# 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:** 68
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1341 "2010-10-12T19:30:04Z")
**NAF** , do you or do you not know who stole the book from you? ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1342 "2010-10-12T19:46:35Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Incorrect. I’m saying (and have been saying): Him saying he doesn’t have it anymore is a null tell. He could be lying, he could be telling the truth. Yes, you clarified this after I made my original post which was made based on your apparent factual statement that **NAF** no longer had the book. > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Yes, I would. > What do you mean how has his original motivations changed? I was suspicious of him saying he was going to keep the book. He’s not saying that anymore. > It’s like if I was suspicious of you for voting for someone and you retracted your vote. I wouldn’t be as suspicious of you as I would be if you had kept the vote. Make sense now? A more accurate analogy would be: you’re suspicious of me for voting player A, I claim that a vote buyer (or whatever) has forced me to move my vote to player B. You should continue to be as suspicious of me as if I’d left my vote on player B, right? ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1343 "2010-10-12T19:59:50Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > **NAF** , do you or do you not know who stole the book from you? :dubious: You don’t think I would have said who did it if I knew? No, I don’t know who stole the book. I don’t even technically know that anyone stole it. I just know that it’s gone. ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1344 "2010-10-12T20:02:07Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > > [@special\_ed](#): > > > > And my point is that despite what you say, his point is still Valid. > > Am I missing something here? I have already contested that his point is valid in [post 1273](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13015515&postcount=1273) (which I’ve told you twice before this now to go read). > > So what is - **your** - point? Let me make this simple. 1. You stated that NAF no longer had the book. 2. When called on having made this particular comment, youre response was that it was not what you meant. What you meant was that NAF claimed to no longer have the book. 3. Having stated that NAF no longer had the book when it is, in your words, NOT A FACT, seems slightly contradictory. So, while it’s possible that: A. You may have meant to state that NAF no longer claimed to have the book. to my eyes, it is equally plausible that, B. You meant what you said, it was a slip, and you are now backtracking. OK, maybe that wasn’t simple, but go ahead and ask more questions. In any case, we do seem to agree that you did say, “\*\*I no longer think NAF is as scummy or suspicious as I did before since he doesn’t have the book anymore.” \*\* ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1345 "2010-10-12T20:14:04Z")
> [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > A more accurate analogy would be: you’re suspicious of me for voting player A, I claim that a vote buyer (or whatever) has forced me to move my vote to player B. You should continue to be as suspicious of me as if I’d left my vote on player B, right? Um, no… put the plainest: My analogy and what my case is is both circumstances where the shady one stops doing the shady action…so the suspicion goes away. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Let me make this simple. Let me make this simple: I have already admitted OAOW was right and had a valid point. You are only repeating what he said. So what are you looking for? For me to say “it’s a valid point” again? ---
**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 12, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1346 "2010-10-12T20:28:45Z")
Idle, let me ask you this… Yesterday, NAF had the book, and said that he planned to keep it and use it. You saw this behavior as suspicious. Today, NAF says he no longer has the book, and he doesn’t know what happened to it, or how he lost it. You do not see this as suspicious. Is this correct? ---
**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, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1347 "2010-10-12T20:37:40Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > > [@GuiriEnEspana](#): > > > > A more accurate analogy would be: you’re suspicious of me for voting player A, I claim that a vote buyer (or whatever) has forced me to move my vote to player B. You should continue to be as suspicious of me as if I’d left my vote on player B, right? > > Um, no… put the plainest: My analogy and what my case is is both circumstances where the shady one stops doing the shady action…so the suspicion goes away. > > > [@special\_ed](#): > > > > Let me make this simple. > > Let me make this simple: > I have already admitted OAOW was right and had a valid point. > You are only repeating what he said. So what are you looking for? For me to say “it’s a valid point” again? So I commented on it too. So what? You needn’t do anything. I’m allowed to comment on whatever I feel like commenting on. ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1348 "2010-10-12T20:44:30Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Idle, let me ask you this… > > Yesterday, NAF had the book, and said that he planned to keep it and use it. You saw this behavior as suspicious. > > Today, NAF says he no longer has the book, and he doesn’t know what happened to it, or how he lost it. You do not see this as suspicious. > > Is this correct? Pretty much… People keep on equating him having the book with my suspicions, though. That’s not true (and a big reason why I’m not suspicious anymore)…because my suspicion **wasn’t based** on him having the book. It was on KEEPING the book. I was suspicious on him KEEPING it, not having it. He said he was going to keep it. (Fact)=me suspicious. He apparently didn’t keep it. (Not Fact–since he could be lying)=my suspicions ebbing. So why would I still focus my suspicions on him when he could be telling the truth? > [@special\_ed](#): > > You needn’t do anything. I’m allowed to comment on whatever I feel like commenting on. You going to take your toys and go home soon, too? 😛 ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1349 "2010-10-12T20:46:16Z")
That’s the crux of this whole thing, really. Why would I be suspicious of someone who could be telling the truth? He could be. He could not be. I don’t know. So I’ll regard him with wariness…but not the level of suspicion I had when I knew he was telling the truth and disagreed with his actions/decisions. Still don’t know why that’s not making sense to some. ---
**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 12, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1350 "2010-10-12T21:35:47Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > That’s the crux of this whole thing, really. > Why would I be suspicious of someone who could be telling the truth? > He could be. He could not be. I don’t know. > So I’ll regard him with wariness…but not the level of suspicion I had when I knew he was telling the truth and disagreed with his actions/decisions. > > Still don’t know why that’s not making sense to some. I think the problem is this. You disagreed with his intent (to keep the book). Now, if he had come in today and said “I changed my mind; I’m putting the book back on the pedestal”, then it would make perfect sense for your suspicions to be eased. But that didn’t happen. the book was apparently taken from NAF against his wishes. So his original \*\*intent \*\*(to keep the book) never changed; only his \*\*actions \*\*(since the book was taken away). Since your suspicions were based on his **intent** , it would seem to make sense that your original suspicion should still remain. As far as your question “So why would I still focus my suspicions on him when he could be telling the truth?”: you do realize how silly it is, don’t you? Each and every one of us “could be telling the truth” (just as we “could be lying”). If that’s all you’re going to use as the basis for making decisions, then I guess you’re not going to suspect anyone who isn’t wearing an “I Am Scum” badge on their forehead. ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1351 "2010-10-12T22:19:23Z")
> [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > Now, if he had come in today and said “I changed my mind; I’m putting the book back on the pedestal”, then it would make perfect sense for your suspicions to be eased. But that didn’t happen. the book was apparently taken from NAF against his wishes. So his original \*\*intent \*\*(to keep the book) never changed; only his \*\*actions \*\*(since the book was taken away). Since your suspicions were based on his **intent** , it would seem to make sense that your original suspicion should still remain. I see your point and understand what you’re saying, but either way, the result is the same: He’s now claiming he doesn’t have the book anymore…since I don’t know if he’s lying or telling the truth any more than I know if YOU’RE lying or telling the truth in anything you say…I’m going to remain wary, but not as wary as I was when he was still doing the things I found suspicious. ---
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1352 "2010-10-12T23:16:09Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > > > Idle, let me ask you this… > > > > Yesterday, NAF had the book, and said that he planned to keep it and use it. You saw this behavior as suspicious. > > > > Today, NAF says he no longer has the book, and he doesn’t know what happened to it, or how he lost it. You do not see this as suspicious. > > > > Is this correct? > > Pretty much… People keep on equating him having the book with my suspicions, though. That’s not true (and a big reason why I’m not suspicious anymore)…because my suspicion **wasn’t based** on him having the book. It was on KEEPING the book. I was suspicious on him KEEPING it, not having it. > > He said he was going to keep it. (Fact)=me suspicious. > > He apparently didn’t keep it. (Not Fact–since he could be lying)=my suspicions ebbing. > > So why would I still focus my suspicions on him when he could be telling the truth? Did it never occur to you that NAF might pretend to not have the book in order to allay suspicions and attention on him? Or that he may have passed it to a Scum buddy for safe keeping in the event he doesn’t actually have it? ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1353 "2010-10-12T23:21:02Z")
Ok, so I was getting really confused there for a minute, confounding the two cases made against \*\*peeker \*\*and \*\*Idle \*\*based on comments they had made with reference to \*\*NAF \*\*still having the book before it was revealed that he had lost it. I looked back over both cases. In \*\*Idle’s \*\*case the issue seems to be more that he’s had a, shall we say, nuanced change of heart regarding \*\*NAF \*\*and part of that argument is that he is accepting that the book was taken from \*\*NAF \*\*as fact. His statements during the night read as genuine confusion as to how the book moves from player to player to pedestal. Howver I noticed something in \*\*peeker’s \*\*case so I’d like to try to piece together a timeline of that case to help me understand what happened when. Case **peeker** : In #1114, we have the famous: > [@peekercpa](#): > > uh, did i just like totally hallucinate **naf** saying he doesn’t have it anymore. in the very next post, special calls him out on it > [@special\_ed](#): > > maybe you read it on the Scum board? and peeker replies > [@peekercpa](#): > > neta: whoops i guess it was idle. That’s pretty much the end of things until after Dawn in #1264 when Mrs McGinty revisits the issue > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > 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? special ed echoes those sentiments in #1280 > [@special\_ed](#): > > 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. Oy! also gets into the dicussion in #1292 > [@Oy](#): > > **NAF** didn’t state that he’d lost the Book until Post #1177, which was just under twenty-four hours later. > > The thing of it is, I didn’t think **NAF** knew until he told us. So how would **peeker** know twenty-four hours earlier, and think that info came from **NAF**? > > So either both **NAF** and **peeker** are Scum, or **peeker** was truly hallucinating. Which is not beyond the realm of possibility; I would find his posting style far more understandable if it were coming from someone under the influence. 🙂 (Slight sidetrack) Here **Oy!** seems to be ignoring the possiblity that \*\*NAF \*\*is Town and \*\*peeker \*\*is Scum/PFK/Third-party. (Assuming that it’s technically possible within the game) It’s certainly feasible that the Scum/PFK/Third-party had already decided to steal away Book at the time \*\*peeker \*\*made his first post. \*\*peeker \*\*defends this in #1298 by saying > [@peekercpa](#): > > hey, look i read 1095 as **naf** saying he was putting the book back on the pedestal. > > shoot. For reference, here is the relevant part of #1095 > [@NAF1138](#): > > If everyone wants I am happy to put the book back on the pedestal toNight. Here’s what concerns me… at the time \*\*peeker \*\*made his infamous comment in #1114 he explained it away as something \*\*Idle \*\*had said, which is certainly a possibility. But now that he’s drawing some further suspicion for it, he suddenly goes back even further to claim it was a mis-interpretation of \*\*NAF \*\*in #1095. I’m not buying it. If we assume that **NAF** is telling the truth (and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now), then there was some point during the Night when whoever took the book had made that decision, whether it was the Scum team or a PFK or whatever. I don’t think we can discount the possiblity of a slip based on the timing AND I find it highly suspicious that \*\*peeker \*\*has changed his mind on which post he was referring to when he ‘hallucinated’. **vote peekercpa** ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1354 "2010-10-12T23:26:01Z")
> [@USCDiver](#): > > Ok, so I was getting really confused there for a minute, confounding the two cases made against \*\*peeker \*\*and \*\*Idle \*\*based on comments they had made with reference to \*\*NAF \*\*still having the book before it was revealed that he had lost it. I looked back over both cases. In \*\*Idle’s \*\*case the issue seems to be more that he’s had a, shall we say, nuanced change of heart regarding \*\*NAF \*\*and part of that argument is that he is accepting that the book was taken from \*\*NAF \*\*as fact. His statements during the night read as genuine confusion as to how the book moves from player to player to pedestal. Howver I noticed something in \*\*peeker’s \*\*case so I’d like to try to piece together a timeline of that case to help me understand what happened when. > > Case **peeker** : > > In #1114, we have the famous: > > > [@peekercpa](#): > > > > uh, did i just like totally hallucinate **naf** saying he doesn’t have it anymore. > > in the very next post, special calls him out on it > > and peeker replies > > That’s pretty much the end of things until after Dawn in #1264 when Mrs McGinty revisits the issue > > special ed echoes those sentiments in #1280 > > Oy! also gets into the dicussion in #1292 > > (Slight sidetrack) Here **Oy!** seems to be ignoring the possiblity that \*\*NAF \*\*is Town and \*\*peeker \*\*is Scum/PFK/Third-party. (Assuming that it’s technically possible within the game) It’s certainly feasible that the Scum/PFK/Third-party had already decided to steal away Book at the time \*\*peeker \*\*made his first post. > > \*\*peeker \*\*defends this in #1298 by saying > > For reference, here is the relevant part of #1095 > > > [@NAF1138](#): > > > > If everyone wants I am happy to put the book back on the pedestal toNight. > > Here’s what concerns me… at the time \*\*peeker \*\*made his infamous comment in #1114 he explained it away as something \*\*Idle \*\*had said, which is certainly a possibility. But now that he’s drawing some further suspicion for it, he suddenly goes back even further to claim it was a mis-interpretation of \*\*NAF \*\*in #1095. I’m not buying it. If we assume that **NAF** is telling the truth (and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now), then there was some point during the Night when whoever took the book had made that decision, whether it was the Scum team or a PFK or whatever. I don’t think we can discount the possiblity of a slip based on the timing AND I find it highly suspicious that \*\*peeker \*\*has changed his mind on which post he was referring to when he ‘hallucinated’. > > **vote peekercpa** That is a damning case. Let’s see if he has anything coherent to say. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1355 "2010-10-12T23:31:19Z")
I’m happy to vote Peeker. That \*is \*a damning case. ---
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1356 "2010-10-12T23:33:04Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > I’m happy to vote Peeker. That \*is \*a damning case. I’m already voting for him in another game. I almost feel guilty voting for him here too. Almost. ---
**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, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1357 "2010-10-12T23:42:44Z")
I liked my vote on him yesterDay for displaying one of his scum tells (metagamey, I know) and being obviously non vanilla town (could go either way) add in that other stuff, and I think the case for peek is stronger than my pissed off case for DB. **unvote** **vote Peeker** ---
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1358 "2010-10-12T23:52:28Z")
**Unvote Omi no Kami.** I’ve made my point with this vote. Omi, you still _have_ to check in; I’m almost certainly gonna be revoting you tomorrow, barring a better case arising. **Vote Peekercpa.** I find the case very compelling. His knowledge and waffling on where he “misread” his information from is telling. There’s always the chance we’re pulling another Romanic, but his posts have made me more sure than not that he’s scum. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1359 "2010-10-12T23:56:15Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > I’m happy to vote Peeker. That \*is \*a damning case. Am I missing something, or is the only way that this could be a damning case is if **peeker** heard _ **NAF** _ say that he lost the book on the scum board? Later tonight I’m going to go over peeker’s comments on the matter myself, but if USC has stated the situation accurately it looks very bad for peeker and kinda bad for NAF(except that, if NAF were scum and lost the book, who the hell has it now?) ---
**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 13, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/1360 "2010-10-13T00:01:26Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > > [@NAF1138](#): > > > > I’m happy to vote Peeker. That \*is \*a damning case. > > Am I missing something, or is the only way that this could be a damning case is if **peeker** heard _ **NAF** _ say that he lost the book on the scum board? > > Later tonight I’m going to go over peeker’s comments on the matter myself, but if USC has stated the situation accurately it looks very bad for peeker and kinda bad for NAF(except that, if NAF were scum and lost the book, who the hell has it now?) It’s worse for peeker. Peeker seemed to know NAF had lost it. 1. Peeker could be Scum and he or anther Scum got a hold of it from non-Scum NAF. 2. Or peeker could be some sort of 3rd party who took it from a Scum or Town or Other NAF. 3. Or they could both be Scum. Or peeker could be just talking out of his ass. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=67) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=69)