Mini 427 - Clue Mafia 2 - GAME OVER

[Ectomancer]

I'm hoping for a guilty result from him, as we are at LYLO by all indications. I suspect he investigated me though, and so we wont get one. I hope not. We are in serious trouble if so.

[Mastermind of Sin]

MrBuddyLee and Battle Mage have been prodded. If they do not post within 48 hours, they will be replaced.

[Battle Mage]

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

[MrBuddyLee]

Someone gave me a new power last night. I'm a good guy and I'll be using it overnight. Please advise me on who you would each investigate/protect/vig tonight.

[Battle Mage]

yep,

FoS: MBL

[Haschel Cedricson]

Battle Mage, what are those obvious reasons?

DoS, any resolution on the soup thing?

[DragonsofSummer]

Nope... I haven't been told anything has happened since I ate the soup... whether thats good or bad I don't know.

[Ectomancer]

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?

[DragonsofSummer]

Sounds like good reasoning to me at this point.

Vote BillyTwilight

[Battle Mage]

Battle Mage, what are those obvious reasons?

DoS, any resolution on the soup thing?

I had been told we had setup validation indicating that he was scum. Guess i was misinformed.

BT voters are lame. DoS followed way too easily into Ecto's trap.

Unvote, Vote: DoS

[MrBuddyLee]

Who did you Vig last night MBL?

I didn't use my skill last night. I get to use it tonight for the first time. And I'm not saying what it is.

[DragonsofSummer]

While what you say may be true BM I'm just tired of this game and so will join a wagon if its there, and I've been suspicious of the person in the past. So vote me out if you want, but I'm the wrong lynch.

[Ectomancer]

2 kills every night, so Im assuming mafia + vig/sk. I thought that you were saying you had a choice of all those roles, but had probably used the vig one twice.

Lynch BT, it will make you all feel better. Then vig Battle Mage, because that will make you feel even better.

[Battle Mage]

killing BT makes very little sense. In fact, no sense whatsoever.

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.

[Ectomancer]

The one thing I can agree with is that at this point Ecto has become extremely lackadaisical.

Yes, I fully expected BM to investigate me after all the crap he blows my way. I'm disappointed

and

suspicious that he did not. It opens the way for an Ecto lynch. To back up your suspicion of BM, I also thought it

very

suspicious that, not only did he not investigate me, but he investigated someone who is conveniently dead.

As far as my re-vote on you, as I said, without another re-investment of time, that was the best I had, therefor I went back with it. Why not? The game sat here for an entire week after BM finally chimed in. It started April 09 last year, and here we are 9 months later with only 23 pages. Yes, I am underwhelmed with the lack of enthusiasm, as much my own fault as anyone else's. At this point, I'm just ready to lynch someone, though I'm not quite so lame as to simply vote myself.

If we think there is good reason to look at BM, then I'm willing to put in the effort myself, though right now the only thing I had to add to yours about him is that his investigation last night conveniently was an already dead townie.

I'd also like an explanation for the 2 nightly deaths. Vig or SK?

[Battle Mage]

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?

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.

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.

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.

It makes sense

No it doesnt. lawl.

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

BM

[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.

[Ectomancer]

Oh my.

unvote

I am still lackadaisical, but Billy has me enthralled.

vote BM

[Haschel Cedricson]

That's a good argument from BT. Does anybody else think that it's odd that BM was the "Chief/Evangelist"? I would think that the role would just be "Chief". Tacking on the "Evangelist" sounds like BM found a list of characters online and chose an unlikely one.

Vote: BM

. Truth be told, this has bugged me for a long time, but I never found it truly suspicious until now.

[DragonsofSummer]

It may be suspicious, but in the movie credits that is the way its listed, so I'm willing to believe that is his actual role name. However I agree that BT's argument against him is pretty good. I'll have to do some thinking.

[Battle Mage]

As far as i can see, BillyT is bringing up a whole lot of 'maybe's', with no evidence to prove them, and people are lapping them up because they are either scum with victory in sight, or simply too lazy to make a case, and would clearly rather mindlessly BandWagon.
I could well already be dead, but theres no harm in responding to any outstanding points now, ftr.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

Fair do's. Im not the Cop, but my flavour was correct. I am The Chief/Evangelist, Doctor. The original reason for lying was probably a mistake, as i was pretty scatty at the start of these games, and my rolename in another one was The Cop if i recall. Anyway, it worked out pretty well, as the scum chose not to risk wasting a kill on me, in case, i was protected. But as it looks like im dead anyway, i may aswell reveal all, even if it spoils the surprise at the end. :p
Then you cant blame me for not being honest at the end of the game. -.-

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.

My reputation with power roles isnt awesome. See Mafia 61. I survived to endgame as a claimed Doc as a trap, because my protections were so poorly placed. Plus scum tend to fear wasting NK's because of Doc protection etc.
In case you didnt realise, i do genuinely have information strongly suggesting that you arent scum, being as i protected you on the first night, where we had fewer NK's (if any). It seemed pretty likely that you were targetted. Oh and btw, from a logical perspective, claiming an innocent on someone does not make them trust you more, unless they are a total newb, or anti-town themselves. Dont take this personally, but i still find your attack hilarious, because you are a fairly experienced player, and i cant believe you are coming out with this nonsense.

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.

IM A FECKING DOC! I didnt want to claim innocents on people who i didnt have innocents on, because that would be misleading.

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.

I dont see how any of this constitutes a case...

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.[/quote]

Doctor.

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).

I dont actually remember, but perhaps i misclaimed.

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.

Ive done this in another game aswell. You act scummy, you attract suspicion. Besides, you were never TOTALLY confirmed town. Just highly likely.

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.

that'd be YOU right? omgus lawl. Ive already explained this several times.

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.

Even if i was a Cop, this is VERY VERY weak. Could you possibly stretch anymore?

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.

I think thats everything clarified. Now, who wants to lynch Ectomancer?
or as i call him, OBVSCUMANCER!

[Ectomancer]

You are claiming investigations as the Doctor and have the gall to ask who wants to lynch me?