Evil Dead Mafia II - Teaser and Sign-Ups [Game On!]

[Mrs_McGinty]

@Drain_Bead

I think, out of the whole peeker episode, that Mrs McGinty and special ed come out roses from it. The former was the first to point out the “slip”, and the second pressed it after everyone mostly ignored it the first time.

The way I see it, the ‘slip’ was a weak case against peeker. His unwillingness to back up his vote against me was the more reliable scum-tell. If they’re focused on the task at hand, townies cast votes aimed at catching scum, which means they want their targets to respond. Mafia, however, tend to be happier if their votes go unchallenged.

[brewha]

1. Woot the FUCKING Woot! Beeyah!
2. Did I ever tell you guys I’m a Badger fan? Gooooo Bucky!
3. Go Buckeyes! DrainBead.

[special_ed]

@Mrs_McGinty

@Drain_Bead

I think, out of the whole peeker episode, that Mrs McGinty and special ed come out roses from it. The former was the first to point out the “slip”, and the second pressed it after everyone mostly ignored it the first time.

The way I see it, the ‘slip’ was a weak case against peeker. His unwillingness to back up his vote against me was the more reliable scum-tell. If they’re focused on the task at hand, townies cast votes aimed at catching scum, which means they want their targets to respond. Mafia, however, tend to be happier if their votes go unchallenged.

I agree. As the Day went on, others explained well why the case against peeker for the slip was weak. But by then, his response to the votes against him was Scummy. So, it seems as if we got lucky with a weak case exposing a Scum

[USCDiver]

Thirded. I probably could have been convinced to change my vote with a decent defense from peeker, but by the time he made even a mention of an explanation he already had about 11 votes on him. To be honest, I didn’t think the original slip or even the discrepancy about who he had attributed his slip to were that big of a deal, but early on Day 2 it was enough for my vote. I am a little suspicious of the folks who were so eager point out how ‘damning’ my case was and to jump on peeker at that point.

[special_ed]

@USCDiver

Thirded. I probably could have been convinced to change my vote with a decent defense from peeker, but by the time he made even a mention of an explanation he already had about 11 votes on him. To be honest, I didn’t think the original slip or even the discrepancy about who he had attributed his slip to were that big of a deal, but early on Day 2 it was enough for my vote. I am a little suspicious of the folks who were so eager point out how ‘damning’ my case was and to jump on peeker at that point.

It did seem stronger until others explained how the timing made it make less sense.

Also, it’s not like there were other strong cases out there.

[USCDiver]

On a related note: should we interpret **peeker’s **refusal to provide even a role name in his own defense as a sign that the scum team has not been given enough cover roles to cover them all? or perhaps they were given incomplete roles and he was too lazy to come up with a suitable fake role?

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Mrs_McGinty

@Suburban Plankton

I notice that you provided moral support for the case peeker went on to make against me:

@Suburban_Plankton

You leapt immediately and unwaveringly to his defense, based exclusively on the premise that “Romanic wouldn’t make that kind of mistake if he were Scum”.

If you want to call it ‘moral support’, that’s fine. I found your unwavering support of Romanic suspicious. I pointed it out back on Day 1 if I recall. I still find it a bit suspicious now, for that matter, but never enough to cast a vote against you…

And then there’s this post, which looks as if it was aimed at sowing doubt about the peeker bandwagon, and ends with a call for peeker to make a better defence of himself (a call which, I imagine, was echoed on the scumboard):

@Suburban_Plankton

I’m going to have to think on it just a bit more before I decide which way to go on this. I’d really like to here more from peeker in his own defense than he “swears to goodness”.

Finally, there’s the late, late vote against peeker, which you held back until the result was more-or-less certain.

That post *was *intended to “sow doubt about the peeker bandwagon”. I think the initial case on peeker was weak, and even with him flipping Scum I still think it’s likely that his slip was an ‘honest’ mistake. My vote on peeker was based solely on his very weak defense and his refusal to post his PM. The bulk of the votes which came before mine were based upon something that I did not feel pointed to peeker being Scum. I didn’t vote with the crowd on a case that I didn’t believe in; I voted when I felt there was sufficient evidence to vote.

[/quote]
Doesn’t look good, does it?
[/QUOTE]

It looks to me like you’re still ticked off because I didn’t like your reaction case against Romanic. Yes, Romanic was Town, and peeker was Scum. You seem to be implying that somehow shows that you are Town and I am Scum. I don’t agree on either case.

[Mrs_McGinty]

@Suburban_Plankton

I found your unwavering support of Romanic suspicious.

Why?

@Suburban_Plankton

That post *was *intended to “sow doubt about the peeker bandwagon”.

And you don’t see why that might be taken as suspicious, under the circumstances?

@Suburban_Plankton

It looks to me like you’re still ticked off because I didn’t like your reaction case against Romanic.

You think my motivation here is wounded pride? Seriously? :dubious:

@Suburban_Plankton

Yes, Romanic was Town, and peeker was Scum. You seem to be implying that somehow shows that you are Town and I am Scum.

Well, it looks a lot more likely than the reverse, doesn’t it?

@Suburban_Plankton

I don’t agree on either case.

Unreasoned opinion is worthless. Without proper justification, why should anyone care whether or not you agree?

[Mahaloth]

@USCDiver

On a related note: should we interpret **peeker’s **refusal to provide even a role name in his own defense as a sign that the scum team has not been given enough cover roles to cover them all? or perhaps they were given incomplete roles and he was too lazy to come up with a suitable fake role?

Not sure, but he could also have been allowing himself to die to make sure enough cover roles remain for his fellow scum.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Mrs_McGinty

@Suburban_Plankton

I found your unwavering support of Romanic suspicious.

Why?

You were quite confident that Romanic was town, yet the only evidence you had was “he usually pays more attention when he’s Scum”. I am inherently distrustful of opinions that are based solely on how people have behaved in other games.

@Mrs McGinty

@Suburban Plankton

That post was intended to “sow doubt about the peeker bandwagon”.

And you don’t see why that might be taken as suspicious, under the circumstances?

Given the events that have transpired, I can see how you would choose to find it suspicious. I still stand behind my comments. You may have noticed I am not the only person who felt that peeker’s statement was a ‘legitimate slip’ at the time, and indeed I don’t seem to be the only person who still feels that way. That whole episode was a null tell; luckily for us it drew attention on peeker, and then his horrible defense led us to a lynch anyway

@Mrs McGinty

@Suburban Plankton

It looks to me like you’re still ticked off because I didn’t like your reaction case against Romanic.

You think my motivation here is wounded pride? Seriously? :dubious:

OK…I was being a bit facetious, but you do seem to be focusing on me specifically, and not any of the other people that have making exactly the same points that I have.

@Mrs McGinty

@Suburban Plankton

Yes, Romanic was Town, and peeker was Scum. You seem to be implying that somehow shows that you are Town and I am Scum.

Well, it looks a lot more likely than the reverse, doesn’t it?

Not to me. I know I’m Town, so there is absolutely no uncertainty there.
As for you, your remarks about Romanic were “suspicious” to me; that’s a far cry from saying “you’re Scum”. Other than that, you haven’t done much that pings my radar; of course, I can’t recall that you’ve had a great deal to say about anything, so I don’t have a lot to go on.

@Mrs McGinty

@Suburban Plankton

I don’t agree on either case.

Unreasoned opinion is worthless. Without proper justification, why should anyone care whether or not you agree?

I’ve given justification for all of my positions. If you’d like me to explain (again) any of the cases I’ve made so far, let me know and I’ll be happy to clarify them for you.

[Telcontar]

Checking back in after a busy weekend. Went to a wedding in Philly yesterday, really pretty. I see we bagged a roleblocker, excellent. We seem to have quite a few power roles and it’s nice that they can work unimpeded.

@suburban plankton

@telcontar

so, i’m beginning to get annoyed with you in a non-game sense.

telcontar: I’m not understanding why you’re so shook up about idle’s suspicion about you. Ok, i can see that you think it’s unwarranted, but i didn’t see any votes against you until just a few minutes ago, so it’s not like you were ‘next on the list’. So what if idle suspects you? What’s the worst he can do to you? If he fingers you, it more or less confirms you as town…unless you actually are scum, of course…

I just went back and reviewed all of your posts to see if there was a bunch of suspicious behavior that i missed on first read. I didn’t find a whole lot. There were a couple posts that might have been seen as fishing, but not anything that would have pegged you as likely scum to me. In my opinion, your reaction to idle’s fos is far more suspicious than anything you’re done previously in the game.

Ah, you’re misunderstanding. I’m not upset because I’m worried about being lynched because of idle’s suspicion. I’m upset because idle’s play is terrible and his conclusions are illogical. It occasionally causes trouble in mafia, but I get really annoyed when I’m arguing with someone who is talking nonsense.

@normal phase

@telcontar

so, i’m beginning to get annoyed with you in a non-game sense.

I explicitly discounted that your change of heart could have come from an investigation

which is pretty much what a scum would do, wouldn’t they, if they wanted to keep up the pressure without any suspicions of fishing? Whether they really believed it or not? I don’t see that as a point in your favor.

read that. Then read it again. Then read it again. Prior to your claim, to the best of my knowledge naf would come up as scum to all investigations. So why would i ever have assumed that your change of heart would come from you being an investigator? If i thought it was possible you were an investigator, i probably would have given you more slack to avoid forcing a claim. Hell, if i were mafia then i would probably have given a suspected investigator even more slack because they’d eventually claim. What you’re saying just doesn’t make any sense. If your claim is real, then you have 1.) a role that no one has heard of before (well, it sounds a bit like denathor’s false claim, but that’s about it) 2.) the only town role that could possibly have confirmed naf as innocent last night. Expecting people to have played as if they knew what you were is silly.

again, it makes sense from a scum perspective. Not-scum idle is all over naf, all the way up to dawn. Five seconds after dawn breaks he’s changed his mind, with bs reasoning to boot. Honestly, what can that say to scum, other than investigator? Unlike the town, they know it’s not scum bs. What makes more sense?
– idle’s being weird, but it means nothing
– idle’s an unconventional sort of investigator (see guiri’s question about the book that idle just linked)
– idle’s some bizarre third party that needed to change sides as regards naf for who knows what reason

My activity may make sense from a scum perspective, but it also makes sense from a town perspective. I’m a townie fishing for suspicious behavior. Idle does something really really suspicious. I, like 8 other people, call him on it. In this particular case, the scum perspective is weakened because town, and presumably scum, have every reason to discount the possibility of an investigation. Recall that NAF had the book and thus should have come up scum.

I’ve no idea what the scum actually thought of idle’s behavior.

@idle thoughts

@telcontar

[naf: Idle lists about 9 players who found his behavior suspicious and 4 who he thinks were role fishing (a claim he has not substantiated). If at least some of them weren’t scum, i’d be shocked. That’s a third of all living players.

you keep saying this. You keep saying i think they’re all suspicious or scum. You’re wrong. I’m only suspicious of you, oaow, guiri, and drain bead. I have not an ounce of suspicion for anyone else in this game, right now (other than the usual “who knows who is scum or not?” suspicion that goes along with being town).

You four are the only people i’d bet to be scum. At least one of you, maybe more.
Nobody else.

Starting to sweat, are you?

Nope, not sweating. I’m actually going to stop responding to you; you aren’t making coherent arguments. One last attempt:
Naf was asking whether i thought putting pressure on you was a scum tell. 9 people put pressure on you for your grossly suspicious behavior. I responded in the context of the 9. Notice that I address my reply “to NAF.”

Also, you never did post where you think the other 3 are fishing. Mind backing that up?

[Telcontar]

Oh, since people have made similar statements:
I do not have the book, and I never did.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Telcontar

9 people put pressure on you for your grossly suspicious behavior.

I count three people who put pressure on me…the two who voted for me and one who struck me as role fishing.

Also, you never did post where you think the other 3 are fishing. Mind backing that up?

You mean the other TWO (so, again, you seem to be skimming and not even following along in a discussion you’re actually in). And yes, I have…twice now.

[USCDiver]

FYI, the SDMB P-t-B have removed automatic nested quotes.

[Stanislaus]

Awesome.

On Idle naming his [del]molestation victim[/del] investigatee:

If he hit’s a Deadite, he dies and the Deadite is marked with a burning brand. It’ll be pretty obvious what happened. The question is, what happens if Idle just dies? We can assume from the absence of burning foreheads that whoever he touched was non-Deadite. But we won’t know who that was, so we lose his investigation result. If he names his investigatee just before Dawn, we’ll gain information even if he dies. It’s important to remember for the purposes of this that Non-Deadite does NOT equal Confirmed Town (as per story quoted in Idle’s Role PM).

[One_And_Only_Wanderers]

@Stanislaus

Awesome.

On Idle naming his [del]molestation victim[/del] investigatee:

If he hit’s a Deadite, he dies and the Deadite is marked with a burning brand. It’ll be pretty obvious what happened. The question is, what happens if Idle just dies? We can assume from the absence of burning foreheads that whoever he touched was non-Deadite. But we won’t know who that was, so we lose his investigation result. If he names his investigatee just before Dawn, we’ll gain information even if he dies. It’s important to remember for the purposes of this that Non-Deadite does NOT equal Confirmed Town (as per story quoted in Idle’s Role PM).

Does this depend on action resolution order?

I.e. Idle targets A, scum target idle,

does the scum kill go through before idle’s action, so that A is never touched so no info is to be had? In which case Idle is probably best staying quiet
Or does idle touch A first, so the fact they are not branded confirms them, even though Idle dies before he can report back? In which case Idle is better off saying something about his chosen target.

[Stanislaus]

That’s a very good point. I was assuming that actions process simultaneously (i.e. that Idle would effectively be killed just as he touched his chosen subject).
**
Story, how do interacting Night Actions resolve? Submission order or simultaneously?**

[Idle_Thoughts]

I don’t like the idea of saying anything.
I understand the reasons put out as to why it’s beneficial,…but with a number of unknown roles and the book out there, I’m paranoid enough to the idea of someone, somehow, trying to work against me if they know who I’m targeting.

[special_ed]

@Stanislaus

Awesome.

On Idle naming his [del]molestation victim[/del] investigatee:

If he hit’s a Deadite, he dies and the Deadite is marked with a burning brand. It’ll be pretty obvious what happened. The question is, what happens if Idle just dies? We can assume from the absence of burning foreheads that whoever he touched was non-Deadite. But we won’t know who that was, so we lose his investigation result. If he names his investigatee just before Dawn, we’ll gain information even if he dies. It’s important to remember for the purposes of this that Non-Deadite does NOT equal Confirmed Town (as per story quoted in Idle’s Role PM).

Unless he’s blocked or redirected (and killed)

[Mahaloth]

@Stanislaus

That’s a very good point. I was assuming that actions process simultaneously (i.e. that Idle would effectively be killed just as he touched his chosen subject).

Story, how do interacting Night Actions resolve? Submission order or simultaneously?

I’ll ask it in a slightly different way:

Are all Night Actions successful unless blocked?