# 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:** 52
**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 8, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1021 "2010-10-08T20:08:44Z")
> [@MHaye](#): > > The case Mrs. McGinty made against himself is fairly convincing as well. I _don’t_ subscribe to the notion that in order to vote Mrs. McG I have to find a better case. I just have to decide whether he made it as a Deadite[sup]1[/sup] to pull the teeth of the Town, or as a Townie to get the worst about him out into the open. The better case would be the one which explained why I was more likely to be a teeth-puller than a worst-about-me-out-in-the-opener. That case doesn’t have to be made now - the PIS thing will be just as relevant next time my actions are deemed scummy. But, thus far, there is no groundswell of support for my lynch. So unless he’s got something more to say on it, peeker’s vote is meaningless. The way I see it, if you’re casting a vote and the votee challenges you, then you either make the damned case or you drop it. Anything else smacks of nervous indecision: “will I look scummier by trying to make a case, or by backing down?” > [@MHaye](#): > > And I keep thinking that [she’s dead already](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_McGinty%27s_Dead). She and I have a lot in common, the main difference being that I keep coming back from the dead, so as to be murdered again at the beginning of the next mystery. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > I can always make a better case against myself when I’m scum than someone else can make. I know every single bloody handprint I’ve left behind, even the ones that no one else notices. If I’d set out a comprehensive analysis of my posts to date, demonstrating how I’d contrived to fool the town, then that would be a hard case to top. Merely pointing out that one reason for suspecting me was weaker than another mutually-exclusive reason is no kind of case at all. It’s basically saying that I’m a suspect because I didn’t join the bandwagon along with everyone else, as if that proves anything either way. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1022 "2010-10-08T20:18:36Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > > [@peekercpa](#): > > > > fuck, i am glad i don’t live in your area. > > > > meal of the evening: bacon cheeseburger or chili dogs. > > > > i’d just be pissing all night if all i had was a couple of glasses of tea for dinner. > > I KNOW youre whooshing me, but, tea the meal, not tea the drink now wait a fucking minute. what the hell is “tea the meal”. seriously, maybe i am being whooshed. i thought fracking tea is what you drink when it is hotter than sin outside and a coke doesn’t cut it. i mean you really eat tea? fuck, i am hopelessly lost. unless you are talking about those damn cucumber sandwiches which basically just give me the burps. ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1023 "2010-10-08T20:26:55Z")
The meal of the evening. Maybe you call it dinner? In my family, it’s tea. Breakfast (7 am ish) Dinner (1 pm ish) Tea (6 pm ish) ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1024 "2010-10-08T20:35:56Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > @peekercpa > > Those quotes do not show that I was _convinced_ of anything. > > They show me stating a belief that Roman was more likely to be town than scum, and then having to explain the initial reasoning, as others misread or misunderstood what I had said. > > And the part you bolded has me pointing out that, contrary to what was being mooted at the time, the more likely case against me was one of PIS if Roman turned out to be innocent, rather than one of supporting my mafia buddy if Roman turned out guilty. > > If you think I’m shown up scum thanks to PIS, then you’ve at least got to make a better case against me than I made against myself. Otherwise your vote is meaningless and, therefore, rather scummy. otay, i was merely reading your words. and regarding the PIS thing that is something you brought up, not me. i was merely being helpful. ---
**Author:** ![Telcontar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Telcontar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telcontar)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1025 "2010-10-08T20:36:10Z")
> [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Oh goodness. I disagree completely here. Oy had made that ambiguous statement, the one that seemed to leave open the possibility that she is vanilla. NAF has stated (and I agree it would have been appropriate) that if she had in fact claimed vanilla after the initial slip, he would have voted her. That gives him unquestionably legitimate motive to pursue the question. > > Now as for the consequences: if Oy does not claim, she is very unlikely to find herself a protector for the night. Scum could and probably would shoot with impunity – what better alternative do they have? So for her not to claim, if she’s town, is essentially to abandon herself to death for no gain to the town. This way, on the other hand, the mafia have to deal with the WIFOM. Will she or will she not be protected? Will she or will she not be watched? They may well shoot elsewhere. And then not only do we get the information from that player’s alignment and interactions, but we also get information from Oy herself. This is not necessarily a town-unfriendly trade. It could even turn out quite good for us. Personally, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that a vanilla Oy wouldn’t make the same set of comments that this, apparently power role, Oy made. Had Oy claimed vanilla, I still wouldn’t be inclined to vote for her. If NAF was convinced that Oy was either power role or scum then maybe pushing makes sense, but I don’t see the situation as having been that way. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > I could add in an obligatory paragraph about the trade-offs if Oy is scum, but I don’t think she is. > As for you, Telcontar, I’ve noticed a certain tendency toward rigidness in scum players, both myself and others. It’s like they have a list of “X, Y and Z is scummy behavior” in their heads and they’re reluctant to deviate from it, because if they do, they’re left with nothing to vote for. You have a certain whiff in this post of “forcing a claim is scummy, period” and forget the circumstances. Not enough to vote for in itself, but it’s there. Forcing a claim isn’t scummy in all circumstances, I never said it was. But I’m with Drain on transparency in general: townies have plenty of reasons to keep certain facts ambiguous. Townies should never have to lie, but there are a great many things that we should be cagey about. “Are you a power role” is one of those things. I think we were much better off before probing Oy then after. yes there are some advantages to the tradeoff, but i don’t think Oy coming out on day 1 is necessarily any better than, say, a cop coming out. Don’t you think power roles should hide? > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Why more suspicious than NAF? Or do you just mean more suspicious than you currently _are_ reading him? This is regarding Ed: More suspicious than I am of him as it is. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > Oh really? I don’t get this seeming connection between Chip and Oredigger. I doubt even NAF does, who was the first to bring up the possibility of a distraction being intended. There’s no reason it should have been Chip’s vote in particular, if it happened at all. So please – what “lot of it” from Chipacabra puts him into a bad light currently assuming Ore might be scum, but would turn into a null tell if Ore is town? > > I don’t buy this whole paragraph, honestly. It looks fake. It’s been a long Day, and a long day, so i’m working from memory here. But it seemed to me like Chip managed a subject change when Oredigger was being run out of town. If Oredigger is scum, then a scummy chip might have done that. if oredigger is town, then a scummy chip has no motivation to do that. I think we saw a similar case in…harry potter? an overeager scum exposed themselves while defending a teammate. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > I have the same problem with this paragraph as I have with Mrs McGinty’s approach to Romanic in the first place. Peeker’s case may be right and it may be wrong, but there’s nothing actually misguided about it. There’s no reason whatsoever not to buy it unless you are more confident than you should be that Mrs McGinty is town. I don’t buy the case because it’s weak. I’d have posted similar had I been in her position. This doesn’t mean McGinty is innocent, just that I don’t think Peeker’s case is a good reason to think she’s guilty. I tend to call out really bad logic when I see it. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Oy: With your powers you’re probably going to find yourself playing a probability game with the mafia. Your role is actually moderately powerful, so they’ll be tempted to off you (or block you, presuming they can). so each night you’ll have to roll the dice and decide whether to risk investigating/watching. Key point: don’t tell us what you’re doing in advance. > > Useful information, and on that much I agree. But I’m voting for you anyway. Oredigger has plenty of votes, and I always prefer making my own case when I can. My suspicions of NAF are unchanged, but my vote was largely intended for the record; i didn’t think there was any chance of him dying today and wanted to have it out there in case i didn’t make it through night 1 (it happens to me…a lot). But the case against oredigger is also strong, and I won’t be around to cast a defensive vote later so: **unvote** **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 8, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1026 "2010-10-08T21:06:34Z")
[quote=“Telcontar, post:1025, topic:555493”] Personally, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that a vanilla Oy wouldn’t make the same set of comments that this, apparently power role, Oy made. Had Oy claimed vanilla, I still wouldn’t be inclined to vote for her. If NAF was convinced that Oy was either power role or scum then maybe pushing makes sense, but I don’t see the situation as having been that way. I did, though. NAF says he did. It can be inferred that Special Ed also did, given his pointed question. > [@](#): > > Forcing a claim isn’t scummy in all circumstances, I never said it was. But I’m with Drain on transparency in general: townies have plenty of reasons to keep certain facts ambiguous. Townies should never have to lie, but there are a great many things that we should be cagey about. “Are you a power role” is one of those things. I think we were much better off before probing Oy then after. yes there are some advantages to the tradeoff, but i don’t think Oy coming out on day 1 is necessarily any better than, say, a cop coming out. Don’t you think power roles should hide? That can’t possibly be an honest question. But to answer it anyway, it’s situational. In this case, I think the outcome of him claiming is likely to be better than if he had left it at that unconvincing level of ambiguity. I’m all but convinced of his towniness now, for instance, which would not have been the case otherwise. That has repercussions all over the place. For instance, OAOW looks a little bit worse than previously for his subtle backup of Oy’s first misguided case. Scum follow townies’ leads all the time on that sort of thing. They don’t typically pile on the bad ideas of other scum. > [@](#): > > This is regarding Ed: More suspicious than I am of him as it is. > > It’s been a long Day, and a long day, so i’m working from memory here. But it seemed to me like Chip managed a subject change when Oredigger was being run out of town. If Oredigger is scum, then a scummy chip might have done that. if oredigger is town, then a scummy chip has no motivation to do that. I think we saw a similar case in…harry potter? an overeager scum exposed themselves while defending a teammate. Chipacabra was more the catalyst for the subject change (such as it was) than its instigator. His poor vote on Rysto prompted Rysto to object, and started a flurry of three or four votes on him that competeted with the six or so that were on Oredigger at the time. If there was a coordinated attempt to distract from the Oredigger bandwagon I’d be more inclined to look at Chipa’s voters (whoever they were, I have no idea right now) than at Chipa himself. He made a poor vote, no question, but it’s poor independent of Oredigger’s alignment. There’s not enough of a connection there to even really suspect that the bandwagon on Oredigger had anything to do with the vote on Rysto, much less make statements like you did that link them so tightly. If Oredigger is scum, is Chipa too? In my mind, no greater likelihood than if he is not. If Oredigger is not scum, does the case against Chipa go away? No, because the vote and its surrounds were plenty lousy on their own. That you even tried to link them, much less linked them so tightly, is suggestive that there’s little actual focus behind your words. > [@](#): > > I don’t buy the case because it’s weak. I’d have posted similar had I been in her position. This doesn’t mean McGinty is innocent, just that I don’t think Peeker’s case is a good reason to think she’s guilty. I tend to call out really bad logic when I see it. All right, I’ll let this part drop. ---
**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 8, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1027 "2010-10-08T22:15:50Z")
> [@Telcontar](#): > > NAF has been a very active player and I’m not going to attempt an out and out WOW on him. But I really didn’t like his pursuit of Oy’s previously ambiguous power status. When a player says something that strongly implies they’re not vanilla, i think the best thing to do is watch them. There was no reason to force a claim now, Oy wasn’t being scummier than Oredigger for example, and in the morning we’d either have 1.) a dead Oy (no puzzle) 2.) a living Oy who was either scum or a town power role who had done something. Either way, we’d be in a better position to evaluate Oy. > > I’d be more suspicious of special ed for the same, but he did this with chronos last game so i see it as part of his playstyle (if an unfortunate part). Naf noticed. I noticed. I bet quite a few other players noticed as well. (Maybe after the game we can discuss who did and didn’t notice it before mention was made of it). If you didn’t notice, I’d suggest you pay better attention to things like that. Do you think everyone who noticed wasn’t Scum? I don’t. So I’m operating on the assumption that the Scum knew or would know when they read it. NAF pointing it out makes it less a power role (if Oy isn’t one) or another power role (if Oy is one) would make that mistake. ---
**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 8, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1028 "2010-10-08T22:18:14Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > > [@special\_ed](#): > > > > Can you see a scum forgetting to edit that out of their claim? > > Not if they were provided a fake vanilla claim, no. Then she just would have claimed vanilla and been done with it. I can only see the power role claim if she were a) Town or b) Scum who had not been provided with a fake vanilla claim. It makes sense for a Scum Oy to claim a power as close to what she actually has. We may have investigators of a variety of types (watchers, trackers, role, name, etc) who could prove her to have lied ---
**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 8, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1029 "2010-10-08T22:27:39Z")
Bolding mine. Cite, please > [@Mahaloth](#): > > OK, I"m caught up. > > 1. Did Oy explain to us why she claimed? I didn’t see that one coming. Was it to draw protection? > > 2. I think Oredigger should have placed a real vote. > > 3. I think Telcontar is scummy mcscumbag and was stunned to see that NAF picked up on the exact things I did. **Telcontar’s entire argument sounds like the kind of one I’ve seen him collaborate on with scum in other games**. Since they have Day-talking in this game, I think he has worked up a case he can present as reasonable against NAF. > > Unvote Oredigger > > **Vote Telcontar** ---
**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 8, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1030 "2010-10-08T22:55:45Z")
[quote=“special\_ed, post:1029, topic:555493”] Bolding mine. Cite, please > [@Mahaloth](#): > > **Telcontar’s entire argument sounds like the kind of one I’ve seen him collaborate on with scum in other games**. Since they have Day-talking in this game, I think he has worked up a case he can present as reasonable against NAF. K. I’m going to go back into LOST mafia’s day and night board for scum later. I’m not saying he made the exact argument, but rather that it strikes me as a case typical of that which comes out of scum daytime collaboration. Uh, I’ll be back after I comb through my old scum boards for LOST. ---
**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 9, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1031 "2010-10-09T00:19:39Z")
**NAF** , I disagree. I can see someone, especially someone who hasn’t played or watched many games, who can look at their own vanilla PM and see someone else’s different one, and see that **story** gave a template rather than an example, and wonder if there were different vanilla PMs or if someone made up the vanilla PM they cited. I think it’s a legitimate question for a vanilla newbie to ask. _I_ wouldn’t have asked it, but I can see why **Oy!** specifically might have, and that says nothing about my own role either way. Also, FWIW, I did not catch that **Oy!** outed herself until you pointed it out. If I were Scum, you’d have just helped me. Now, chances are, one of the other three of us (RELAX IT’S A JOKE) would have caught it, but stranger things have happened, and having lived through Cecil Pond, my mind is pretty well made up on this matter. ---
**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 9, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1032 "2010-10-09T00:23:03Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > K. I’m going to go back into LOST mafia’s day and night board for scum later. > > I’m not saying he made the exact argument, but rather that it strikes me as a case typical of that which comes out of scum daytime collaboration. > > Uh, I’ll be back after I comb through my old scum boards for LOST. and in just one other game, not other games? ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1033 "2010-10-09T01:10:24Z")
Phew. Finally caught up, I thought the thread was going to keep getting longer and longer and I’d never get to the end. When I originally read Oy’s post, I immediately thought ruh roh, she’s not vanilla. My second thought was ruh roh, she’s not scum either and my third thought was ruh roh, that was too obvious a slip for the scum to have missed it, Oy’s signed her death certificate. All those thoughts before I got down to NAF asking about the slip. Then somewhere down thread but before Oy’s claim, I was thinking maybe she intentionally was trying to draw night fire, but, of course, a little more reading made me give up on that idea. I think Oy did the right thing in claiming. Certainly gives the scum a little wifom to drink tonight. I can’t blame NAF for mentioning the slip – I noticed it immediately and like someone else said I am usually oblivious. I am still happy with my vote on Oredigger. I don’t understand his no lynch vote. I don’t understand why if he were vanilla town, he’d want to walk up to the noose and be lynched. It seems like a scum ruse to me. Does he think that trying to make himself into a martyr that we’ll unvote him and let a scum escape the noose? ---
**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 9, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1034 "2010-10-09T01:37:49Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > > > Not if they were provided a fake vanilla claim, no. Then she just would have claimed vanilla and been done with it. I can only see the power role claim if she were a) Town or b) Scum who had not been provided with a fake vanilla claim. > > It makes sense for a Scum Oy to claim a power as close to what she actually has. We may have investigators of a variety of types (watchers, trackers, role, name, etc) who could prove her to have lied True. And there could be a Scum inventor. But they would have to have changed the last power somehow, as the way it’s worded now makes no sense as a Scum power. And if they were going to change it, why not just change it to block all kills instead of throwing in the part about the deadites not being deterred? Wouldn’t that be easier? I can see the Scum altering their own claim to make a fake, but I can’t see them altering it in that way. And yes, I know I’m saying “Scum wouldn’t do that,” and I don’t particularly give a shit–I think the whole idea that people saying “Scum wouldn’t do that” is Scummy or stupid or whatever is ridiculous. It’s a perfectly valid way of weighing if a claim is fake or not. ---
**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 9, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1035 "2010-10-09T01:43:53Z")
**Oy** ’s role sounds a whole lot like my role was in MisterBlockey’s game on my boards. I had five things to give out, too…and I was called the Inventor. I was also scum in that game. So for me, the jury is still out regarding **Oy** …but also in my opinion, there are bigger suspicious out there at the moment. ---
**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 9, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1036 "2010-10-09T02:46:24Z")
**vote peekercpa** For reasons that are 1 part metagame and 2 parts poke. The clock has run out on me unfortunately, so I can’t back this up with a lot. I spent the majority of the Day poking in places that haven’t paid off yet (or ever in some cases). Reason 1, the back and forth with the Mrs. His end of that argument feels wrong to me. It’s a gut thing. Sorry Peek. Reason 2, his reaction to Oy’s outing herself also seems to indicate (to me at least) the chance that he is not vanilla. Reason 3, other than a single post he totally stayed out of that mess which is not at all his style. Reason 4, he’s been rather reasonable toDay. Something that happens more often when he is scum then not. Not the best case in the word, but the one I am most comfortable with right now. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1037 "2010-10-09T04:03:35Z")
I’m going to risk breaking my rule and **Vote Chip**. I’ve already explained at length why his vote against me was poorly reasoned. But I really just can’t see how that reasoning could have been _honest_ reasoning. I just don’t see how anybody could possibly have actually thought that I could have considered Oy!'s “crime” to be anywhere near as bad as Romanic’s. Chip looks like he was trying to manufacture a case against me, and that has scum written all over it. As a second, minor, datapoint, I notice that Chip has since concluded that I’m probably Town based on my arguments in favour of Romanic walking. My problem with this is that I made those arguments nearly a full day before Chip placed his vote. It looks to me like the first time through Chip went through my posts looking for reasons to call me scum, rather than looking for evidence of my alignment, and that’s a scum trait. You might ask why I’ve reversed myself on my rule. First, I’ve calmed down some from when I first saw that vote. Second, when going over my vote tonight I realized that I was basically trying to talk myself into voting for Oredigger in order to be able to follow my rule, and that’s just not good play at all. ---
**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 9, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1038 "2010-10-09T04:52:33Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > > [@special\_ed](#): > > > > It makes sense for a Scum Oy to claim a power as close to what she actually has. We may have investigators of a variety of types (watchers, trackers, role, name, etc) who could prove her to have lied > > True. And there could be a Scum inventor. But they would have to have changed the last power somehow, as the way it’s worded now makes no sense as a Scum power. And if they were going to change it, why not just change it to block all kills instead of throwing in the part about the deadites not being deterred? Wouldn’t that be easier? > > I can see the Scum altering their own claim to make a fake, but I can’t see them altering it in that way. And yes, I know I’m saying “Scum wouldn’t do that,” and I don’t particularly give a shit–I think the whole idea that people saying “Scum wouldn’t do that” is Scummy or stupid or whatever is ridiculous. It’s a perfectly valid way of weighing if a claim is fake or not. Unless the change was made to try to deter 3rd party killers from targeting Oy ---
**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 9, 2010, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1039 "2010-10-09T05:17:45Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > **vote peekercpa** > > For reasons that are 1 part metagame and 2 parts poke. The clock has run out on me unfortunately, so I can’t back this up with a lot. I spent the majority of the Day poking in places that haven’t paid off yet (or ever in some cases). > > Reason 1, the back and forth with the Mrs. His end of that argument feels wrong to me. It’s a gut thing. Sorry Peek. > > Reason 2, his reaction to Oy’s outing herself also seems to indicate (to me at least) the chance that he is not vanilla. > > Reason 3, other than a single post he totally stayed out of that mess which is not at all his style. > > Reason 4, he’s been rather reasonable toDay. Something that happens more often when he is scum then not. > > Not the best case in the word, but the one I am most comfortable with right now. I used the Peeker is reasonable and understandable to get him lynched in NSFW on GB. He was Scum then. The case I made was based on being Scum with him in Super Smash Brothers (The first one). We were Scum together and his posts were reasonable. As for point 2, are you referring to post 915? Because this did come after NAF, Normal, SantaSlaw, and OAOW had commented on it as well. ---
**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 9, 2010, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1040 "2010-10-09T05:23:11Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > I’m going to risk breaking my rule and **Vote Chip**. oh, a going-against-my-own-policy vote? I would have a problem with it if your policy wasn’t a silly one to start with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=51) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=53)