Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
But the weird thing to me is that when he was under fire for voting SW instead of Sal he changed his vote to Roo without any explanation whatsoever (or did I miss an explanation? Don't feel like looking back right now b/c Dallas just got home with dinner).
No, he didn't offer an explanation. He just said hmmmm.
He may have voted for Roo because Roo had just voted for him. But that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. At that point, Jack had 2 votes, Bacon had 2 votes, and 5 other people had 1 vote. I'd think that for self preservation purposes, Jack would have voted for Bacon, giving him 3 votes, or for one of the other people who had 1 vote, thus making it a three-way tie between himself, bacon, and someone else. But instead he voted for Roo, who had 0 votes up to then.
I don't know exactly what that says -- was he protecting Bacon? But why not just vote another person with 1 vote already? -- but it made me suspicious, and it was the reason I almost changed my vote to Jack.
I am really curious to hear back on why Roo voted HGH
When did that happen? The only vote for HGH I remember was your vote for her in round 1. Did I miss something?
Oops! Sorry ROO! I meant Higgi. Higgi voted for HGH not Roo. I'll go back and edit those others posts so no one gets confused. thanks for pointing out my mistake NTRT!
It was one of the first votes cast this round if not the very first......but he hasn't really said anything since then.
But the weird thing to me is that when he was under fire for voting SW instead of Sal he changed his vote to Roo without any explanation whatsoever (or did I miss an explanation? Don't feel like looking back right now b/c Dallas just got home with dinner).
No, he didn't offer an explanation. He just said hmmmm.
He may have voted for Roo because Roo had just voted for him. But that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. At that point, Jack had 2 votes, Bacon had 2 votes, and 5 other people had 1 vote. I'd think that for self preservation purposes, Jack would have voted for Bacon, giving him 3 votes, or for one of the other people who had 1 vote, thus making it a three-way tie between himself, bacon, and someone else. But instead he voted for Roo, who had 0 votes up to then.
I don't know exactly what that says -- was he protecting Bacon? But why not just vote another person with 1 vote already? -- but it made me suspicious, and it was the reason I almost changed my vote to Jack.
This really doesn't make sense at all. If I were on the chopping block and tied with someone I would vote for the person I was tied with....as would most people. If they were both tied at two and Jack voted for Bacon, then yeah Bacon would change his vote to Jack....but it would still be tied...just at 3 votes instead of 2 which is essentially the same thing. Someone may have been more likely to vote for Bacon after Jack did and that could have saved Jack.
If voting remained the same someone could have voted for Bacon right in the nick of time before Kdogg closed voting and Jack would have been safe. But Jack anticipated Bacon changing his vote and said if Bacon>>>>Jack then make his vote Jack>>>>>Rooo>>>Bacon.
Wait, I just worked some of this out in my head and now none of this makes sense. Kdogg closed voting right after Bacon voted for Sal which caused a run-off between Bacon & Jack & Sal. Bacon could have voted for Jack and if Kdogg still closed voting right after that then Jack would have been voted off and there wouldn't have BEEN a run-off.
So Bacon....did you vote for Sal b/c Jack said to change his vote in that scenario and we are assuming that Jack's vote would have automatically been a vote for you making it a run-off? This is really confusing me. Am I looking at the tally wrong or did I miss something...or am I making sense?
I'm not sure on how the rules work but is that fair? Can you actually plan your votes like that? So much of the voting depends on when voting closes....I think this may need to be a written rule in the future because it is a huge game changer. that could cause several people to say, well I vote this way but if this happens then I vote that way. How is that fair? The whole game should depend on chance and that includes the timing of which you are online when things happen. Usually the REF will give you a good clue of when voting will end so there should be non of this planned voting in my opinion.
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong all together. Someone please explain if I am so I can go about my business deciding who to vote for.
I'm not sure on how the rules work but is that fair? Can you actually plan your votes like that? So much of the voting depends on when voting closes....I think this may need to be a written rule in the future because it is a huge game changer. that could cause several people to say, well I vote this way but if this happens then I vote that way. How is that fair? The whole game should depend on chance and that includes the timing of which you are online when things happen. Usually the REF will give you a good clue of when voting will end so there should be non of this planned voting in my opinion.
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong all together. Someone please explain if I am so I can go about my business deciding who to vote for.
I'm glad you said something about this because I didn't think it seemed right at the time, but nobody else was mentioning it, so I didn't say anything either.
I'm not sure on how the rules work but is that fair? Can you actually plan your votes like that? So much of the voting depends on when voting closes....I think this may need to be a written rule in the future because it is a huge game changer. that could cause several people to say, well I vote this way but if this happens then I vote that way. How is that fair? The whole game should depend on chance and that includes the timing of which you are online when things happen. Usually the REF will give you a good clue of when voting will end so there should be non of this planned voting in my opinion.
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong all together. Someone please explain if I am so I can go about my business deciding who to vote for.
If you're accusing me of taking orders from a player who says "if so-and-so votes me, cast my vote for this other player," you're mistaken. If you'll notice, I received - but never fulfilled - a "planned voting" request.
I close voting when: 1. Everyone has voted, and 2. Active debate is no longer underway.
And I feel I have done that.
I left voting open when Jack specifically and publicly stated that he wished to make a final plea in his defense. To me, that said active debate was still underway... and as I said, I'm not going to close voting when active debate is ongoing. I allowed voting to stay open for a player's final defense; I did not change any player's votes at their request.
There is, perhaps, more to this than you all saw. In the penultimate Day One tally, I said my doggy senses were tingling that someone had something to say... After Jack's final defense had been posted, I received some private correspondence from a player (I won't say who) asking whether a particular issue (I won't say what) was fair game for discussion. I assured said player I deemed the topic fair game for discussion. I could not consider debate closed until said player followed up on my response, which is why I said I thought someone had something to say. Said player told me they did not wish to discuss said point at the time... at which point, judging by dwindling in-thread debate and Jack's +2 lead, I considered debate closed and accordingly closed voting.
Why am I being attacked for allowing "planned voting" when all I did was merely leave voting open - tally unchanged - for you players to debate?
I think some retractions and/or apologies are in order. Naming an unborn child after me is a good place to start
I'm not sure on how the rules work but is that fair? Can you actually plan your votes like that? So much of the voting depends on when voting closes....I think this may need to be a written rule in the future because it is a huge game changer. that could cause several people to say, well I vote this way but if this happens then I vote that way. How is that fair? The whole game should depend on chance and that includes the timing of which you are online when things happen. Usually the REF will give you a good clue of when voting will end so there should be non of this planned voting in my opinion.
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong all together. Someone please explain if I am so I can go about my business deciding who to vote for.
If you're accusing me of taking orders from a player who says "if so-and-so votes me, cast my vote for this other player," you're mistaken. If you'll notice, I received - but never fulfilled - a "planned voting" request.
I close voting when: 1. Everyone has voted, and 2. Active debate is no longer underway.
And I feel I have done that.
I left voting open when Jack specifically and publicly stated that he wished to make a final plea in his defense. To me, that said active debate was still underway... and as I said, I'm not going to close voting when active debate is ongoing. I allowed voting to stay open for a player's final defense; I did not change any player's votes at their request.
There is, perhaps, more to this than you all saw. In the penultimate Day One tally, I said my doggy senses were tingling that someone had something to say... After Jack's final defense had been posted, I received some private correspondence from a player (I won't say who) asking whether a particular issue (I won't say what) was fair game for discussion. I assured said player I deemed the topic fair game for discussion. I could not consider debate closed until said player followed up on my response, which is why I said I thought someone had something to say. Said player told me they did not wish to discuss said point at the time... at which point, judging by dwindling in-thread debate and Jack's +2 lead, I considered debate closed and accordingly closed voting.
Why am I being attacked for allowing "planned voting" when all I did was merely leave voting open - tally unchanged - for you players to debate?
I think some retractions and/or apologies are in order. Naming an unborn child after me is a good place to start
I never accused you of anything Kdogg....I was just pointing it out and wondering if Bacon's vote was due to Jack's planned vote. I was questioning whether Bacon's vote was influenced by thinking Jack's vote would automatically change without him having to post again.
Where are you being attacked anywhere in that post? Where do I specifically call you out for wrongdoing? I never said you changed votes or anything like that!!!!!! I also never said anything negative about when you closed voting. I am FINE with when you closed voting. I wasn't targeting you or calling you out but obviously you took it wrong.
Sorry, but you aren't getting any apologies or retribution from me just for asking a damn question.
Now I am being made to look like a bad person for questioning someone? Maybe I should just quit playing if I can't ask a question without the Ref jumping down my throat.
Post by 811942891995 on Nov 7, 2009 20:04:15 GMT -5
^yeah i gotta say that i thought it was odd too kdogg! i would've said something but idid'nt think any one would care what i thought! but much like you got tha right to keep voting open pending final arguments, we as players also have tha right to ask questionss or voice concerns! jen never attacked you OR accused you of nuts! if any one owes anyone an apology its you man! thanks for reffing but if your gonna do it with an unapproachable, unquestionable hair trigger, i think your future games may suffer from a severe lacko f players! chill!
Last Edit: Nov 7, 2009 20:05:05 GMT -5 by 811942891995 - Back to Top
strumntheguitar
Bleary-Eyed Bonnawook Sir Strum, Master of Rum
Post by strumntheguitar on Nov 7, 2009 23:32:27 GMT -5
In kdoggs defense I think it was the capitalization of "REF" that made it appear he was being called out. Call it a misunderstanding or what have you but it really isn't as big a deal as anyone is making it. Let's let play resume as normal, shall we?
The capitalization of REF was just out of habit....like HGH, SW, etc. I may not do it all the time, for instance I have typed Roo and Ref in places as well, but it was not to intentionally call out KDOGG.
Sorry it has come down to scrutinizing a player's use of capitilation and grammar. I'll finish the gme since its fair to others who haven't done anything wrong but this is really ridiculous.
Post by NothingButFlowers on Nov 8, 2009 12:17:03 GMT -5
I agree with Jen that this should be addressed for future games. It's moot as far as what's already happened because Jack's vote ended up staying the same anyway, but for future reference, it should at least be clear whether it is permitted or not. (Personally, I don't think it should be.)
I don't think "planned voting" should be allowed in the future, either. I saw that request from Jack and more ignored it than shot it down. I wouldn't observe such a request anyway... I would, more likely, consider such a request to mean that votes might change, debate is still open, and leave voting open accordingly.
And yeah... if you're going to shout REF in capital letters, the REF just might interpret that as calling out the REF... which is where I'm coming from. Strum's right about that. You think I like doing y'all the favor of playing REF only to be called out for something I didn't even do?
Post by 811942891995 on Nov 8, 2009 13:31:38 GMT -5
^no one callled you out until you started getting super defensiveand started demanding undesreved appologies! and if caps are "shouting", what tha hell is bold type?
and I don't want to hear another smurfing word about it.
i agree we should just get back to tha game but you need to work on your people skills bro! we aren't your children or your students or your underlings! how bout some fucking respect?
How about some smurfing respect? That's a two-way street.
As it stands, I'm the REF... and at the moment there are outstanding, unretracted, untrue allegations about how I am conducting myself in that position.
If an untrue allegation isn't going to be retracted, I don't think I should continue as REF if I don't have the confidence of my players to do so with integrity.
So, I think the best thing to do is put the game on pause and put our REF up for a vote of confidence. There are obviously those among you who think I'm not doing this job properly...
And yeah... if you're going to shout REF in capital letters, the REF just might interpret that as calling out the REF... which is where I'm coming from. Strum's right about that. You think I like doing y'all the favor of playing REF only to be called out for something I didn't even do?
Dude, wtf!?!? Do you even read what people post before you go spouting shitz off? How may freaking times do I have to explain myself?
The capitalization of REF was just out of habit....like HGH, SW, etc. I may not do it all the time, for instance I have typed Roo and Ref in places as well, but it was not to intentionally call out KDOGG.
I already said it wasn't meant to imply shouting or to call you out. Just like when I say HGH or SW I am not shouting at them. What is your problem. I'm not apologizing but I am clarifying the intentions of my post. Stop adding fuel to the fire! I already told you it was not meant to call you so why can't you get that through your head?
Post by 811942891995 on Nov 8, 2009 14:25:01 GMT -5
kdogg...wtf! a player voiced a concern(without attacking you or accusing you of ANYHTING)...a concern obviously shared by other players! you respond with a overly defensive post demanding apologies! you ignore her explanations about her gross missuse of tha caps button and pretty much tellus all to shut the quack up! what tha hell is wrong with you man? you have'nt showed any respect at all so in my opinon you don't desrve any in return! no...at this point i dont have any faith in you as a REF!
i strongly urge everyone to vote to kill me off this round!
Last Edit: Nov 8, 2009 14:27:27 GMT -5 by 811942891995 - Back to Top
strumntheguitar
Bleary-Eyed Bonnawook Sir Strum, Master of Rum
Post by strumntheguitar on Nov 8, 2009 14:29:39 GMT -5
Soooo what the hell is the vote tally? Or are we just bitchin at each other instead if killin each other?
kdogg has broken no rules as ref and has done a fine job. Maybe he took a misinterpreted comment too personally but that has nothing to do with reffing the game.
Can someone just kill some sorry bastid already?!?
I agree with Jen and Sal you are being ridiculous Kdogg. I don't know what happened during the PMs but you have been overly defensive ever since it spilled into the general discussion. Then you try to make yourself look like the bigger man asking for us to switch back to the game, but only after throwing one more punch. I don't think anyone should vote for Sal unless they think he is mafia and I don't think Jen should quit. I think you should relinquish your position as ref for this game. I am sure either Strum or Jack would be willing to take over.
Post by strumntheguitar on Nov 8, 2009 14:51:33 GMT -5
I'm gonna go on record saying I will not take over as ref this game. Not only do I have no interest in doing so, but the majority of my time on here is from my phone and it'd be too difficult to keep up with post counts. I'm also going to reiterate, kdogg has done nothing wrong as ref except for taking a comment more personally than it was intended. As far as I'm concerned the players have done more to impede the progress of the game than anything kdogg has done.
Just get over it and resume playing already... Are we really at that level where we give a shyt who has the last word in an argument?
As it stands, I'm the REF... and at the moment there are outstanding, unretracted, untrue allegations about how I am conducting myself in that position.
Can you please be specific about what these untrue allegations are? As best I can tell, you are talking about Jen's post, which seemed to me to be directed at something Jack tried to do, not at anything you did. The ONLY reference to you in that post was to say that you generally give us a good idea of when voting was going to close.
Unless there is something more to this that I've missed, I agree with Jen, Sal, and Bacon. You're being ridiculous.
Then start your own game as ref. You guys are crazy. Sry no need for me to post but maybe an outside voice can ease some of these concerns. If you don't like the rules don't join the game.
-When I Hear My Name -Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground -Blue Orchid -Passive Manipulation -Red Rain -Death Letter -My Doorbell -Hotel Yorba -Same Boy You've Always Known -Lovesick -Little Ghost -We're Going to Be Friends -The Hardest Button to Button -Black Math -The Nurse -I Just Don't Know What to Do With Myself
Encore: -Ball and Biscuit -Seven Nation Army -Screwdriver
Then start your own game as ref. You guys are crazy. Sry no need for me to post but maybe an outside voice can ease some of these concerns. If you don't like the rules don't join the game.
This has nothing to do with the rules of the game. It has to do with Jen pointing out that a player tried to do something that has never been addressed before and that she didn't think was right, and Kdogg turning that into an attack on him and demanding apologies that he wasn't owed.
Post by strumntheguitar on Nov 8, 2009 16:23:20 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thought kdoggs request for an apology was more of a lighthearted comment/joke than what people are making it? I mean, did people seriously think kdogg is wishing to have an unborn child named after him? Holy shit this is absolutely hopeless. I'm done even following this game now since it seems nobody will ever cast a vote or actually play the game anytime soon.
I personally think every single one of you are being absolutely batshit ridiculous. It's a fvcking game for christs sake!!!
I was completely neutral until much later than the request for apology. It was when Kdogg couldn't let it go and kept making things worse and worse and then tried to end the argument but only after he threw one more blow. My suggest that Kdogg should relinquish his role has more to do with the fact that as ref his job is to keep the game running smoothly and at least for now I don't think he will be able to do that.
Post by 811942891995 on Nov 8, 2009 20:35:59 GMT -5
I think its pretty obvios to any rational person here that kdoggs request that achild be named after hm was most definitelly a joke! however it seems to me at least that he was totally serious about wanting an apology! his later statments reinforce that in my opinon....
If an untrue allegation isn't going to be retracted, I don't think I should continue as REF if I don't have the confidence of my players to do so with integrity.
and kdogg.... can you quote any instance of jen or anyone else accusing you of anything?
no one ever said that you broke any rule at any time, but if you cant back up your paranoid tantrum with something pretty definative, i think its more than fair to say that your judgment at this point is awfuly questionable! and if thats the case....you need to recuse yoorself from being tha REF of this game! its a damn shame that after 15 pages of tryin to get this game going you let youre ego derail it in tha second round!
thats my opinon anyway!
i'm done...
Last Edit: Nov 8, 2009 20:38:56 GMT -5 by 811942891995 - Back to Top
