# 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:** 66
**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 12, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1301 "2010-10-12T14:32:50Z")
As I mostly expected, my attempts to take the book from everyone in the game have failed. I hope that our esteemed mod posts our exchanges on the spoiler board, as he took the time to respond to each PM. ---
**Author:** ![Telcontar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Telcontar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telcontar)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1302 "2010-10-12T15:49:49Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > > [@NAF1138](#): > > > > **Story, do you plan to ever not truthfully and fully reveal the alignment of a player upon death?** > > > > Let’s just take that question totally out of play. > > Any alignment or role reveals made by the moderator will be 100% accurate. This seems inconsistent with the Shroud of Darkness (or whatever it was called) that makes the book’s owner appear to be scum. This would imply 1.) the power (well, dehabiliation) isn’t as described 2.) story is using a very limited definition of “reveals” > [@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. So, this line of argument bothers me for reasons that have largely been articulated by others (stanalus and guri I believe). NAF wanted to hold onto the book. If you found this suspicious before, you should find it suspicious now. Also Idle placed an OMGUS vote on Guri, which strikes me as unsupported. So, linking to Stanislaus’s take down of idle’s logic: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13015588&postcount=1275](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13015588&postcount=1275) Based on this, I’m inclined to find idle highly suspicious. I’m going to wait to vote until I have a chance to reread Idle from Yesterday, however. > [@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. I wanted to quote this as a prod. Given the pace of the game, it’s really easy to fall behind and I can imagine plenty of RL reasons to take omni out of the action. I’m reluctant to take a lynch the lurker approach this early in the game, but so far omni’s only record is rather scummy - given her logic, she really should have voted for romanic. Hopefully we’ll see more participation today and get a better feel. > [@Normal\_Phase](#): > > While all this conversation is no doubt illuminating to those who have the time to actually read it, I have something additional to add: > > Having asked for and gotten clarification from Storyteller, I can say definitively that **Chipacabra died last night protecting me**. Make of that what you will. At this point I have no intentions of revealing anything more about my role. However, it does provide additional lines of inquiry for the day: namely, the question of why I was attacked. I had voted for OneandonlyWanderers and Drain Bead in addition to my day-ending vote on Telcontar. I had also expressed suspicion of Mrs McGinty. (And I had somewhat defended NAF and Oy.) While it’s always possible I was attacked for some other reasons, the question of who stands to benefit does interest me, and I think it should count as a small mark against each of those four. > > My vote on Telcontar has carried over, and for now it will remain there. (As mentioned, though, I have no remotely caught up.) We really do spend too little time attempting to decode scum motivations for night kills. I didn’t get any kind of power role feel from Normal yesterday (did others?) so that would suggest either a vote-related or player-related motivation. I should also go back and review \*\*Mhaye’\*\*s activity for the same reason. ---
**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 12, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1303 "2010-10-12T16:02:55Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > [ > > **NAF** keeps saying that he understands perfectly why people want to lynch him and that he’s willing to be lynched, or, better, vigged. But any time someone actually tries to make a case against him, he scornfully dismisses it as ridiculous. Until now, I mostly believed him. Now I don’t. I think scummy **NAF** has been playing an extremely clever, inventive game. Not true. I haven’t dismissed any of the valid cases against me. It’s when people try to tack on stupid stuff to buff up their case that I get annoyed. I think me being vigged is probably best for town, but it’s not really in my nature to go quietly particularly when the case being brought against me doesn’t make sense, doubly so when one of the players presenting that case (looking at you DB) is trying to parlay actions taken the previous Day into something extra on that case. I plan to claim before the Day is over if I am the lynch leader, but I have to ask anyone who thinks that I am likely scum…why the hell would I have made this play? Where is the percentage in it for me as scum? There is a simpler explanation for my gameplay this game that makes a whole lot more sense than that I am scum. That doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be vigged. You need to trust what I have been saying and the only way to really do that is if I am dead. But lynching me is a waste, and investigating me is a waste. -Players doing things you don’t understand doesn’t make them scum. -Players taking actions you disagree with doesn’t make them scum. @Stanislaus, the reason it is a waste is because right now a pro town vig taking me out does a lot more for the town and doesn’t force a cop to expose themselves before they need to. They can keep building a list of confirmed players or finding scum. Investigating me isn’t the best use of our resources, and investigating me twice in a row is just plain stupid. I still want to know the case DrainBead brought against me yesterDay, because her vote on me seems opportunistic. **unvote** \*\* Vote DrainBead \*\* ---
**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 12, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1304 "2010-10-12T16:08:32Z")
> [@Telcontar](#): > > > [@storyteller0910](#): > > > > Any alignment or role reveals made by the moderator will be 100% accurate. > > This seems inconsistent with the Shroud of Darkness (or whatever it was called) that makes the book’s owner appear to be scum. This would imply > 1.) the power (well, dehabiliation) isn’t as described > 2.) story is using a very limited definition of “reveals” Wait, what? Say that again? ---
**Author:** ![Telcontar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Telcontar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telcontar)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1305 "2010-10-12T16:14:11Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > > [@Telcontar](#): > > > > This seems inconsistent with the Shroud of Darkness (or whatever it was called) that makes the book’s owner appear to be scum. This would imply > > 1.) the power (well, dehabiliation) isn’t as described > > 2.) story is using a very limited definition of “reveals” > > Wait, what? Say that again? > [@](#): > > Beginning immediately, and for as long as you hold possession of the Necronomicon, you may take no action other than actions related to the book. While you hold the Book, you will appear to be of evil alignment and your role name will be twisted; all of your actions, no matter how well-intentioned, will appear to be attempts to kill. So if a cop investigates the holder of the book, the moderator will always report anti-town affiliation. But the moderator will never falsely reveal a person’s affiliation. I suspect story simply meant that end of day and end of night reveals will be honest, but if you take him literally then statements are in conflict. ---
**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 12, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1306 "2010-10-12T16:21:16Z")
Telcontar, you’re omitting the pertinent part of NAF’s question. > [@](#): > > Story, do you plan to ever not truthfully and fully reveal the alignment of a player **upon death?** For future reference, smudging the moderator probably won’t convince us to vote for him. 😃 ---
**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, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1307 "2010-10-12T16:38:09Z")
For the **peeker** voters: why hasn’t this post been brought up? > [@peekercpa](#): > > neta: whoops i guess it was idle. Although peeker has now claimed another post as the source for his believe that NAF didn’t have the Book anymore. @ **Telcontar** : moderator reveals usually means the card flip in color (Dusk/Dawn/etc) posts. Investigation result aren’t reveals just information passed along by the moderator as result of the power use. **Storyteller** s comment just means we don’t have Death Millers or similar. ---
**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, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1308 "2010-10-12T16:40:04Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > Read post 1269 I did. Thanks. And you know what - I can even link to it: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13015501&postcount=1269](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13015501&postcount=1269) I still disagree. If the vote and the post had been made right after Idles post, then I doubt I’d have the same problem. But this vote and the quote was brought up after Idle have said, that he just wanted the book to be past on to the next player. Idle has stated several times he knew NAF could be lying or not. But that he saw no point in pushing the discussion about passing then book any further when NAF claimed not to have the book. Maybe it’s a difference in play style. You (and other) read and post before catching up. I read all - then stand back and then post. So the vote on Idle - to me - ignored all else Idle had posted. Ignored the questions being directed at Idle and answered by Idle. Maybe it was a post as he was catching up - but then why didn’t he seem to address that issue when fully caught up? ---
**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, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1309 "2010-10-12T16:55:42Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > For the **peeker** voters: why hasn’t this post been brought up? > > > [@peekercpa](#): > > > > neta: whoops i guess it was idle. > > Although peeker has now claimed another post as the source for his believe that NAF didn’t have the Book anymore. Sorry, I’m confused. I neither understand peeker’s post, nor why you find it significant. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1310 "2010-10-12T16:58:18Z")
I agree that Idle’s position is strange and inconsistent. I am not yet convinced that it is scummy. As much as we’d love to believe otherwise, townies are not always paragons of consistency. ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1311 "2010-10-12T17:11:48Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > Sorry, I’m confused. I neither understand peeker’s post, nor why you find it significant. 😕 Because it means those voting peeker, like you, don’t seem to bother check the post peeker made themselves. The full conversation: > [@](#): > > **Idle** : So someone new has the book anyway, now, right? I sure don’t. Anyone want to admit to having it? > **Plankton** : I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. NAF said he hadn’t decided what, if anything, to do with it, and I haven’t seen anything that indicates he has made a choice yet. > **Idle** : Buh? I thought it was automatically up for grabs at the start of each Day/Night cycle? > **TexCat** : I presume this means that NAF still has it. \ > **peeker** : uh, did i just like totally hallucinate naf saying he doesn’t have it anymore. > **ed** : maybe you read it on the Scum board? > **peeker** : neta: whoops i guess it was idle. **Idle** did someone else had the book so **peeker** ’s not-edited-to-add makes sense. As said now he points to another, much earlier post by **NAF** as the source of his mistake. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1312 "2010-10-12T17:24:50Z")
I saw the post, but it didn’t occur to me that ‘idle’ was a name, rather than an adjective. :smack: ---
**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 12, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1313 "2010-10-12T17:26:35Z")
**NAF** – Your play yesterday involved outing a potential Town power role (FWIW, I fully believe her to be a Town power role now). You said yourself that you were leaning more toward power role than Scum when you outed her. I voted **sachertorte** for similar behavior when he did it in Cecil Pond, and as I mentioned when I voted for you, what you dis yesterday is part, not all, of the basis for voting for you Today. You may disagree with me for this, and that’s fine. But it’s not a bullshit case by any stretch of the imagination. It’s something I actually feel quite strongly about, and were it not for the fact that I thought **Oredigger** was Scum, I would have voted for you after **Oy!** claimed. And I don’t doubt for a minute that you knew exactly what I was referring to in my vote post, but you glommed onto the fact that I didn’t spell it out for you in order to distract from the fact that what I was saying has merit. But hey, thanks for all the OMGUS. ---
**Author:** ![Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanook_of_the_North_Shore)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1314 "2010-10-12T17:28:02Z")
Naf, you keep going on about how a Vig is the way to handle you, that lynching you is a waste, etc etc. And what if there is no Vig? We decide yes, we will allow the vig to take you out. Then Dawn breaks and there you are, still among the land of the living. Now what? Do we waste another Day talking about you and whether or not your information can be trusted? Do we leave you another Night, maybe for an investigation this time? Or do we lynch you then instead? It seems to me that if you should die(which I’m not convinced of mind you, but I’m considering), sooner is better than later. > [@Drain Bead](#): > > 1. Go Buckeyes. _snerk_ Very funny. ---
**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 12, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1315 "2010-10-12T17:39:00Z")
Even funnier when you consider that I’m gone most weekends tailgating at tOSU games. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1316 "2010-10-12T17:41:35Z")
**Vote Drain** I agree that her play wrt NAF looks opportunistic, and the call to investigate him highly questionable. Watch him, maybe, but investigate? It is because NAF is still an unknown that an investigation that could be somehow influenced by the book strikes me as a potential waste of such a power. Until the book shows up on the pedestal or is otherwise mod-confirmed somehow to no longer be in NAF’s possession, the conservative play is to allow for the possibility that he still has it. As for which, if any, of NAF’s statements about the book to believe, at this point in time the conservative play is to also assume truth without assuming alignment. So I think it is more likely that each individual bit of testimony from NAF is probably the truth, particularly the things that can be confirmed or proven as lies if he were to wake up dead. ---
**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 12, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1317 "2010-10-12T17:55:51Z")
I’m just not seeing the case against NAF. His moves don’t make sense from a scum point of view. I actually agree that vig-ing him may make sense to establish his truthfulness, but lynching him right now does not seem wise. ---
**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 12, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1318 "2010-10-12T17:59:12Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > And I don’t doubt for a minute that you knew exactly what I was referring to in my vote post, but you glommed onto the fact that I didn’t spell it out for you in order to distract from the fact that what I was saying has merit. > > But hey, thanks for all the OMGUS. Of course I knew what you were talking about, but you never presented it as anything other than somthing that sort of annoyed you yesterDay. You certainly never gave the impression that you thought it was worth a vote. I flat out called you scum yesterDay, my vote is a little more organic than yours. I thought voting Peeker would give me more information to work with than voting for you as I didn’t think I would be able to get either of you lynched that Day. IF you are voting for me primarily because of my outing Oy!, then I think you are being foolish. If nothing else there were I think at least three other experienced players that agreed it was probably the right play, one of them (MHaye) is confirmed town by death. Several other players noticed the post. What makes me think you are scum, however, is the fact that you think it was even remotly possible for a vanilla townie to post what Oy! posted. Let me be REALLY CLEAR here. It was not possible for a vanilla townie to have made Oy’s slip. _ **Not** _. _ **Possible** _. Clear enough for you? The fact that you think it is tells me that you are not vanilla town. Your reaction to me calling you out as non vanilla struck me as blatantly scummy. Your pursuit of me has struck me as opportunistic. Accuse me of OMGUS all you want, but I am voting for the person who has done three non townie things before breakfast. What have I done that was actually scummy? Please make a real case. We can take pointing out Oy off the table because we know that other town would have probably made the same move had they been online. So without that, what was scummy? Taking the book? The book is probably valuable to scum, but it hurts scum more particularly when so little was known about it on Day 1. The only category of player who was likely to go after the book gung ho like I and a few others did is not scum. Scum are risk averse, particularly in the early game. They don’t have the numbers to back them up. Jumping on the book right at the game start is stupid play for scum. Wanting to keep the book? Town would want to minimize any damage that the book could cause while keeping it in a known position for as long as possible. I placed a target on my back by taking the book, and then publicly declairing that I wanted to keep it. Why would scum do that? \*NOT \*SCUM WOULDN’T DO THAT!!! But if you are going to say it is scummy, you also have to say why? What is pro scum about that play? The burden of proof is on you for that one. Having the book disappear? Well that looks bad, but again, as scum why the hell would I do that? I set myself up to die that way. So we have some logical possibilities. 1. I am a jester. I’m not. But it’s possible. 2. I have been totally honest about everything 3. I am scum that gains some sort of power by being killed :eek: Lay out for me the logic of how I am scum? Like I said, I won’t fight anything that makes sense, but I refuse to be lynched based on stupid shit, particularly from people who should know better. I have done one thing that has been blatantly anti-town, and I did it unintentionally. I let myself become something of a lighting rod for attention, so yes, it really is better if I die. I don’t think that lightning rod aspect of my role in this game is going to go away, and what little I have learned about the necronomicon would seem to be important enough that it should be trusted implicitly. The only way for that to happen is for me to die. So seriously, DB, are you a roleblocker again too? ---
**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 12, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1319 "2010-10-12T18:02:06Z")
> [@Nanook\_of\_the\_North\_Shore](#): > > Naf, you keep going on about how a Vig is the way to handle you, that lynching you is a waste, etc etc. And what if there is no Vig? If there is no vig, then I guess we are screwed. We had two deaths last Night. If town doesn’t have a way to balance the scales we are in trouble. If you don’t have anyone better to lynch toDay, lynching me won’t be a total waste, but there really has to be a better target. Of course town could spontaneously decide to look at my play and trust me…but I don’t see that happening. ---
**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, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1320 "2010-10-12T18:04:31Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > **Vote Drain** > > I agree that her play wrt NAF looks opportunistic, and the call to investigate him highly questionable. Watch him, maybe, but investigate? > > It is because NAF is still an unknown that an investigation that could be somehow influenced by the book strikes me as a potential waste of such a power. Until the book shows up on the pedestal or is otherwise mod-confirmed somehow to no longer be in NAF’s possession, the conservative play is to allow for the possibility that he still has it. > > As for which, if any, of NAF’s statements about the book to believe, at this point in time the conservative play is to also assume truth without assuming alignment. So I think it is more likely that each individual bit of testimony from NAF is probably the truth, particularly the things that can be confirmed or proven as lies if he were to wake up dead. Re-reading myself it sounds like a contradiction (assume he’s lying about losing the book, but assume he’s being truthful) but what I’m really trying to say is that I don’t see a way around carrying the burden of all possibilities wrt to NAF until we have more data. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=65) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=67)