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!!
sorry but i think youre a littel confused my friend... actually tha "mafia 25 sign ups" thraed...were people were trying to get tha game started(which i was refering to)... was 15 pages long before tha game started! see... bonnaroo.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=games&action=display&thread=19492 but thanks!
Last Edit: Nov 8, 2009 22:37:38 GMT -5 by 811942891995 - Back to Top
-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
What frustrates me is being criticized for letting Jack publicly cast a conditional alternate vote... which I didn't even do. I don't know what exactly I did that's so bad you're already talking about making new rules against it. I know Jack publicly stated he wanted an "if-then" clause on his vote, but can anyone point out somewhere in the record where I even acknowledged - let alone executed - that request?
So exactly what did I do wrong there? Not explicitly deny a request on something that isn't explicitly prohibited by the rules?
There's some things you should expect out of a Referee. Random role selection. Impartiality/neutrality. Accessible for player questions. Enforcing the rules that are in place at the beginning of the game. Gathering/disseminating info with role players. Et cetera
You know, basically keep the game running smoothly - as was mentioned. The Jack thing, that would be unprecedented... so I left it alone rather than open that can of worms. It was still far from smooth sailing.
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.
^ This, this is where Jenkazoo is falsely (mistakenly?) accusing me of letting Jack apply a conditional vote. I tried clarifying this with a subsequent post, but the backlash only got worse. To clarify, for probably the third time: I did not change any votes for any player.
It goes beyond just Jack's extracurricular request into doubting my basic competence to conduct the game.
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.
"right in the nick of time" "right after Bacon voted" "closed voting right after that"
You make it sound like I do this all fast and loose with no regard for process or rules... like I'm just in cahoots with one of the players or waiting until there's a result desirable to me rather than a neutral one. Seems to me like you think I'm procedurally reckless and don't exercise discretion... you know, unqualified to be Referee - and unrepentant about saying so.
I'd like to think otherwise, but that's not entirely up to me. If you can't trust my judgment and discretion as Referee, then you can't trust any outcome my judgment and discretion as Referee produce. I don't want to preside over a tainted game.
Barring any objections, I would like to announce who's who and put this godforsaken game out of its misery.
Post by handgunhipster on Nov 9, 2009 8:49:45 GMT -5
I'm glad to see that I didn't hold up voting-- there are other players doing that as well. :] I'll be more active this week, no going out of town.
I'm staying way away from this whole kdogg debate and just saying I'll vote for Higgi, because he voted for me. Although, I'd like to know why, much like everyone else.
Post by NothingButFlowers on Nov 9, 2009 8:50:41 GMT -5
Kdogg, I don't think this was about you when it started. As far as the first quote, Jen was just asking a question about whether what Jack tried to do was allowed. As far as I can tell, she wasn't accusing you of letting him do it or attacking you in any way. Like I said before, the only mention of you in that part was to say that you usually give us an idea of when voting will close, which is a true statement.
As to the second quote, I think you are reading too much into that. I can't speak for Jen, but I don't think she was accusing you of playing "fast and loose" with the rules or being in cahoots with anybody. I think she was just trying to work out the timing of things and figure out why Bacon voted the way he did. I know when I read her post the first time, it did not raise any red flags in my mind with regard to your reffing. It made sense to close the voting "right after" Bacon voted because everyone else had voted, and Bacon's vote didn't do anything that would seem to want to make Jack change his vote.
That said, the fact that you took it to mean something directed at you says to me that it raised red flags in your mind, which suggests that you were questioning yourself. I must admit, I am curious about that.
I don't care one way or the other if the game continues. If it does, I'll play. If it doesn't, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Post by strumntheguitar on Nov 9, 2009 9:33:36 GMT -5
If the game ends can it be because my zombie body rose from the ground and wrecked all living things and killed everyone, townies and mafia alike, hence zombie-strum wins?
If the game ends can it be because my zombie body rose from the ground and wrecked all living things and killed everyone, townies and mafia alike, hence zombie-strum wins?
If the game ends can it be because my zombie body rose from the ground and wrecked all living things and killed everyone, townies and mafia alike, hence zombie-strum wins?
Only if you make me your first victim and then elect me to be your zombie cohort
On to more important issues.....I'll vote Roo just to generally get the ball rolling again. Anyone feel like posting a vote tally, since we all now mine will be incorrect?
What frustrates me is being criticized for letting Jack publicly cast a conditional alternate vote... which I didn't even do. I don't know what exactly I did that's so bad you're already talking about making new rules against it. I know Jack publicly stated he wanted an "if-then" clause on his vote, but can anyone point out somewhere in the record where I even acknowledged - let alone executed - that request?
So exactly what did I do wrong there? Not explicitly deny a request on something that isn't explicitly prohibited by the rules?
There's some things you should expect out of a Referee. Random role selection. Impartiality/neutrality. Accessible for player questions. Enforcing the rules that are in place at the beginning of the game. Gathering/disseminating info with role players. Et cetera
You know, basically keep the game running smoothly - as was mentioned. The Jack thing, that would be unprecedented... so I left it alone rather than open that can of worms. It was still far from smooth sailing.
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.
^ This, this is where Jenkazoo is falsely (mistakenly?) accusing me of letting Jack apply a conditional vote. I tried clarifying this with a subsequent post, but the backlash only got worse. To clarify, for probably the third time: I did not change any votes for any player.
It goes beyond just Jack's extracurricular request into doubting my basic competence to conduct the game.
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.
"right in the nick of time" "right after Bacon voted" "closed voting right after that"
You make it sound like I do this all fast and loose with no regard for process or rules... like I'm just in cahoots with one of the players or waiting until there's a result desirable to me rather than a neutral one. Seems to me like you think I'm procedurally reckless and don't exercise discretion... you know, unqualified to be Referee - and unrepentant about saying so.
I'd like to think otherwise, but that's not entirely up to me. If you can't trust my judgment and discretion as Referee, then you can't trust any outcome my judgment and discretion as Referee produce. I don't want to preside over a tainted game.
Barring any objections, I would like to announce who's who and put this godforsaken game out of its misery.
kdogg... after reading this....i've come tha conclusion that 1 of 3 things is true here.... 1....you dont know what the word 'accusation" means! 2....you have a guilty conscience for some reason! 3....youre just trying to difficult cause you cant admit you over reacted! regardless....kudos brother!
if tha game does continue...everyone please vote for me!
evidently almost every one here thought or thinks im neighborhood creep!so for tha 100th time (pm and publicly) and just to reconfirm it for yall.... i am not and i was not ever creep!
Sorry about the extended absence. Tried to check in before work today but I overslept. Apologies to Jenkazoo for the overreaction to my initial misread of her post. I'll shut up and count votes now... that cool with everyone?
Sorry about the extended absence. Tried to check in before work today but I overslept. Apologies to Jenkazoo for the overreaction to my initial misread of her post. I'll shut up and count votes now... that cool with everyone?
Post by awolfatthedoor on Nov 10, 2009 11:28:45 GMT -5
I don't really remember what I was thinking before that long ago. But I think it is a little off that NTRT was quick to accuse Jen, but really according to SW's theory that he referenced he was considered more suspicious than her, according to SW.
Also I'm pretty sold on Jack being mafia like 90% sold. But I'm wondering why SW and Sal seemed to be 100% on the Bacon bandwagon. (Just trying to be careful after getting owned last game)
And I don't really get what Higgi and HGH are doing. It's not the first round, so I don't understand it at all. Is there anything either of you two think about who are the second and third mafia members (because I think that Jack was probably mafia meaning we only have to clear two more out)
I don't really remember what I was thinking before that long ago. But I think it is a little off that NTRT was quick to accuse Jen, but really according to SW's theory that he referenced he was considered more suspicious than her, according to SW.
I wasn't accusing Jen of anything. I just showed that, according to SW's theory, both HGH and I were not suspicious, which left only Jen by process of elimination.
Also I'm pretty sold on Jack being mafia like 90% sold. But I'm wondering why SW and Sal seemed to be 100% on the Bacon bandwagon. (Just trying to be careful after getting owned last game)
I think I explained pretty clearly why I think that, if Jack was mafia, it's likely that Bacon was too.
I don't really remember what I was thinking before that long ago. But I think it is a little off that NTRT was quick to accuse Jen, but really according to SW's theory that he referenced he was considered more suspicious than her, according to SW.
I wasn't accusing Jen of anything. I just showed that, according to SW's theory, both HGH and I were not suspicious, which left only Jen by process of elimination.
But I've already explained this.
For the record, I don't think that makes you or HGH not suspicious at all. While I understand your logic, I think that, even if Bacon and Jack were both mafia, it's entirely possible that a mafia member voted for Bacon.
Also I'm pretty sold on Jack being mafia like 90% sold. But I'm wondering why SW and Sal seemed to be 100% on the Bacon bandwagon. (Just trying to be careful after getting owned last game)
This seems suspicious to me too. But if you're right about Jack, then it's unlikely that Sal is mafia too. Jack voted for Sal in the runoff.
For the record, I don't think that makes you or HGH not suspicious at all. While I understand your logic, I think that, even if Bacon and Jack were both mafia, it's entirely possible that a mafia member voted for Bacon.
Really? In a runoff that was that close? Maybe I need to play this game more, but that seems like a dumb strategy to me.
HGH's vote for bacon was early in the runoff, so I don't think she was working with Bacon -- she could have just as easily voted for Sal or Jack.
After everyone had voted, and it was clear that Jack was getting killed, I nulled my vote to keep the discussion open so Jack could defend himself (before kdogg said he was keeping it open anyway). If I was working with Bacon, why would I do that?
Post by NothingButFlowers on Nov 10, 2009 13:38:26 GMT -5
^Under this theory, if you were working with Bacon, you were working with Jack too, so you could have nulled it in the hopes that Jack would say something to convince others to switch their votes from him to Salamander. You said yourself when you decided to stay with Bacon that your vote didn't matter at that point.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Nov 10, 2009 14:59:57 GMT -5
My vote sent bacon into the runoff. Why would I do that if I was working with him? It would make more sense for me to change my vote to Sal or Jack so that there was no runoff, or to chnge it to one of the other 5 people who had a vote, sending that person into a runoff with Jack and Sal instead of Bacon. Mafia wouldn't send two of their own into a 3-way runoff if they could just as easily send two innocents into a 3-way runoff.
