# 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:** 64
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1261 "2010-10-12T03:29:31Z")
I don’t have the book either, and it is already giving me a headache. ---
**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 12, 2010, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1262 "2010-10-12T06:18:45Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > I no longer think NAF is as scummy or suspicious as I did before since he doesn’t have the book anymore. > Oh, sure, he could have actually passed it on to another scum, if he’s scum himself…but my entire suspicion on him was mostly only because he insisted on keeping the book. Putting it back on the pedestal (my preferred choice), passing it on, or losing it to someone else is keeping it in motion, at least. > > Do anyone want to admit to having the book? I’m betting not. I don’t. And if everyone ingame says they don’t have it, either scum does and doesn’t want to admit it or it’s in some kind of game limbo right now known only to Storyteller. **vote Idle** You seem very sure that NAF does indeed not have the book anymore. Why such an acceptance of NAF’s claim? ---
**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 12, 2010, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1263 "2010-10-12T06:32:56Z")
I don’t have the book. And I notice that Idle’s certainty that NAF is telling the truth has not waned. Yesterday you didn’t trust him at all, yet now you are willing to take his word that the book has moved on. What changed? ---
**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 12, 2010, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1264 "2010-10-12T06:46:42Z")
I’m not fully caught up with events thus far, and I have to head out to work shortly, but I do have a couple of things to say… Firstly, I don’t have the book. Secondly, since he’s so keen on PIS-based accusations, I wonder if peeker can explain how he apparently knew that Naf was going to lose the book before it happened: > [@peekercpa](#): > > uh, did i just like totally hallucinate **naf** saying he doesn’t have it anymore. Did you read something on the scumboard, perhaps? ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1265 "2010-10-12T09:07:14Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > **vote Idle** > > You seem very sure that NAF does indeed not have the book anymore. Why such an acceptance of NAF’s claim? Let’s review, shall we? I’ll try to put it as simply as I can since I already posted the reasons twice, but apparently some people still aren’t getting or understanding…or are pretending to not understand. 1. **NAF** claims he had the book and Storyteller confirms this (FACT) 2. **NAF** claims he’s going to hang onto the book (FACT) 3. I found him suspicious based on these two (2) facts. 4. \*\*NAF \*\*then says he lost the book. (NOT CONFIRMABLE—THEREFORE: NOT FACT) 5. Therefore, **NAF** no longer is claiming he’s going to hang onto the book (FACT) Since **NAF** was doing 1 and 2 (remember, those things are FACTS)…I found him suspicious. Found him suspicions based on those FACTS. * * * Currently, **NAF** MAY OR MAY NOT be doing 1 anymore and he’s DEFINITELY not doing 2 anymore So 1, right now, MAY OR MAY NOT BE a FACT (see 4) and 2 is DEFINITELY not a FACT anymore (see 5). ======================================================== So since he’s not doing the FACTUAL THINGS I found him suspicious for (and–currently–the claims he’s making could GO EITHER WAY), I’m more apt to read it as a null tell. Same as if YOU (or anyone) said they were Town. Well, gee, that’s something that could go either way. And I’m not going to find anyone suspicious just based on something that could go either way. I’m going to find someone suspicious based on FACTUAL THINGS THEY ARE DOING that strikes my ping meter, not on a bunch of WiFoM. I really don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about my reasoning. I think you’re reaching at any reason to vote for someone, **OAOW.** ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1266 "2010-10-12T09:09:53Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I don’t have the book. > > And I notice that Idle’s certainty that NAF is telling the truth has not waned. Yesterday you didn’t trust him at all, yet now you are willing to take his word that the book has moved on. What changed? Where did I say I think he’s telling the truth? Please quote it to me. I’m serious. I’ll be waiting for your post. ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1267 "2010-10-12T09:17:41Z")
NETA: I mean, in post 1265 and, earlier, in posts [1255](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13014741&postcount=1255) AND [1224](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13014134&postcount=1224), I state very clearly that he could very well be lying about not having the book anymore. So I’m not seeing where I said I thought he was telling the truth, OAOW. You completely made that up. What changed is NAF said he wasn’t holding the book anymore. Could he be lying? Sure. Do I believe him? I don’t know what to think. Jury is still out. All I know is that what I was suspicious of was him going to KEEP the book…since he’s no longer claiming he’s going to do that, I can’t believe OR disbelieve him and I’m certainly not going to vote for someone I’m up in the air about. It ain’t rocket science. ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1268 "2010-10-12T09:18:54Z")
Anyway, I’ll be anxiously awaiting the post where I said I thought he was telling the truth, OAOW. Let me know when you find it, OAOW. 🙂 ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1269 "2010-10-12T09:19:33Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > > > **I no longer think NAF is as scummy or suspicious as I did before since he doesn’t have the book anymore.** > > Oh, sure, he could have actually passed it on to another scum, if he’s scum himself…but my entire suspicion on him was mostly only because he insisted on keeping the book. Putting it back on the pedestal (my preferred choice), passing it on, or losing it to someone else is keeping it in motion, at least. > > > > Do anyone want to admit to having the book? I’m betting not. I don’t. And if everyone ingame says they don’t have it, either scum does and doesn’t want to admit it or it’s in some kind of game limbo right now known only to Storyteller. > > **vote Idle** > > You seem very sure that NAF does indeed not have the book anymore. Why such an acceptance of NAF’s claim? bolded above. You state as fact that NAF doesn’t have the book anymore. Hence my suspicion ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1270 "2010-10-12T09:26:04Z")
I think you’re splitting hairs. What I meant, in that post, was he’s claiming he doesn’t have it…which I had already [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13014741&postcount=1255) [twice](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13014134&postcount=1224) (along with “He could be lying. He could not be.”) So it should have been clear to you I’m talking about his claim there and not stating it as a 100 percent factual thing I know. ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1271 "2010-10-12T09:27:56Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > If **NAF** doesn’t get lynched, he needs to get investigated toNight, for certain. Chances are someone investigated him last Night, and he likely came up Scum. If he comes up Scum again, something’s fishy. I thought this was a bit odd: given that NAF publicly announced the Book would make him look evil, I’d assumed the chances were that no-one investigated him last night. But this was downright strange: > [@NAF1138](#): > > So you want an investigator to waste a second investigation on me? That’s foolish. Why would the second investigation be a waste, NAF? You don’t have the book anymore, right? ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1272 "2010-10-12T09:33:58Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > I think you’re splitting hairs. What I meant, in that post, was he’s claiming he doesn’t have it…which I had already [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13014741&postcount=1255) [twice](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13014134&postcount=1224) (along with “He could be lying. He could not be.”) > > So it should have been clear to you I’m talking about his claim there and not stating it as a 100 percent factual thing I know. It might be what you meant, but it’s not what you said. It jumped out at me as a possible slip. Your (over) reaction to my vote doesn’t sit well either. ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1273 "2010-10-12T09:37:26Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > It might be what you meant, but it’s not what you said. It jumped out at me as a possible slip. Your (over) reaction to my vote doesn’t sit well either. You’re right. But I assure you I was not stating that quote as a factual thing. I have no idea whether he still has the book or not. All I know is..he’s not CLAIMING to have it anymore (and from that–is not claiming he’s going to forever hold onto it). Hence why my suspicion went down. And my “overreaction” was just explaining to you why you’re reading me wrong and on the wrong track (or maybe you already know you’re wrong—as I said, I’m not going to count anything out). ---
**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 12, 2010, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1274 "2010-10-12T10:50:43Z")
Oh, and I don’t have the Book. ---
**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 12, 2010, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1275 "2010-10-12T11:09:27Z")
Idle, I don’t really follow your logic. You say: > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Let’s review, shall we? > I’ll try to put it as simply as I can since I already posted the reasons twice, but apparently some people still aren’t getting or understanding…or are pretending to not understand. > > 1. **NAF** claims he had the book and Storyteller confirms this (FACT) > 2. **NAF** claims he’s going to hang onto the book (FACT) > 3. I found him suspicious based on these two (2) facts. > 4. \*\*NAF \*\*then says he lost the book. (NOT CONFIRMABLE—THEREFORE: NOT FACT) > 5. Therefore, **NAF** no longer is claiming he’s going to hang onto the book (FACT) > > Since **NAF** was doing 1 and 2 (remember, those things are FACTS)…I found him suspicious. Found him suspicions based on those FACTS. > > * * * > > Currently, **NAF** MAY OR MAY NOT be doing 1 anymore and he’s DEFINITELY not doing 2 anymore > So 1, right now, MAY OR MAY NOT BE a FACT (see 4) and 2 is DEFINITELY not a FACT anymore (see 5). > > ======================================================== I think you’ve missed conclusion 6: 6a. If he’s honest, NAF would still be holding on to the Book if he could, but it was taken by forces beyond his control 6b. If he’s not, NAF is still holding on to the Book, and lying about it. In either case, your FACT 2 (NAF wants to hang on to the Book) is still true, and still relevant. If he’s telling the truth, then the only reason he’s not hanging onto the Book is that he can’t. If he’s lying, he’s still holding onto the Book. Either way, I don’t see how you can absolve him of wanting to hold onto the Book. You’re finding him less suspicious not because of anything he did, but because of something someone else did, that he explicitly didn’t want them to do. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1276 "2010-10-12T11:11:41Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I agree, and would be very disappointed if it turned out to be nothing, but I figured the question was worth asking. > > There’s no hard evidence against NAF at the moment, but the ‘NAF is lying’ scenario seems to be a lot more plausible than any of the various scenarios I can think of that both satisfy ‘NAF is being truthful’ and adequately explain the events of last Night. What events? If you don’t think **NAF** is truthful why do you accept what he told has happened? > [@](#): > > That being said, I’m not sure that’s enough to convict NAF quite yet, especially considering we’re already down 4 Townies. It seems like there are still quite a few people we haven’t heard much from Today, and one or more of them might have some information to contribute. I’d like to hear at least something from the half the Town that hasn’t posted yet Today. Why does it matter that we are down four town? The hidden assumption here is that NAF is town as well and we can afford to lose him - but you just said NAF lying is more plausible. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > As much as I think we can’t afford to trust NAF _too_ much at this point, he does have a good point here. We have spent a lot of time Today discussing the Book, and pretty much no time at all discussing anything else. Hardly a day has passed during this Day and I don’t see _you_ talking about something else (except a comment about what **Chip** was doing). **Vote Suburban Plankton** Also I don’t have the Book of the Dead. ---
**Author:** ![GuiriEnEspana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc79bd/32.png) [@GuiriEnEspana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuiriEnEspana)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1277 "2010-10-12T11:25:15Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > As I already said, my main reason for finding him so suspicious was that he still had the book and was making noises like he was going to keep it ([post 1137](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13012741&postcount=1137)). > Now he’s saying he doesn’t have it…so there goes the majority of my suspicion. Really, him still having it or not is a coin flip. It’s just not something one can tell. He could be lying, he could be not. But it’s a far cry from all out and out admitting you still have it and have no intention of giving it up…which is a hell of a lot more suspicious in my mind. OK, I think I understand your intention but not your logic. You seemed to take it as fact that he no longer had the book and altered your perception of him accordingly. You allowed something you were happy to hear (from a player you previously found suspicious) change your level of suspicion. **NAF** did not claim to have passed the book to another player and we know he hasn’t returned it to its pedestal so how have his original motivations changed? If he’d claimed to still have the book and wanted to continue with his plan, would you be voting to lynch him now? If he’s telling the truth and the book actually was taken from him, how does that make his original intentions less worthy of suspicion? > [@](#): > > So no, I don’t have anything else on him other than that…but it sounds/seems awfully like you’re role fishing and trying to subtly ask if I have or got inside information on him. Trying to see if I’m some kind of Detective, maybe? No, I thought the only players who could be so confident that **NAF** no longer had the book would be the person who now holds the book and, if **NAF** is scum, a fellow scum - that’s why I asked. Does fishing include following up on possible scum leads? > [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > Idle, beyond the fishing(Am I the only one who thinks it’s funny/ironic that that is coming up now? No?), what was it that caused you to be suspicious of Guiri? A quick recap for those of us who can’t recall. I was the first to notice **Romanic** ’s “4 scum” comment but hesitated to vote as I was not quite convinced that it was a PIS slip due to the low number. Once **Special Ed** answered my question about how the number of scum could possibly be correct, I voted. Apparently I went from “not quite convinced” to “sufficiently convinced in order to place a vote” too quickly for **Idle** ’s liking. I don’t have the book. ---
**Author:** ![Total\_Lost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e56c9b/32.png) [@Total\_Lost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Total_Lost)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1278 "2010-10-12T11:32:40Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > It is clear that whoever has the book currently is someone to be distrusted, whether that’s **NAF** or the person who stole it from him. It’s not clear to me - sorry. And I don’t have the book. I can see if the book is an evil thing, then maybe Town has a power role that can take the book from however has it. So I’ll wait to see if anyone say they have it/the book is returned to the desk, before being so sure they can’t be trusted. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > Why would the second investigation be a waste, NAF? You don’t have the book anymore, right? I know. I can’t answer for NAF. But he already said it so many time I’m a bit surprised why you ask him. NAF thinks it’s better to have a vig take a shot so we don’t waste the lynch and also so the investigator don’t use a Night to figure his alignment out. You might dis-agree - but I find it strange that you could overlook it. It’s in 2 or maybe even more of this posts. And I really think we should start talking about other things now! ---
**Author:** ![Total\_Lost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e56c9b/32.png) [@Total\_Lost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Total_Lost)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1279 "2010-10-12T11:45:47Z")
Okay - we seem to have 4-vote issues going on toDay: > [@TexCat](#): > > RIP MHaye and Chip. > > I may change upon further developments, but for now, > **Vote: NAF**. > > I don’t like the way that he insisted on keeping the book. He says that it was taken from him, but again we have no proof that is the case. I’m not sure that I like his secrecy about what happened last night with his curse. There are the vote for NAF. Based on the book. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > How much of a scum tell is hard-core lurking? > > **Omi no Kami** hasn’t posted in the game thread since the 5th. I was originally just checking up on people I didn’t have much of a read on, but something about Omi’s last post pinged my scumdar. > > Before I get there, though, let’s break down Omi’s 7 posts. > > [Post #!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12970716#post12970716): Omi signs up for the game. > [Post #2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12981011#post12981011): Omi confirms. > [Post #3](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12982938#post12982938): Omi weighs in on the editing debate. > [Post #4](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12988346#post12988346): Omi is against a mass claim. > [Post #5](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12988425#post12988425): Omi is against a handshake as well. > [Post #6](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12988466#post12988466): Omi elaborates on the dangers of a handshake. > > So far, I’m just seeing a lot of fluff and gameplay mechanics debate. Then there’s Omi’s 7th, and so far final, post: > > > [@Omi\_no\_Kami](#): > > > > No way. It _can’t_ be this easy. Bleh, hmm, arg, ehh, darnation, hmph, well fuck. Okay, I am about forty percent sure that this isn’t scummy, which is a freaking lot considering. I’m substantially less sure whether there is anything remotely true about your role claim, but regardless of whether it’s true I don’t think there’s any harm in waiting and seeing. > > > > So for the moment I haven’t picked up a scum vibe from anyone else, but since voting is not compulsory I’m not voting for you right now. > > I find this to be an incredibly scummy post. Omi is 60% sure Romanic is scum, which is fair enough; a lot of us thought he was scum. Omi also believes the claim is false. But Omi _never placed a vote on Romanic._ 60% sure for a Day 1 lynch is HUGE. It seemed like a slam dunk to everyone else, and Omi seems just as convinced. Only she never committed to a vote (on Romanic or anyone else), and has been lurking ever since. It seems pretty waffly to me to say you’re more sure than not that someone is scum, but not vote for them. Seems like something a scummy Omi who knew how Romanic would flip would do. > > Of course, maybe Romanic walked before Omi could return and place her vote. Maybe. Romanic walks a whole day after Omi makes her post, and I’m still bothered by the fact that Omi didn’t feel the need to weigh in on any other lynch candidate. > > So, for the scummy post and the lurking, I’m gonna **vote Omi no Kami.** > > Of course, now that I’ve voted, I admit that there could be plenty of reasons for Omi’s absence. Real-life issues could have intervened. So I’m hoping you’ll check in and defend yourself, Omi. This one I agree with. When I read it I remembered noticing the last post from Omi and thinking I should look more that direction. I’ll be waiting to see if Omi returns with a reasonable answer. > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > So no, I don’t have anything else on him other than that…but it sounds/seems awfully like you’re role fishing and trying to subtly ask if I have or got inside information on him. Trying to see if I’m some kind of Detective, maybe? Coupled with the fact I was already suspicious of you, I’m going to > **Vote Guiri** Then there Idle’s vote on Guiri. I’m not really sure I understand it totally. But I read it partly based on what Idle see is Guiri fishing (I didn’t read it like that myself) and partly for Guiri questioning Idle’s change in his view on NAF. > [@peekercpa](#): > > fuck it. it is clear to me. > > **vote mcginty** Yeah - i didn’t see the case yesterDay and don’t really still. > [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > **vote Idle** > > You seem very sure that NAF does indeed not have the book anymore. Why such an acceptance of NAF’s claim? And then yet another vote based on the book and NAF and Idle. But this one seems so very off to me. How can OAOW mis-read Idle’s post to this extent? The case is not only weak IMO - it’s untrue. I don’t happen to agree with it at all. And I don’t like lazy votes that are thrown around with little to non-reasons. But when the reasons are completely untrue I get kind of certain that we either have a skimming townie or a scummy throw-it-in-the-pile vote. So until I hear from Omi, I’ll be very happy with a vote on \*\* OAOW\*\* ---
**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 12, 2010, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1280 "2010-10-12T11:51:11Z")
I’m catching up, but I’d like an answer to this question as well. In fact, I asked it immediately following peeker’s comment, but got no answer then. > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > I’m not fully caught up with events thus far, and I have to head out to work shortly, but I do have a couple of things to say… > > Firstly, I don’t have the book. > > Secondly, since he’s so keen on PIS-based accusations, I wonder if peeker can explain how he apparently knew that Naf was going to lose the book before it happened: > > > [@peekercpa](#): > > > > uh, did i just like totally hallucinate **naf** saying he doesn’t have it anymore. > > Did you read something on the scumboard, perhaps? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=63) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=65)