but i investigated Erg0 for obvious reasons. Innocent, so i guess im sane.
Billy T is definitely town. I have a gut feeling MBL is scum. i wouldnt be surprised to see scum have 1 shot unlynchability, especially in a game with few scum as we seem to have. Ecto seems to be protesting a little too much.

That is all for now.

BM

Nearly identical to his post coming out of Night 2. First goes after MBL again, and then moves onto Dahen for voting me.

Haschel Cedricson

:
Replaces Cog. Not a lot day 1 from Cog. An interesting side note where he asks BM and TCS to join him in a wagon against C_D. This was his second post of the game, so he is asking for people to join his random vote and wagon C_D. Strange, considering he had made no case against C_D.

On day 2, votes MBL for pitching the soup (I don't agree with this logic). He maintains an attack on MBL for pitching the soup for a lot of the rest of the day, but I find it scummy that part of his feeling about MBL has to do with how "fast" MBL pitched the soup without seeking the advice of the town. This seems a bit of an appeal to appear townish to me, backed up by his post #203, which seems a little overboard to me.

HC replaces and at first doesn't seem to like BM's claim. He votes MBL, but wants us to also look at Jack. He expands on the idea of a possible Governor role in the game to account for MBL's lynch-survival. He got a little involved in the BT=GF debate, but only speculated slightly on TCS' motives and reminded dahen that BT was investigated innocent. He also argues that Ecto's theory assumes BT is scum/GF then looks for evidence to fit that, as opposed to looking at BT's play and seeing if it is scummy or not. He also buys into the "TCS scum list has at least one scum on it, which must mean it's Ecto" theory, and adds that Ecto is pushing against the only investigated innocent in the game, before voting Ecto. He is one of the few to side with C_D in the C_D/Ecto debate that eventually led to C_D's lynch. Nothing of note on Day 4.

DragonsofSummer

:
Not much from DOS, and very difficult to read. Almost all of his early posts are one liners that involve voting and unvoting, with almost not in depth reasoning in them. Doesn't agree with the day 2 push against MBL led by BM. Eventually he agrees with me that BM is looking bad as a cop on Day 2, but he backs off of that later. Due to a tiff he gets into with MBL he votes MBL later day 2 (unrelated to the soup incident). He stuck with MBL through the MBL near-lynch. Day 3, he eats the soup and shows no effect. I find this a little strange. Alko was an inventor, and I assume that the inventions he had were passed along in the soup, and it seems that something should have happened by taking the soup. He makes note of the "TCS not putting 3 townies on his suspect list" that is referenced below, but he moves away from that vote fairly quick. Asks what town thinks about a mass claim, and quickly moves away from that when BM says no. Votes Ecto again, without reasoning. Votes C_D, without reasoning, other than wanting to get the game into night. Eventually he votes me, based on Ecto's theory. I find this extremely odd since he didn't have much to say about it the first time round. When Ecto first brought up the idea, he said that it was a good argument, but never commented on it again in the debate between Ecto, dahen, C_D, and myself.

Ectomancer

:
Has the first real encounter of the game in an early scruff with C_D on page 2 and 3. The funny thing is I find C_D's post to be the scummier of the posts in the exchange, but Ecto quickly backs off and attacks alko for going after C_D. I find this strange and scummy.

His vote for TCS in post #108 is scummy in that I don't agree with his reasoning for the vote. In retrospect it's possible that it is a distancing-vote against TCS. Perhaps he thought TCS was beginning to look good for a lynch after BM's early claim. This is backed up by Ecto's redundant vote after I hammered TCS, post #140. He was already on the wagon, but once I name-claimed and hammered TCS he jumped in to make sure that his name was attached to the wagon. Extremely suspicious, IMO, because he should have already known he was on the lynching wagon (in fact, he has no posts between #108 and #140, so the last thing he did in the game previous was vote for TCS) and I always find it disturbing when people jump into to vote a player after the lynch has already been achieved, especially when that player turns up scum. Alko did it as well, so it's not a guaranteed tell, but I do find it strange.

Day 2, he votes Cog for attacking MBL. I agree with his logic here, although I don't know that it warrants a vote. Differences of opinion on the soup topic do not scumtells make. However, I find it interesting that he doesn't question BM, who is doing effectively the exact same thing as Cog. More interesting is that BM is the person to answer for Cog. Shortly after this Ecto reverses course and votes unexplainedly for MBL, post #233. Post #249 is interesting, and I go into it more below in the section on TCS. Post #260 quickly jumps back into voting for Cog, at the prodding of Jack. He then jumps ship again and votes MBL, again at the behest of Jack (post #293). This is more significant because it was a L-1 vote, with absolutely no reasoning. Once this is commented on he pulls the vote. Jack later asks again to vote MBL, and Ecto again obliges, placing another L-1 vote on MBL. After this the end of day 2 basically breaks down into randomness, with an eventual (unsuccessful) lynch of MBL.

His first real action of day 3 is to vote for BM (funny coming from a guy who is voting me because I attacked BM, a claimed cop, and basically assuming I'm a GF to justify his attack). After a reread he comes up with the BT = GF theory, and that debate ensues (will address this a little below). Dahen picks up the theory, and more arguments ensue, between myself, Ecto, C_D, and dahen. At the end of this Ecto acknowledges my points (post #465), and claims Mrs. White. He quickly turns his attention to C_D. He states, "I'm also not impressed by your defense of Billy. I noticed that you really didnt come to life until a

fairly easily deflected case was given

, and then you were ALL over it. Seriously, getting an investigated innocent lynched is tough to do. My wild accusation now is that c_d is choosing an easy topic to defend to get all active in this game with an opportunity to look pro-town." Emphasis mine. So, basically he admitted that his case against me was very weak, yet he has jumped right back on it today. He argues more with C_D, going back to their very early game argument where Ecto nameclaimed as a joke, then actually claimed later in the game the same name. He develops a theory about Professor Plum that I didn't follow up on or care for. I think it was mostly setup speculation based on the movie, which I don't really buy. He then attacks C_D heavily because C_D didn't lynch him when he was at L-1, but voted for him later. I see his point and think it was a good one at the time, but now that we know C_D was town, it makes me think Ecto saw his chance to attack C_D and perhaps force a mislynch, which is exactly what happened. More and more arguing between the two of them. They dominate the thread for a while, and I am too tired to bother reading it all right now. Will analyze more later. He then starts arguing with HC, and more about the Professor Plum issue.

Day 4 is very interesting in his few posts. He first starts with the assumption that BM will clear another innocent townie. He then posts "hoping for a guilty", but for some reason suspects that BM investigated him, and thus states that he won't get a guilty. Why did you think BM would investigate you, Ecto? After BM reveals his target, Ecto jumps back on the BT thing, claiming its the best he has. He wants us to lynch me to make us all feel better, then vig BM. He has become extremely lackadaisical at this point in the game.

MrBuddyLee

:
Has a few scuffles on day one with myself and TCS; things don't really get interesting for him until day 2. Is offered soup which he turns down. There is a lot of debate on what town would do in this situation. I agree with MBL's decision to toss it. He then disappears for a while with BM crawling up his arse trying to get him to answer some questions. He finally comes back and answers those questions, but BM maintains an attack against him. He goes in a back and forth for a lot of the remaining part of the day, eventually stops posting, and is lynched... or not.

Day 3 he comes back strong and alive... sort of. He basically falls off the map again. Eventually he votes C_D with no reasoning.


Here is my known scum analysis...

TCS

:

Has a lot of early interaction with BM,, which eventually leads to BM's claim (BM blamed his early claim mostly on TCS' play). Post #115 gives his first real pbp analysis and comments on all players in the game. His highest suspects are Ancalagon, alko, and ectomancer. Both alko and Ancalagon were town, so if TCS slipped a scumbuddy into his list for distancing, it's Ectomancer. However, Ecto already mentioned this as a possibility, in post #249 (as noted above); I'm not sure what to make of it. At the time, both Alko and Anclagon were alive, so Ecto could have intended to use this as evidence for a lynch of one of those players down the line. However, Ecto's post was in response to a post by alko, where alko thought it would be good to look at TCS' play to draw connections to other players. If he is partnered with TCS, perhaps he thought it prudent to get this post out there as early as possible to deflect away from a "TCS was bussing Ecto" argument later in the game. Other than that, and the BT-hammer of TCS stuff there wasn't a lot of connections generated by TCS in his short stay in the mansion.

---

Okay, so those are quick summaries of how I see the remaining players. I've spent a lot more time on the two players I find most scummy, and will expand on that here.

First, Ecto:

vote BillyTwilight

I may be wrong, but meh. Interest in this game is lagging from all participants and the BT GodFather thing was the best I had. Who did you Vig last night MBL?

This is lame. You've already conceded that your case was bad. Furthermore, you attacked C_D for attempting to be "too townie" for arguing with your easily destroyed bad case. After all of this, as noted about, you decide to jump right back to it and ask everyone to lynch me without adding anything to the case or trying to refute the arguments that I had made? I find

your

interactions with TCS and the defense of being on TCS' list to be worse that anything I have done. What particularly caught my eye was the way you jumped to accuse TCS after I name claimed. You were already voting him, but once you realized that TCS had claimed a name that was already in the game, you quickly threw down another vote, in twilight. It reads way too much like you were trying to make sure you were on the right side of TCS' lynch. Look through my above analysis on you and defend the points that I found scummy please. Pay careful attention to the last part. Your posts about getting a "new investigated innocent" and being sure that BM investigated you don't read very well to me.

Second, BM:
This is one of those cases where something is missing, and I can't figure out what. Look at his original claim in post #88. He claims "the Cop". I have never seen anyone claim cop this way in a closed setup, capitalized and preceded by the definitive article "the". I don't know why I didn't catch this before, but if you read it in the context of the game, it feels like he is name and role claiming as The Cop. HC pointed this out sometime later, which I missed until my reread, whereupon BM claimed IN BOLD

The Chief/Evangelist

. As far as I remember, he is the only person to have name-claimed in bold. I think it is very possible that BM originally intended to claim The Cop, but everyone took it as a typical cop claim. When TCS was revealed, BM had to about face and back away from the claim. Notice in post #88, he states that he is willing to give "flavor" for his post. Typically we consider flavor to be the context of the role PM, not the name itself. Notice that he also talks about "a doc" (no caps) in the same post. This is how people typically talk about a general role. Also, I have not seen anyone else in the Clue games claim a role before a name. Reread in context, it doesn't make since for BM to claim "I am a cop, I'll give you flavor if you want, and oh, if anyone wants, I'll give my role name too." It reads MUCH more like, "I am The Cop, and I hope there is a doc out there to protect me. I'll provide role flavor from my PM if you guys want."

Now, that by itself is a pretty weak case, but we have to think about all of the coincidences involved with BM. He claimed cop on Day 1. He has managed to survive 3 nights. One of those night he had an investigated innocent that he didn't give up till I pushed him, and he then claimed I was his innocent in order to keep me from pushing for his lynch. Since then he has managed to investigate 2 players who were killed on the nights of his investigations. Compare

AVIP #1

and

AVIP #2

. They read WAY too close to the same. They read like scum who was trying to not have to clear another town player in the game. I simply think he forgot what his excuse for not having an investigation on day 3 was, and fell back on what his intuition told him to do on day 4. Unfortunately for him, it looks like his intuition on day 4 was the same as on day 3, and he crafted (probably accidentally) almost the exact same kind of post for both days.

There were zero deaths on N1, and 2 deaths apiece on N2 and N3. Two of those deaths were by stabbing, Skruffs and Erg0. The others were by deaths that were more in keeping with the movies (death by meatlocker, death by hanging). I think we can assume that Skruff's and Erg0's deaths were by the same party, probably a SK (death by knife is more in keeping with an SK, in my opinion), and the other 2 deaths were probably the work of teamscum. Not only did BM have investigations of 2 people who turned up dead, he had investigations of 2 people who were killed by the same party. I submit that it is possible that BM opened the thread at day break and saw there were 2 deaths. One by his group (if he is teamscum) and one by another. He instinctively wanted to distance himself from the kill that teamscum made, and saw a ready made opportunity to avoid having to give an innocent investigation to the town, and took it. Day 3 lasts forever, day 4 finally starts, and BM has to make the same decision again... but by this point he has forgotten that he already used this excuse at the beginning of day 3. It makes sense, because it's obvious that he forgot he had made that post. If he was telling the truth, and remembered that he had made the post at the beginning of day 3, he wouldn't need to reiterate the point about "at least I am sure I am sane, now." Wither or not he is telling the truth, it is certain that he forgot his day 3 early post when he made his day 4 early post. Given we know this, I find the fact that his excuse for not having a living investigated on at least one of those days to be quite lame.

It is possible that BM was targeted by teamscum on night 1, and had some kind of protection, which might have resulted in the no kill. That requires some kind of doc role in the game, which is looking less and less likely, IMO. There are 6 players left in the game, with at least 2 and probably 3 scum of some kind; MBL is claiming to have been "gifted" an ability for the night, which makes me think he doesn't normally have a doc power (plus, he appears to be either unlynchable or to have one lynch protection... I find it hard to believe that so much power could end up in one role.) That leaves probably 2 town roles, one of which is a inventor or something if they gave MBL a new ability in the night (unless MBL's new ability is inherent in his role and unrelated to other players) the other of which is a cop, if BM is to be believed. I am beginning to find a lack of possible night protections for BM to have survived an attempted night kill on N1. My guess is it is more likely that teamscum decided to no-kill, if BM is teamscum, in order to make his claim look better and avoid having to explain why he is alive for a prolonged period of the game.

[BillyTwilight]

EBWOP:

I just realized that there might be a game mechanic that's responsible for the strangeness around BM's role. If BM is telling the truth, it is possible that his role incorporates some percent chance that BM kills his investigation target. I don't really see how that fits in the flavor of the game, but it might explain a lot, like why there was not a kill on night 1. The no kills on night 1 requires either multiple protections in the game, or both anti-town groups to target the same protected player, or both to send in no kills, or some combination of the like. I find this unlikely. If BM's role works with a possibility of killing the investigated, then we have just gotten really unlucky, and that could explain the kill patterns for the game. It's possible.

I think that a mass claim might be good for us now. We are probably in LyLO, and we need to hit teamscum today.

[BillyTwilight]

I was intrigued to see your comments about me. Just a few points of essential clarification.

Second, BM:
This is one of those cases where something is missing, and I can't figure out what. Look at his original claim in post #88. He claims "the Cop". I have never seen anyone claim cop this way in a closed setup, capitalized and preceded by the definitive article "the". I don't know why I didn't catch this before, but if you read it in the context of the game, it feels like he is name and role claiming as The Cop. HC pointed this out sometime later, which I missed until my reread, whereupon BM claimed IN BOLD

The Chief/Evangelist

. As far as I remember, he is the only person to have name-claimed in bold. I think it is very possible that BM originally intended to claim The Cop, but everyone took it as a typical cop claim. When TCS was revealed, BM had to about face and back away from the claim.

The major flaw with this logic is that:
1. I havent watched any 'Clue' Films, and hence havent the slightest idea who might be involved.
2. There is no reason why i would assume that 'The Chief/Evangelist' was not in the game already, hence its pretty unlikely that i'd voluntarily make a fakeclaim at that time, and of that nature.
3. Rolename is apparently only a loose indication of whether someone is town or scum. Why would i lie about something as scum which wouldnt give me away by telling the truth?

1.) It takes about 2 seconds to Google the available roles in the Clue movies. Regardless of wither or not you have seen the movies, you can easily find out the names of the characters and pick one that you don't find likely to be in the game. Furthermore, The Chief/Evangelist might be your real rolename; it has already been shown that rolename/alliance connections cannot be made in these Clue games. However, at the time of your claim, which was very early in the game (back in May), it wasn't as clear yet if roles would have anything to do with names, and you could have been claiming The Cop assuming that everyone would take that as a town claim.

2.) I think it would have been a fairly safe assumption on your part that The Chief was not in these games. It's a very bit role in the movie (all the other roles revealed so far have been a good bit more crucial to the overall plot of the film than The Chief was) and no one in the other games had even hinted at The Chief being a "normal" role for these games, like say Professor Plum or The Cop.

3.) See the point I made in post #1. I wouldn't be surprised if you ARE The Chief, but at this point I'd be pretty surprised if you are a town-aligned cop. Again, it's not the claim of The Chief that bothers me, it's the original claim as "the Cop" that does. No one else has claimed a game mechanic before claiming a role name. It's very unusual. Everyone else has exclusively claimed something like "Mr. Green, tracker" or the like. My point is that I think you might have gotten careless early in the game; the fact that you claimed so early is evidence for this in the first place. Unsure of how name claims and role claims might have been viewed so early in the game could have led to this sort of nonchalant, very vague claim that you made early in the game. If your claim had come in day 3, when we had all figured out how these games work then it would be much more solid, IMO. The fact that it occurred at such an early stage in the game makes it much more likely that you might have claimed something different than your actual role.

Now, that by itself is a pretty weak case, but we have to think about all of the coincidences involved with BM. He claimed cop on Day 1. He has managed to survive 3 nights. One of those night he had an investigated innocent that he didn't give up till I pushed him, and he then claimed I was his innocent in order to keep me from pushing for his lynch.

Hardly. Get a clue (haha i made a punny) dude. Why would someone having an innocent on you make you suspect them less? Equally, if i was scum, why would i push the view that someone pushing my lynch hard was confirmed innocent?
Please try and stick to the facts at least in your analysis of the players.

I'm saddened by your stubbornness on this point. I'd be much less worried about your alliance if you would admit to validity of my attack and then rebut it with facts from the game. If you are scum fake claiming cop, and you had furthermore claimed an innocent investigation, but not told who that person was, then it is possible that you would try to slow the attack of another player against you by trying to "gain their trust" and saying that your innocent investigation was of them. It's a genuine tactic, and not necessarily a bad one. It makes it much less likely that the person attacking you is going to keep coming after you if you've basically given them a ticket as "cleared" townie. I'm sure that this has happened before, probably multiple times, in the history of mafiascum. Just trying to laugh it off doesn't invalidate the point against you.

Since then he has managed to investigate 2 players who were killed on the nights of his investigations. Compare

AVIP #1

and

AVIP #2

. They read WAY too close to the same. They read like scum who was trying to not have to clear another town player in the game.

Thats more than a little weak. As scum, at LyLo with none of my buddies killed, why would i care about another confirmed innocent. I could always NK them the following night. Or claim an innocent on my buddy. Please try and look objectively, because you are stretching to a ridiculous extent here in order to try make something look scummier than it actually is.

The more people you confirm as innocent the harder it is to get a mislynch. You can't really lie in this case. First of all, we can't assume that we are in LyLO (though I think we are). We furthermore can't assume that you HAVE a partner left, although if you are teamscum I'd personally think it likely that you have a living partner. Furthermore, we can't assume that you aren't a SK. If you claim a guilty on someone and they get lynched and turn up town you will be lynched or night killed the next night. If you claim an innocent on your partner and he is night killed (assuming there are two anti-town killing roles in this game, which I find likely at this point) by another party wanting to keep the confirmed players at a minimum in the game, then you are lynched the next day. It's much safer to claim you investigation was on one of the players who died in the night. Everyone can typically buy that... once. It's happened to you twice.

I simply think he forgot what his excuse for not having an investigation on day 3 was, and fell back on what his intuition told him to do on day 4. Unfortunately for him, it looks like his intuition on day 4 was the same as on day 3, and he crafted (probably accidentally) almost the exact same kind of post for both days.

As Cop, you investigate someone you think is scummy. Its what ive done every night, and its hardly my fault that those players keep being killed.

There were zero deaths on N1, and 2 deaths apiece on N2 and N3. Two of those deaths were by stabbing, Skruffs and Erg0. The others were by deaths that were more in keeping with the movies (death by meatlocker, death by hanging). I think we can assume that Skruff's and Erg0's deaths were by the same party, probably a SK (death by knife is more in keeping with an SK, in my opinion), and the other 2 deaths were probably the work of teamscum. Not only did BM have investigations of 2 people who turned up dead, he had investigations of 2 people who were killed by the same party. I submit that it is possible that BM opened the thread at day break and saw there were 2 deaths. One by his group (if he is teamscum) and one by another. He instinctively wanted to distance himself from the kill that teamscum made, and saw a ready made opportunity to avoid having to give an innocent investigation to the town, and took it. Day 3 lasts forever, day 4 finally starts, and BM has to make the same decision again... but by this point he has forgotten that he already used this excuse at the beginning of day 3.

ROFL.
Remind me to bring this post up again after the game. When you are sober, it may well bring you to tears.

Laughing it off won't make it go away BM. You in a bad spot here. I'd feel much better about you if you admitted that things surrounding your play have been strange, and attempted to defend yourself, as opposed to just laughing it up.

It makes sense

No it doesnt. lawl.

Will respond to the rest later, i really have to go out now.

BM

Here is the summary of the strangeness around your play. Please actually address each one seriously:

1.) You claimed early. Page 4, at L-2, when there was no need to do so. This is more a trademark of panicking scum than panicking town.

2.) Your the only person to have claimed a role without giving the rolename and at least a little flavor immediately, at least that I recall in all three Clue games (I was out pretty early in Clue 3 and didn't keep up with it really well, so this might not be true there).

3.) You relied on town on day 2 with regards to what to do with your investigation. This is atypical in my experience of cop play from anyone other than newbies in newbie games. Usually the cop has already decided what to do with their information, and doesn't rely on the town to tell him what to do. Furthermore, you have insinuated several times that I am scum, whereupon you have reversed course when called on it, and said you were "confused" about which game we were in.

4.) When you divulged your investigation, it came when you were under duress. And the person that you claim to have investigated just happened to be the person who was leading a charge to attempt to lynch you.

5.) Your day 3 and day 4 investigations were both of players who died by knifing on the same night, giving no useful information to town. Furthermore, you posted almost the exact same thing about both of them, which goes to show your state of mind when making those posts. In my opinion, a real cop is less likely to fall into the repetition of the two posts that I have noted above. Someone playing cop usually puts some effort into deciding who they are going to investigate, and if on consecutive nights that player's investigatees turn up dead, I think there second time posting would have at least referenced the fact that two subsequent investigation netted no results for town and probably stated something about how incredulous they were at the fact that on consecutive nights the people they investigated had died. I find it much more likely that scum fake-claiming cop would forget what they did to avoid giving up a cleared innocent on day 3 and accidentally repeat it on day 4.

6.) You've managed to survive 3 nights after claiming on day 1. This could be because of a doc in the game, but right now there is little room to account for a doc being in the game at this point. Furthermore no one has really jumped in with me to try and get you lynched. If there were scum out there who were nervous about a cop, I think they'd have tried to kill you last night or otherwise jumped in to try and get you lynched on day 2 when I initially attacked you (with the exception of DoS, who made a half-hearted vote of you back on day 2 when you "forgot" that you had an innocent investigation of me). This is evidence to me that the scum group doesn't particularly find you to be a threat to them, which would especially be true if you are scum, obviously.

Your claim has been on wobbly legs all game, BM, and it's just getting worse. Laughing at people who point this out only makes it worse for you. Please refrain.

[BillyTwilight]

Accuse: BattleMage

[BillyTwilight]

Yay. Too late right now to comment on the game in detail, but I would like to know why MBL didn't kill me on the last night. I assumed that whoever the SK was tried to kill me on night 1 because they thought I was scum, and I fully expected to be NKed on the last night.