# Evil Dead Mafia II - Teaser and Sign-Ups \[Game On!\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 29, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493 "2010-09-29T17:35:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 110
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2181 "2010-10-24T12:15:33Z")
Losing a night is unequivocally pro-town, IMO. That doesn’t precisely mean that scum would never be given the power or want to do it, but it’s a solid first assumption. Anyway – **vote: Suburban Plankton** It seems I am to be visited by a plague of relatives AGAIN this week, so participation will be spotty toDay. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2182 "2010-10-24T16:21:25Z")
I sent a PM to Story with my intention to cast the spell. I did not receive any confirmation if it was fully cast. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2183 "2010-10-24T16:30:00Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > I sent a PM to Story with my intention to cast the spell. I did not receive any confirmation if it was fully cast. Have you inquired as to whether you still have it then? ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2184 "2010-10-24T17:13:26Z")
I will. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2185 "2010-10-24T18:53:16Z")
When Drain Bead mentioned the one-off power, my first thought was that it would be a night-skip, so I wasn’t surprised by this morning’s turn of events. And although it’s possible to imagine circumstances where it would disadvantage the town in some way, in most cases the mafia will be the ones to come off worse. What’s more, in this particular situation, with several villains freshly caught, and plenty of leads to follow up, it strikes me as especially helpful. As for today’s more pressing business, I’m going to follow Normal Phase’s lead and **vote: Suburban Plankton** once again. I’ve still got a few leads to chase up on other players, so I might well change my mind later on. But my earlier misgivings about Sub’s behaviour in relation to peeker still remain. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2186 "2010-10-24T19:35:03Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > When Drain Bead mentioned the one-off power, my first thought was that it would be a night-skip, so I wasn’t surprised by this morning’s turn of events. And although it’s possible to imagine circumstances where it would disadvantage the town in some way, in most cases the mafia will be the ones to come off worse. What’s more, in this particular situation, with several villains freshly caught, and plenty of leads to follow up, it strikes me as especially helpful. > > As for today’s more pressing business, I’m going to follow Normal Phase’s lead and **vote: Suburban Plankton** once again. I’ve still got a few leads to chase up on other players, so I might well change my mind later on. But my earlier misgivings about Sub’s behaviour in relation to peeker still remain. So, are you voting for me based upon Normal’s arguments? Or because of my behavior in relation to peeker? Regarding the latter, what exactly are your misgivings? As I recall, you took issue with my behavior on two different issues that were ‘peeker related’. You mentioned both in this post (Post 1699): > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > @Suburban Plankton > > I notice that you provided moral support for the case peeker went on to make against me: > > > [@Suburban Plankton](#): > > > > You leapt immediately and unwaveringly to his defense, based exclusively on the premise that “Romanic wouldn’t make that kind of mistake if he were Scum”. > > And then there’s [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13018767&postcount=1387), which looks as if it was aimed at sowing doubt about the peeker bandwagon, and ends with a call for peeker to make a better defence of himself (a call which, I imagine, was echoed on the scumboard): > > > [@Suburban Plankton](#): > > > > I’m going to have to think on it just a bit more before I decide which way to go on this. I’d really like to here more from peeker in his own defense than he “swears to goodness”. > > Finally, there’s [the late, late vote](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13024706&postcount=1521) against peeker, which you held back until the result was more-or-less certain. > > Doesn’t look good, does it? peeker and I were the only two people to raise serious doubts about your defense of Romanic. I thought that you might be Scum trying to build Town cred. peeker obviously knew all along whether or not you were Scum. Be could have been bussing you, knowing you were in no serious danger of being lynched, or he may have been trying to raise suspicion of you knowing you were Town. I defended peeker when he was initially under suspicion for his slip. The odd thing here though, is that you attack me for trying to sow doubt on the case and asking peeker to defend himself; then two posts later you basically agree with both of those actions (Post 1701): > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > **The way I see it, the ‘slip’ was a weak case against peeker.** His unwillingness to back up his vote against me was the more reliable scum-tell. **If they’re focused on the task at hand, townies cast votes aimed at catching scum, which means they want their targets to respond.** Mafia, however, tend to be happier if their votes go unchallenged. [bolding mine] So either you are trying to paint me as Scum for taking actions which you yourself agree with and think are pro-Town, or you’re just placing an OMGUS vote because I placed suspicion on you back on Day 1. Or maybe peeker was bussing you back on Day 1, and now you’ve seen Normal make a very long and detailed case against me and think I’m an easy target. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2187 "2010-10-24T20:54:24Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > So, are you voting for me based upon Normal’s arguments? Or because of my behavior in relation to peeker? I have yet to review NP’s case thoroughly, but I know how she operates, and I very much doubt it’ll leave me seeing you as less scummy than I do now. But the foundations for my vote are my own suspicions, as mentioned earlier in the thread. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Regarding the latter, what exactly are your misgivings? I made it easy for scum to smudge me, and you took the bait, as did peeker. That doesn’t make you scum, but it does count against you. Then you prodded at the peeker bandwagon, to see if it might be turned around, before joining when it became clear it would go the distance. Not a slam-dunk case, I’m happy to admit. But in the absence of anything that gives me cause to think you more innocent than anyone else I could name, it makes you my default choice, at least until I’ve looked more closely at some of the other options. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I thought that you might be Scum trying to build Town cred. peeker obviously knew all along whether or not you were Scum. Be could have been bussing you, knowing you were in no serious danger of being lynched So, in this version of events, I tried to build town cred, but my scum-buddy called me out on it? And, if that wasn’t dumb enough, I spent the next day demanding he make a decent case against me, while he looks ever more scummy by dodging my questions? Then I pointed out a piece of evidence which had been largely overlooked, and which was exactly the kind of thing likely to get him lynched around here? Really? I mean, peeker was a roleblocker. What kind of mafia team will throw a power-role like that under the bus with such gay abandon? > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > So either you are trying to paint me as Scum for taking actions which you yourself agree with and think are pro-Town, or you’re just placing an OMGUS vote because I placed suspicion on you back on Day 1. Where convoluted logic and smudgy conclusions meet, scumminess is often found. You’re not helping your case here. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2188 "2010-10-24T21:48:37Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > I have yet to review NP’s case thoroughly, but I know how she operates, and I very much doubt it’ll leave me seeing you as less scummy than I do now. But the foundations for my vote are my own suspicions, as mentioned earlier in the thread. > > I made it easy for scum to smudge me, and you took the bait, as did peeker. That doesn’t make you scum, but it does count against you. Then you prodded at the peeker bandwagon, to see if it might be turned around, before joining when it became clear it would go the distance. > > Not a slam-dunk case, I’m happy to admit. But in the absence of anything that gives me cause to think you more innocent than anyone else I could name, it makes you my default choice, at least until I’ve looked more closely at some of the other options. > > So, in this version of events, I tried to build town cred, but my scum-buddy called me out on it? And, if that wasn’t dumb enough, I spent the next day demanding he make a decent case against me, while he looks ever more scummy by dodging my questions? Then I pointed out a piece of evidence which had been largely overlooked, and which was exactly the kind of thing likely to get him lynched around here? > > Really? I mean, peeker was a roleblocker. What kind of mafia team will throw a power-role like that under the bus with such gay abandon? > > Where convoluted logic and smudgy conclusions meet, scumminess is often found. You’re not helping your case here. What I saw between you and peeker were a couple of people sniping at each other. I really didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to the interaction between the two of you at that point, because it seemed to be not a lot more than you two going “I think you’re Scum!” “I know you are, but what am I?”. Frankly, on Day 1 that sort of thing barely draws my attention. As far as where you "pointed out a piece of evidence that had been largely neglected:, when exactly did that happen? I assume you’re talking about [Post 1264](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13015366&postcount=1264), where you said “Did you read something on the scumboard, perhaps?” At that point, peeker is under no pressure whatsoever. After you post that, a couple people do take a closer look. And then in [Post 1309](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13016603&postcount=1309) you say, in response to Natlaw questioning peeker’s ‘flip-flop’ on which post had him confused, “Sorry, I’m confused. I neither understand peeker’s post, nor why you find it significant.” You seem to be trying to lessen the impact of peeker’s posts here. The discussion then moves away from peeker and centers mainly on Idle and NAF for the next 40 posts or so, until USCDiver revisits the topic in Post 1353. Your only comment on the subject after that comes in Post 1392 > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > Loathe as I am to assist someone who maintains a vote against me for such weak reasons, town chooses best when well-informed… > > (Sorry if this has been mentioned already - if so, then I missed it.) > > There is at least one other possible explanation for the present situation with Naf and peeker: Naf still has the book, but was inspired by peeker’s ill-advised comment to claim that he lost it. > > Had he openly held onto the book, then Naf might well have been top of the lynch list today. But with what looks like a case of PIS against peeker, and given peeker’s ability to make himself look scummier with every post in his defence, Naf might have seen it as an opportunity to push someone else under the bus, thus keeping himself out of the firing line a little longer. > > To be clear, I’m not saying I think this is what happened. And, for the moment, I’m keeping my vote where it is. But my suspicions of peeker still rest primarily on his general behaviour yesterday. Given his misreading of so many of my own posts, I find it quite plausible that his comment on the book resulted from a misreading of someone else’s comment. By this point, peeker had already picked up 8 votes (in just under 2 hours), in addition to the single vote you had placed against him the previous Day. Here you defend him against the 8 people who had just voted for him, but of course you can’t remove the vote you placed against him a Day earlier for a completely different reason. So in this version of events, you and peeker were having some ‘harmless fun’ with each other, which everyone else was mostly ignoring. Then when peeker starts to come under scrutiny, you are able to deflect the discussion away from him. Later, when everything suddenly explodes against him, you come in and put up a defense, but by then it’s too late. Am I certain this is how things went down? No, I’m not. Really, I hadn’t given much thought to the case against you until Today. Yes, I found your defense of Romanic suspicious, but without any other suspicious behavior it wasn’t nearly enough to make a case against you. But your case against me seems to amount to nothing more than “Peeker suspected me and he was Scum; you also suspected me so you must be Scum as well”. The fact that you continue to push such a case has led me to take a closer look at you, and what I see makes me question your motives all the more. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2189 "2010-10-24T22:25:25Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Am I certain this is how things went down? No, I’m not. Really, I hadn’t given much thought to the case against you until Today. What case? All you’ve really got as motivation here is my vote against you. Everything else you’ve said is just explaining how my actions might not be as innocent as they appear, on the basis that the whole scuffle between peeker and I might have been some kind of elaborate charade that went horribly wrong. That’s not even the beginnings of a case. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2190 "2010-10-25T00:08:13Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > What case? > > All you’ve really got as motivation here is my vote against you. > > Everything else you’ve said is just explaining how my actions might not be as innocent as they appear, on the basis that the whole scuffle between peeker and I might have been some kind of elaborate charade that went horribly wrong. > > That’s not even the beginnings of a case. It’s still better than “I agreed with peeker on something, therefore we must both be Scum”. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2191 "2010-10-25T00:29:18Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > It’s still better than “I agreed with peeker on something, therefore we must both be Scum”. I haven’t even come close to saying you must be scum. Why do you exaggerate? I’m far from making my mind up about who should get lynched today. You’re not doing your own case much good, though. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2192 "2010-10-25T01:44:07Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > I haven’t even come close to saying you must be scum. Why do you exaggerate? > > I’m far from making my mind up about who should get lynched today. You’re not doing your own case much good, though. I’m sorry, I assumed that because you voted to lynch me, that you thought I must be Scum. Or are you in the habit of wanting to kill people who you think are Town? ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2193 "2010-10-25T01:48:16Z")
NETA: Upon reread, it occurs to me that you might be arguing with the phrase “must be”. If that’s the case then your argument in your last post (#2191) is technically correct. You haven’t said anything close to “Suburban _ **must be** _ Scum”. But that wasn’t what I meant, and you know it. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2194 "2010-10-25T08:23:13Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > NETA: Upon reread, it occurs to me that you might be arguing with the phrase “must be”. If that’s the case then your argument in your last post (#2191) is technically correct. You haven’t said anything close to “Suburban _ **must be** _ Scum”. > > But that wasn’t what I meant, and you know it. No, I don’t. What did you mean by it? I agree that my reasoning would be poor if I took your actions vis-a-vis peeker to mean you must be scum. But that’s not even remotely what I said: > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > Not a slam-dunk case, I’m happy to admit. But in the absence of anything that gives me cause to think you more innocent than anyone else I could name, it makes you my default choice, at least until I’ve looked more closely at some of the other options. Why is it that you’ve got so worked up over this? After all, I’m not the only one voting for you, and yet you’ve seen fit first to create a rather fantastical conspiracy theory around myself and peeker, whilst wildly exaggerating my confidence in the case against you. This kind of response is not pro-town. Nothing you’ve said leads me to believe your comments are intended to catch scum, rather than simply to save your own hide by throwing muck at your accuser. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2195 "2010-10-25T12:47:10Z")
With the PM artifacts explained (and really, colour me astonished) I’m really not seeing the case against Mahaloth anymore. I do however see the case against Suburban Plankton. Partly because I find Normal’s case persuasive but also because I’ve brought it up myself. I’m going to quote myself extensively here, but with the absence of multiquote you’ll have to follow the links back to see what I’m responding to. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > That said, there are two people who stand out for me here. Cookies has obviously been doing a fair bit of research, as she posts twice with the result of Google searches. And Suburban Plankton seems very interested in the subject, speculating not just about what the Martyr can do, but about the relationship between Chip and mysterious third person, whether there might have been a Watcher at the kill, and whether Chip was protecting someone. > > I think that Scum (or even PFK) who’d seen a) their kill go astray and b) an obscure role die would be naturally curious about what had happened, and want to explore it. > > vote Suburban Plankton > [@Stanislaus](#): > > [Suburban Plankton](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13018767&postcount=1387): Posts a timeline of peeker’s “slip”. Points out that it took several attempts to get traction for this issue (which could be taken as implying that there are darker reasons for the rush of votes). He then analyses peeker’s 4 relevant posts: > > Post by post, it looks very even-handed. But his commentary on Post 1298 is a direct attack on the core of the case against peeker at this point. (The explanation, in many ways, that peeker should have given.) > > His summary here has plenty of doubt: > > He ends with a plea to peeker to defend himself more - which could be even-handedness and could be a hint. > > It’s worth noting that this post did receive one immediate comment (from special ed) saying that it cast doubt on the peeker case. > > Suburban Plankton also went on to [challenge](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13021107&postcount=1442)NAF’s case that peeker couldn’t possibly be vanilla. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > On Normal’s case against Suburban Plankton: > > I actually think that Plankton’s defence [two posts above](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13044203&postcount=1906) is more damning than Normal’s case. Reading those quotes in full I agree that they’re not in fact a relentlessly pursued case against NAF. Instead, they’re pot-stirring: creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and doubt about NAF but never committing to anything one way or another. It’s exactly the space Scum want to occupy - keeping the town going round in circles without tying themselves to a specific position. In short: 1) In “only two posts” asked a lot of questions about the Martyr role/Chip; 2) Series of posts minimising peeker’s slip and sowing doubt on the case(s) against him; 3) By his own admission, drawing attention to (but never coming to a conclusion on) the potential for NAF to be lying. **vote Suburban Plankton** ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2196 "2010-10-25T12:54:33Z")
Plankton says here that he hasn’t got much prepared by way of defence: > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > The thing is, I haven’t really bothered thinking all that much about how I am going to defend myself, because I haven’t done anything wrong. When you’re playing Scum, you know you have to lie, almost constantly. So you need to prepare a defense before you even post anything. But in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13061418&postcount=2188) he gives a pretty comprehensive defence of McGs case against him, quoting chapter and verse on her posts about him. Now, there are three possibilities: 1. He researched and wrote that post in the c.50 minutes between it and McG’s post. Plausible if he was online at that point, otherwise a lot of work in a short time. 2. Since he started coming under fire, he’s put a little bit more thought into how to answer the case against him. 3. He’s always been putting thought into the case against him. Setting aside the oddity of the argument that only scum can adequately explain their arguments and votes, two out of those three possibilities are consistent with Suburban’s argument that making a well-researched defence is a scum tell. Or to put it another way, inconsistent with his claim that he’s just an innocent Townie who never concerned himself with how he looked. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2197 "2010-10-25T13:16:03Z")
**Could we get a vote count, please**? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2198 "2010-10-25T13:19:31Z")
VOTE COUNT **Suburban Plankton** – 4 votes – Natlaw (2105), Normal Phase (2181), Mrs. McGinty (2185), Stanislaus (2195) **Mahaloth** – 2 votes – special ed (2063), Hal Briston (2074) * * * PLAYER LIST ALIVE 1. Mahaloth 2. Oy! 3. Normal Phase 4. Drain Bead 5. Tom Scud _for GuiriEnEspana – Night Three_ 6. Total Lost 7. Mrs. McGinty 8. special ed 9. Texcat 10. Stanislaus 11. One and Only Wanderers 12. NAF1138 13. brewha 14. USCDiver 15. CometotheDarkSideWeHaveCookies 16. Natlaw 17. Hal Briston 18. Nanook of the North Shore 19. lilflower 20. Suburban Plankton DEAD MHaye (The Unctuous Plastic Surgeon), Town Vanilla Oredigger77 (The Pharmaceutical Sales Representative), Town Vanilla Chipacabra (The Complete A-Hole), Town Martyr Omi No Kami (The Stubborn Skeptic), Town Vanilla Idle Thoughts (The Inexperienced Religious Figure), Town Investigator Rysto (The Grave Robber), Town Special Romanic (The Hitchhiker), Town Special peekercpa (Morphous, Nightmare Prince), Scum Role-Blocker Astral Rejection (The Trickster), Scum Special Telcontar (The Demon Mook), Scum Goon * * * Day to end Saturday, October 30, at around 1:30PM. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2199 "2010-10-25T13:45:58Z")
Thanks, **Story**! I went over the entire thread yesterday, not making notes, but just looking for gut feelings about anyone. I had been suspicious of **Normal Phase** , because the coincidence of her just happening to be attacked and Chipacabra just happening to protect her seems so great. But I noted that she was one of the first (perhaps the first) to aggressively pursue a case against **Telcontar** , and I can certainly see Scum killing her over that. It does, however, throw a little bit of suspicion on **Mrs McGinty** , for arguing fairly strenuously that this might have been a Scum ruse to convince Town that they were on the wrong track. The fact that **Mrs McGinty** and **Peeker** spent a full Day at each other’s throats while largely ignoring what else was going on also looks as if it could have been an intentional distraction. But as I’ve said before, I don’t get **Peeker** , never have, never will, and I can certainly understand being sufficiently exasperated by him to focus on him as **Mrs McGinty** did. Still, it might have been a clever little ploy between the two of them. So **Mrs McGinty** is on my suspect list, but not highly enough to get a vote. **Drain** ’s claim bugs me a little, because it’s just so hard to understand why she would be classified as Vanilla rather than Special. But, for the life of me, I can’t understand why she would change it if it were a cover role provided by **Story** , and the role reads like Story. In my reread, I have to admit that she pinged me a couple of times, but I just don’t see enough evidence to believe that she’s Scum using the book and magically knowing that it would cause an apparent Pro-Town result. So for the moment, she goes on my Tentative Town list. **Mahaloth** doesn’t ping me at all. I haven’t played with him before, so I don’t have any prior experience of his behavior to judge by. His claim seems fine to me, and I have no reason to distrust it. So, again for the moment, he also goes on my Tentative Town list. **Suburban Plankton** , on the other hand, does strike me as plausible Scum. If you read the build up to **Peeker** ’s lynch, it seems to me that he and **Astral** are playing both ends against the middle, making sure that Scum has a foot in on both sides. That’s something I’d think was a good idea if I was Scum - make sure that on any given point, you had at least one player on each side so that if they were outed, it wouldn’t reveal anything about “Scum behavior.” And I agree with **Stanislaus** that **Plankton** has done a lot of pot-stirring, which is in essence trying to keep a foot on either side by yourself. So, for now, I’m going to **vote Suburban Plankton**. I find the cases against him more compelling than his defense of himself. Sorry I don’t have more to add. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2200 "2010-10-25T14:57:49Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > The fact that **Mrs McGinty** and **Peeker** spent a full Day at each other’s throats while largely ignoring what else was going on also looks as if it could have been an intentional distraction. An intentional distraction away from the otherwise pressing business of lynching townies? Why, as scum, would I go after peeker so aggressively, when it was clear that he wasn’t making himself look at all innocent by his responses? If it was meant to be distancing tactics, I could easily have backed off after the opening exchanges. But I didn’t stop chasing him until I’d drawn attention back onto his comment about the book, in light of NAF’s revelation about having lost it, and everyone started piling onto the bandwagon. After that, the case was made, and he offered nothing in the way of a defence. Job done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=109) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=111)