# 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:** 37
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/721 "2010-10-06T17:26:26Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Well, I’m about half way through reviewing the first 11 voters on Romanic with nothing yet. > > Since I figure I’m about to pick up a bunch of votes and it can’t hurt to try and save the town from adding to our 1/2 mislynch for the Day any one want to consider not voting for a lynch toDay? I might consider it if you make a case. But right now I am not inclined. Convince me. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/722 "2010-10-06T17:41:41Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Well, I’m about half way through reviewing the first 11 voters on Romanic with nothing yet. > > Since I figure I’m about to pick up a bunch of votes and it can’t hurt to try and save the town from adding to our 1/2 mislynch for the Day any one want to consider not voting for a lynch toDay? You did ask very nicely, but I’m afraid I’m going to agree with that at this point. It does bring up a procedural matter though. **Can no lynch win the lynch vote? That is, if more people vote ‘no lynch’ than vote for any player, will there be no lynch that Day?** ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/723 "2010-10-06T17:43:41Z")
Voting “no lynch” is the same as lynching a non-walking Romanic. A lot of people considered that the worst town outcome previously, so unless you make a very compelling case, I’m gonna have to say that’s not in town’s interest. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/724 "2010-10-06T17:46:11Z")
NETA: “I’m afraid I’m **not** going to agree with that [the nolynch vote] at this point.” > [@special\_ed](#): > > > [@Oredigger77](#): > > > > Well, I’m about half way through reviewing the first 11 voters on Romanic with nothing yet. > > > > Since I figure I’m about to pick up a bunch of votes and it can’t hurt to try and save the town from adding to our 1/2 mislynch for the Day any one want to consider not voting for a lynch toDay? > > You did ask very nicely, but I’m afraid I’m going to agree with that at this point. > > It does bring up a procedural matter though. > > **Can no lynch win the lynch vote? That is, if more people vote ‘no lynch’ than vote for any player, will there be no lynch that Day?** ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/725 "2010-10-06T17:48:59Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > **Can no lynch win the lynch vote? That is, if more people vote ‘no lynch’ than vote for any player, will there be no lynch that Day?** Hadn’t thought about that. Yes, the answer is yes. If you collectively want to vote no-lynch and can get the votes, who am I to stop you? ---
**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 6, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/726 "2010-10-06T17:53:51Z")
In these posts you are arguing that it would be best for Romanic to use his powers. \. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I don’t see the benefit to town to have a person be able to remove himself unless we’re talking about narrowing the unconfirmed pool. The color on the other hand definitely fits Story’s style. I’m inclined to believe it but **I think that at this point it would be best is Romanic used his powers since it would free us up from a mislynch** and I don’t think that claim is enough to alleviate the suspicion against him. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I think he might be town that could be a third party PM slightly revised or a cover role. Lynching him was the mislynch I was talking about and him escaping would stop it from occurring. I have no idea what his escape does to our total available mislynches but I assume it’s better then lynching him. > > I also think he has a lot of suspicion on him and without a verifiable power there is no way to clear that up. So there will continue to be discussion about when to lynch him, or have him escape, which will distract the town. **Him using his power will free the town up for more profitable discussions** and if it is in fact a cover role show it to be one. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > You got the order wrong on number 1. I voted for him for making a horrible misstatement, looked at the wagon formed and figured it wasn’t going to drop off so I should start looking for Day 2. He then claimed, I bought the claim and still planned to keep looking for Day 2. I haven’t gone through the other voters yet so I haven’t moved my vote.\*\* I think that Romanic should use his power it’s been stated over and over again why it’s good, proves he’s town and removes him from discussion or proves he’s lying and gets him lynched.\*\* So now Romanic has walked, just like you said he should. And early indications are that Town is settling on another target (who just happens to be you). Now your plan is this: > [@Oredigger77](#): > > Well, I’m about half way through reviewing the first 11 voters on Romanic with nothing yet. > > Since I figure I’m about to pick up a bunch of votes and it can’t hurt to try and save the town from adding to our 1/2 mislynch for the Day any one want to consider not voting for a lynch toDay? So now, out of the blue, you want us to vote no-lynch instead? I don’t recall you, or anyone else, arguing that no-lynch was a good strategy. If we’re not going to lynch someone else, why have Romanic walk away in the first place? We could have just let him stick around until Dusk and lynched him then. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/727 "2010-10-06T17:58:21Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > So now Romanic has walked, just like you said he should. And early indications are that Town is settling on another target (who just happens to be you). Now your plan is this: Well, that goes back to the whole I know I’m town thing. I think using his powers was the right thing for Romanic to do and I think that we can find scum toDay in the pool of unconfirmed (everyone but me) but since I seem to have the bullseye on me unless I can get us pointed in another direction I know that a no lynch is a better option then lynching me. ---
**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 6, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/728 "2010-10-06T18:13:46Z")
Oddly enough, I agree with Mrs McGinty that he looks scummier now than when I thought Romanic was scum. I suppose I should start from the beginning, though. Sure wish you’d given us some thoughts on the game on your way out, Romanic. ---
**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 6, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/729 "2010-10-06T18:15:22Z")
Also: "From the perspective of the guests, we see a long road leading away from the Cabin. Barreling away, down the road, is a giant 18-wheeler. The camera cuts to a view of the passenger-side mirror; we see a reflection of Romanic, head reclined against the seat, arm cocked out the window, his only thoughts of the road ahead. As the truck fades into the distance, we can make out the license plate: “ASS CUM.” Hahahaha ---
**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 6, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/730 "2010-10-06T18:21:55Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Oddly enough, I agree with Mrs McGinty that he looks scummier now than when I thought Romanic was scum. > > I suppose I should start from the beginning, though. > > Sure wish you’d given us some thoughts on the game on your way out, Romanic. Who is the “he” you refer to in the first sentence here? ---
**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 6, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/731 "2010-10-06T18:36:11Z")
Mrs McGinty. Who is absolutely, definitely positively male, except when she isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![lilflower](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@lilflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lilflower)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/732 "2010-10-06T18:51:52Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > > > So now Romanic has walked, just like you said he should. And early indications are that Town is settling on another target (who just happens to be you). Now your plan is this: > > Well, that goes back to the whole I know I’m town thing. I think using his powers was the right thing for Romanic to do and I think that we can find scum toDay in the pool of unconfirmed (everyone but me) but since I seem to have the bullseye on me unless I can get us pointed in another direction I know that a no lynch is a better option then lynching me. \*\*vote Oredigger77 \*\* As I stated earlier, I don’t like this approach you have of basically saying it’s OK for you because you know you are town. This is not a pro-town approach since no other townie knows your alignment and you are basically just asking us to trust you. I have no reason to trust you since you cannot seem to back up your arguments with any information that I have access to. It seems like you contradict yourself in your posts in an effort to explain away your hedging. Like this one: > [@Oredigger77](#): > > > [@lilflower](#): > > > > You do realize that this is a ridiculous defense, right? As town, we all know our own alignment but since no one else does, telling us that you aren’t scum because you are town isn’t helpful at all, nor is it convincing. > > I wasn’t trying to be convincing in that part of the post and while it is a ridiculous defense all town should use that as point 1 in their things I know to be true list. I base all of my actions on the knowledge that I am not scum. When I evaluate people one of the things that I look for is if they consider themselves town. It’s not a dead give away but I think in general but I think it is indicative. You say your defense is ridiculous but that it should be the first point of data we use to evaluate a case. That doesn’t make sense to me. And don’t you think the scum are posting in a way that would imply that they consider themselves town? Here is the original quote: > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I was posting my thought process and as far as I’m concerned there is no chance of me being scum unless I get recruited. So I don’t think I’m scummy for casting a bandwagon vote and I do think others are, possibly. How is it that you are not trying to be convincing here? You are saying that you do not think you are scummy but everyone else is. That is your only defense for that vote. Since that was the only defense you posted, I inferred that this was your attempt to convince me that you aren’t scummy. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/733 "2010-10-06T19:17:52Z")
With Romantic gone, my main suspicions shift to three people. 1. **Oredigger** and **GuiriEnEspaña** are, more or less, tied for being the most suspicious in my opinion. 2. **Drain Bead** is also (still), but less than the others. \*\*Oredigger \*\*and **Drain Bead** for things previously pointed out by others and myself and **Guiri** for an exchange that starts [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989809&postcount=466) in post 466. In it, Special Ed is the first to vote for **Romantic**. Guiri then follows that post with [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989819&postcount=467), post 467, where she clearly says she’s “not convinced” there are only 4 scum. She even says that it wasn’t the case in the first game as a reason she thinks it’s unlikely. **Special Ed** replied next post ([post 468](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989827&postcount=468)). And suddenly, we have a complete turn around. A total 180 from **Guiri** , where she [votes for him](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989830&postcount=469). Buh? This really seems/feels/appears like a huge “uh okay, me too” type post. One where it seems likely a bandwagon will start and so someone’s rushing to get on it. The argument could be made, I’m sure, that Guiri was just convinced or had a change of opinion due to Ed’s post 468, but that fast? Folding that quickly? Not offering any sort of another counter argument after saying she wasn’t convinced? I dunno, just seems really off to me. It’s something that stood out majorly to me at the time of reading it. And since I already had the same thought **Brewha** did in [post 480](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989947&postcount=480) (“If that is the case, I’m pretty sure that at least one of those quick to vote for him is opportunistic scum that just found a good reason to place a vote on a townie.”), my suspicion of her turned on. **Vote Oredigger** ---
**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 6, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/734 "2010-10-06T19:20:27Z")
**vote: Oredigger** Oredigger and Mrs McGinty have somewhat related vibes to them. Oredigger comes off as trying to look good in the wake of an inevitable townie lynch, by proclaiming repeatedly that he would be using the rest of the Day to look for Tomorrow’s candidate. It looks like fake towniness. (And I note he has yet to follow up on that.) Mrs McGinty was very confident that Romanic would not have made that slip as scum, and I’m not sure that confidence can really be justified from a town perspective. But I’m not sure it can’t, either – as he’d tell you himself, I’ve never had the best of reads on him. I don’t entirely like his case on Hal Briston, but a couple of points are good, and the ones I reject the mostly strongly still make sense to me from the persopective of someone new to the sorts of discussions that go on around here all the time on day one. So I’m happy to give him more rope. Oredigger, not so much; I think the case is more than solid enough for the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/735 "2010-10-06T19:22:56Z")
Oh, and Guiri was also the one who first pointed out Romantic’s mistake. Although I’m sure it would have been noticed anyway, combined with her complete 180 vote after a post saying “I’m not convinced” (yet having pointed it out), it looks really hinky (as Velma would say). ---
**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 6, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/736 "2010-10-06T19:26:37Z")
I think I see where Guiri’s logic was there, but I’ll let him defend himself on that count. It was very fast. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/737 "2010-10-06T19:30:34Z")
Him? I was thinking it was a her all this time. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![lilflower](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@lilflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lilflower)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/738 "2010-10-06T19:32:52Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > With Romantic gone, my main suspicions shift to three people. > > 1. **Oredigger** and **GuiriEnEspaña** are, more or less, tied for being the most suspicious in my opinion. > 2. **Drain Bead** is also (still), but less than the others. > > \*\*Oredigger \*\*and **Drain Bead** for things previously pointed out by others and myself and **Guiri** for an exchange that starts [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989809&postcount=466) in post 466. In it, Special Ed is the first to vote for **Romantic**. Guiri then follows that post with [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989819&postcount=467), post 467, where she clearly says she’s “not convinced” there are only 4 scum. She even says that it wasn’t the case in the first game as a reason she thinks it’s unlikely. > **Special Ed** replied next post ([post 468](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989827&postcount=468)). > And suddenly, we have a complete turn around. A total 180 from **Guiri** , where she [votes for him](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989830&postcount=469). Buh? > This really seems/feels/appears like a huge “uh okay, me too” type post. One where it seems likely a bandwagon will start and so someone’s rushing to get on it. > The argument could be made, I’m sure, that Guiri was just convinced or had a change of opinion due to Ed’s post 468, but that fast? Folding that quickly? Not offering any sort of another counter argument after saying she wasn’t convinced? > > I dunno, just seems really off to me. It’s something that stood out majorly to me at the time of reading it. And since I already had the same thought **Brewha** did in [post 480](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989947&postcount=480) (“If that is the case, I’m pretty sure that at least one of those quick to vote for him is opportunistic scum that just found a good reason to place a vote on a townie.”), my suspicion of her turned on. > > **Vote Oredigger** You seem to be making more of a case for \*\*Guiri \*\*in this post but you are voting for **Oredigger**. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/739 "2010-10-06T19:41:10Z")
No, I was explaining why I found **Guiri** suspicious (something already done with the other two). Not going to just say “I find so and so suspicious” and not say why. ---
**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 6, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/740 "2010-10-06T19:41:58Z")
This has gotten lost in the shuffle. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > > [@NAF1138](#): > > > > So why reject it out of hand? Where is the harm to town? \*\*Writing off an idea because it might not, or even likely won’t, work is silly. \*\* Why cut off any avenues of productive information generation even if they might not work out? The game, for town, is about generating information and leveraging that information in combination with our time and numerical advantage. The best strategy for town is to generate as much information as possible while the numbers and time are still on our side. > > My bolding: Writing off ideas that probably won’t work is clever, not silly. As you point out, our time is limited and constantly decreasing. Spending half a Day deciding between a role claim or a colour claim, then enforcing participation on some suitably randomised rota (hello, time zone differences!), and finally trying to decide if we’ve actually learnt anything from the exercise, could quite easily be a big fat waste of time. If we think the chances are that story gave the scum cover roles that will let them skate through a mass claim then we should find something better to do than spin our wheels. > > For example, we could try to work out a strategy to deal with the Book. We appear to have dispensed with the option of **no-one** picking it up in public, for some reason. Maybe we can consider that for toMorrow. Obviously our goal is for the book to remain in the hands of confirmed, protected Town. However, for a Town member to achieve the condition of being both confirmed and protected is no easy process so we’re going to have to busk it for a while. > > For now, we at least know who has the Book during the Day. During the Night, given that ownership of the Book comes at the cost of using other Powers, I’m inclined to expect that our vanillas will be first in line for it. The question is whether they should announce their ownership, and when. I’m inclined to think that whoever had the Book should admit it immediately after Dawn. This will at least give us a “chain of custody” which, as we fill in role/side info as the game progresses, will at least tell us who’s been reading it. This would be an A-One idea if it weren’t to be that the mafia could then deduce that these players have a greater than average chance to be vanilla, also. Sorry for the grammar, but I think you know what I mean. I see three possibilities: 1. NAF just plain gets to keep it overnight, and we revisit the issue in the morning. It’s assumed anyone who takes it without asking is scum. I think there must be some disincentive (the night action restriction for one, but maybe others also) against the scum owning it, else there’s little to stop them from lurking about the big red button every evening trying to get their grubby hands on it. Perhaps a player with the ability to detect who has it at night, something like that. 2. Free-for-all at night, no responsibility to report ownership, and let the chips fall where they may. As I said, there must be mechanisms in the game to provide some sort of accountability. 3. What you suggest, and just hope there are enough day powers and not-every-night night powers to confuse the vanilla/power role issue. [/quote] I strongly recommend that toMorrow, we leave the Book where it is. That is to say, unless and until we collectively agree that a named player should pick up the Book, we will lynch any player who picks up the Book. Anyone who wants to have a read is welcome to make a case for why they should. However, as per my early comments about time, this decision should be made either in the first twelve hours after Dawn or (my probable preference) in parallel to the ordinary business of the lynch. That is, we can keep hunting Scum even while we make a decision about the Book. [/QUOTE] I think something like this might be workable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=38)