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!!
I'm not quite sure what the CSI reference means, but Wikipedia made me feel better about it than worse, aside from the "played by David Caruso" part...
I am honestly not quite so sure about my proposal, either. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing in the specific sense of which players would be affected by my proposed vote switch... however, I feel I am doing the right thing in the general sense, in which I am trying to cast a wider net in our quest to root out Mafia.
I know that 3 of 11 players here are Mafia; a 27% chance any given player is Mafia. I know that with two players in the runoff, we are only investigating two out of eleven - an 18% chance of having Mafia in there. At minimum, a runoff can involve two players; at maximum, a runoff can involve five players. I think our runoff should include more than the bare minimum. Since there is a 3-in-11 chance that any player is Mafia, I think we should be including at least 3-in-11 players via runoff. I want our chances of including a Mafia in the runoff to meet or exceed the statistical likelihood of any individual player being Mafia. Hence my proposal to Bek.
What I proposed to Bek was doubling the size of the runoff, thereby doubling our chances of having a Mafia on the runoff ballot. It was basically met with Bek covering her ears and going "lalalalalala."
As it stands, LLL & JHam lead with two votes apiece. If the Mafia is taking any action anywhere in this vote, they are working to put either (or both) of these players into the runoff. I was simply proposing that Bek & I redirect our votes to where Mafia action would be occuring: the four people voting for JHam & LLL. Votes by/against JHam & LLL, in order of occurrence: JHam >> NBF NBF >> JHam NoD >> JHam Bacon >> LLL SFA >> LLL LLL >> SFA
What we have here is a situation (or two, depending on how you slice it) in which we may be looking at Mafia activity. I think that the players in the runoff are less likely to be Mafia themselves, and more likely put into that position by the Mafia. I think, more likely, is that our Mafia is among the four people voting JHam & LLL into the runoff.
If JHam & LLL are going into the runoff, and if we need to expand the runoff... I think the most productive method of expanding the runoff is to include the people sending JHam & LLL into the runoff. I'm not even saying JHam & LLL do not deserve to be in the runoff; they're still as likely to be Mafia in my eyes.
I am not so confident in our present 2-in-11 chance of including a Mafia in this runoff, and I hope I am not alone here. Worst-case scenario of my proposal, as I see it, is that we double our chances of including a Mafia in the runoff. Best-case scenario of my proposal, we double our odds of including a Mafia.
I think that, as things stand, the Mafia is probably pleased to have just these two players in the runoff. That needs to change.
I don't blame NoD for pushing me into a runoff, I did something very similar my first game. SFA's actions do appear to be slightly suspicious to me though.
Post by NothingButFlowers on Apr 25, 2011 15:30:24 GMT -5
Since I'm on your list of the four people who put someone into the runoff, I'd like to note that I didn't put jhammett into the runoff. I just reciprocated his vote for me.
I am interested in hearing from Bek. It seems like she's usually all for expanding a runoff, and it doesn't seem like her style to just refuse to read a post, no matter how long it is.
I hope you understand I'm looking at criteria rather than individual behavior here.
There are six people involved in this situation, out of eleven players.
It is possible that all of the Mafia are lying low, but that would mean 3 of the 5 uninvolved players are all Mafia. That just seems to be the unlikely explanation to me. I find it more likely than not that Mafia is involved.
Some of these votes look perfectly explainable.
NBF's vote merely reciprocated JHam's earlier vote for her. That seems normal to me. What seems weird to me there is the behavior of the other "No" players, noage and nodepression. NoAge invited nodepression to be his voting partner; NoD ignored this and stacked on top of your vote for JHam. It could be a rookie mistake, but it still hasn't gone unnoticed by me.
SFA & LLL have a prior arrangement which predates the beginning of this game. LLL said so herself in her vote this thread, and they discussed it in the previous game's thread as well.
LLL, I"ll be your voting partner in the first round. After that, you're own your on. Just never vote for me because I'm awesome and can always be trusted.
I don't know whether or not Bacon saw that in the previous thread before he cast his vote. At the very least, Bacon's vote doesn't appear to be provoked by anything as far as I can tell.
Also, both Bacon & noage have zero votes cast against them... this usually makes me suspicious of a player as well.
I am personally more wary of the three players whose names begin with No- than I am the players currently in the runoff. Just sayin'.
(Edited to add "the three" into the last sentence.)
Post by NothingButFlowers on Apr 25, 2011 16:01:08 GMT -5
I get what you are saying about nodepression, although I do remember jhammett doing almost exactly the same thing in his first game, so it could easily not mean anything.
I'm not sure I understand why you are more suspicious of noage, though.
I suspect him insofar as I usually suspect players receiving no votes.
It's the playersa player with zero votes who areis sending LLL & JHam into the runoff. If I suspect Mafia are sending them into the runoff, I can't ignore that.
I don't think noage has actually done anything to appear guilty; it's NoD's response to that (voting JHam) that makes me suspicious. Your vote looks perfectly normal, until I see NoD jumping in to stack with you. NoAge's reciprocation invitation to NoD looks perfectly normal, until I see NoD ignoring it to join you. I guess his suspicious behavior is rubbing off on you both.
Of course, as I said, I could be focusing too much upon something that could be explained as a rookie move... but I don't know whether that is merely a rookie move or something more sinister.
EDIT: Altered the second sentence to more accurately reflect the situation. NoAge is not sending anyone into this runoff. Bacon is. Higgi has zero votes, but it seems presumed that Kelaroo will reciprocate a vote for him when/if she reappears to play the game. I hope that clears everything up. Except the question: Where the hell is Kel?
Yeah, that's why I'm giving you benefit of the doubt on being a rookie.
All the fuss is because people look to voting patterns to figure out who Mafia are. As it stands, there's only two pair voting together - and it's those two pair who are at the center of discussion. You became part of one of those pairs when you voted the same as NBF. There's not much coordination going on outside those two pair, so there's not much else upon which we can postulate.
I think I've adequately explained my reasoning for the course of action which I propose, but I'll address any questions that arise. In the meantime, there's not much of anything I can do until when (if?) my voting buddy Bek weighs in... I'm fine keeping my vote for her, given the response I've received from her thus far.
I'm not saying you yourself are personally liable for knowing that. I do know you have been in that thread, though: the post immediately before the SFA post I quoted came from you. It was about 2 1/2 hours prior, and you were offering to give up your spot in order to be Referee. That's not a casual remark, that's the kind of post where the author stays tuned. So I think it's entirely possible you saw it.
Even if you didn't see it, I still think it falls within the realm of Public Knowledge amongst the Townspeople. I mean, we all went to that thread to sign up for the game at some point, right? Just because that information won't be on the quiz doesn't mean that someone can't take note/advantage of it for whatever their purposes may be.
I posted the votes in order; I know you voted for LLL before either she or SFA voted for one another. As I said before, "Bacon's vote doesn't appear to be provoked by anything as far as I can tell."
I do not believe it is impossible for someone to preemptively vote against LLL, while having advance knowledge of her voting agreement.
I think I've adequately explained my reasoning for the course of action which I propose, but I'll address any questions that arise. In the meantime, there's not much of anything I can do until when (if?) my voting buddy Bek weighs in... I'm fine keeping my vote for her, given the response I've received from her thus far.
I would have been finished there until Bek weighed in... but you raised a question and I addressed it. As I said I would. You don't get to ask me a question, and then say I'm guilty because I answered your question. That's just not fair and we both know it.
I know I'm verbose here. It's my day off and my original plans fell through... I was going to help state Democrats with reading & data-entering names and addresses from a recall petition, but they finished that task before my assigned volunteer shifts. Mafia is actually more exciting than my original plans, sadly.
I don't blame NoD for pushing me into a runoff, I did something very similar my first game. SFA's actions do appear to be slightly suspicious to me though.
In my first game, I voted for NBF when she had a reciprocal vote coming. Maybe that will help you see why I chose to honor LLL and I's prior arrangement.
I told LLL I would help her learn the rules and ran out of time before the game started. I'd told her we would be voting partners but never fully explained the process, so I felt the need to keep that arrangement so she wouldn't be confused and possible make a rookie mistake.
At the time of my vote, anything I did could have been twisted to look suspicious. Everyone but Noage had a reciprocal vote to make or had one coming.
I didn't want to vote for Noage because that would leave me with no votes, presuming LLL voted for Bacon, and would have left you as the only one with 2. That could come across as me hiding in the crowd and leaving the burden of forcing a runoff to someone else.
I could have voted for Bacon and told LLL to go ahead and vote for me. You'd be in the same position and it could be seen as me trying to hide in the crowd and acting manipulative.
The best course of action was to stack a vote on my voting partner. If I recall I've never played a game where I didn't switch votes at least once in the first round, so it was never meant as a permanent vote in my eyes. You know as well as I, that peoples fortunes change rather quickly in this game.
All initial votes are in. As stated earlier, I will close voting at midnight central time, about 4 hrs and 45 minutes from now. If there is still a reasonable amount of discussion going on I will extend time until 9ish AM when I go to work.
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on Apr 25, 2011 21:36:41 GMT -5
I'm new here, so tell me to shut my pie hole if I'm out of line or expressing concerns I should not be expressing, but....
I completely believe that NoD did not understand the "voting partners" in round one. I only knew because SFA advised me of that tradition. Which also makes me marginally suspect of SFA. He was following through with our "deal", however, did so knowing that he was forcing me into a run-off, or setting me up to be eliminated in the first round of my first game of Mafia.
My suspicions of Bacon, therefore, are much more profound. Let's be honest, myself and NoD have no idea what we are doing here. I don't know how this really works, but I could only imagine that it would be unwise to place the two players who know nothing about the rules, or strategies etc, in a key player position in their first game. In other words. Why make either of the two village idiots Mafia?
I could be wrong, but if I knew anything about the game, I wouldn't make the ones who didn't know anything about the game in charge of such important tasks. Ehhh. Maybe I'm talking out of my azz.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on Apr 25, 2011 21:37:58 GMT -5
Also, I only voted for SFA because it was part of the "deal" we had and that I understood to be a key "tradition" or "rule" of round one, or else I would have been more strategic in my vote and prevented myself from being in a run-off.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
I'm new here, so tell me to shut my pie hole if I'm out of line or expressing concerns I should not be expressing, but....
I completely believe that NoD did not understand the "voting partners" in round one. I only knew because SFA advised me of that tradition. Which also makes me marginally suspect of SFA. He was following through with our "deal", however, did so knowing that he was forcing me into a run-off, or setting me up to be eliminated in the first round of my first game of Mafia.
My suspicions of Bacon, therefore, are much more profound. Let's be honest, myself and NoD have no idea what we are doing here. I don't know how this really works, but I could only imagine that it would be unwise to place the two players who know nothing about the rules, or strategies etc, in a key player position in their first game. In other words. Why make either of the two village idiots Mafia?
I could be wrong, but if I knew anything about the game, I wouldn't make the ones who didn't know anything about the game in charge of such important tasks. Ehhh. Maybe I'm talking out of my azz.
I don't know how Mike D did it, but the assignment of roles is supposed to be completely random, so it would be possible that both of you could be mafia despite being new. I was mafia my first game.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
You will have to talk to Mike D about his role assignment methods. I'm curious myself. I personally use a random number generator when it's up to me.
I will also note that new players generally receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to decisions for/against them. I know that, as Referee, I've gotten disgruntled over offing first-time players when it was out of my hands. I know that you & nodepression are unfamiliar with some of the game's traditions. Believe it or not, nodepression is probably receiving more leniency over his move than would a veteran player doing the exact same thing.
Also worth noting is that, when it is early in the game and players are uncertain of what is going on, there is a general hesitancy to cast the vote that kills someone. That kind of goes for putting people into the runoff, too... The majority of players are unsure of what's happening at this point of the game, and are hesitant to take decisive action as a result. That's why we've been hovering at the bare minimum number of people for a runoff.
I don't know if that helps settle things between you and your voting partner. I'm sure most of us with voting buddies here would consider something amiss if our partners didn't follow through with their end of the bargain. If I were you, I would be more worried about the unexpected vote than the expected one. I understand your situation changed between when you made your deal to when your/SFA's votes were cast. I don't know if I can necessarily fault SFA for fulfilling his end of the deal.
A bit of advice, though... your deal is still negotiable as long as voting remains open. Perhaps you can talk SFA into showing some mercy, or perhaps finding yourself a voting ally to even things out - or expand the runoff? I personally think that breaking a deal which threatens one's survival can be justified as self defense.
Nobody's options are exhausted or set in stone until Mike D closes voting.
I'm new here, so tell me to shut my pie hole if I'm out of line or expressing concerns I should not be expressing, but....
I completely believe that NoD did not understand the "voting partners" in round one. I only knew because SFA advised me of that tradition. Which also makes me marginally suspect of SFA. He was following through with our "deal", however, did so knowing that he was forcing me into a run-off, or setting me up to be eliminated in the first round of my first game of Mafia.
My suspicions of Bacon, therefore, are much more profound. Let's be honest, myself and NoD have no idea what we are doing here. I don't know how this really works, but I could only imagine that it would be unwise to place the two players who know nothing about the rules, or strategies etc, in a key player position in their first game. In other words. Why make either of the two village idiots Mafia?
I could be wrong, but if I knew anything about the game, I wouldn't make the ones who didn't know anything about the game in charge of such important tasks. Ehhh. Maybe I'm talking out of my azz.
No, these are all good questions.
If you look at my post to JHam you will see why I was struggling with a decision. I went ahead and voted for you with the fact that you where new heavily in my mind because I knew it was highly unlikely that people would vote off a new player and probable townperson. And mainly because at this point in the game, the votes have usually been shaken up a bit. In that situation, I would have change my vote to the suspicious party. That's what I did in the game I mentioned with NBF. I sat on the vote until something suspicious happened and bam.
If you want to propose something, I'm all ears or you can obviously reach out to someone you think can help you more. You won't be the first person that's done it and you want be the last. It's self preservation. Like Kdogg said, it's not over till Mike D closes the round.
I don't know how Mike D did it, but the assignment of roles is supposed to be completely random, so it would be possible that both of you could be mafia despite being new. I was mafia my first game.
This is off topic but out of curiosity, do you remember the game number? I'd like to read it some time.
I don't know how Mike D did it, but the assignment of roles is supposed to be completely random, so it would be possible that both of you could be mafia despite being new. I was mafia my first game.
This is off topic but out of curiosity, do you remember the game number? I'd like to read it some time.
Voting will be over in about 30 minutes when I get to the office.
edit: Mike D's selection process is as follows
1) find a random number generator that allows any range of numbers.
2) list 1, 2, 3, for mafia, inspector, townie and list all players 1-11
3) put the range from 1 to 3
4) the number for mafia came up so I pick the three mafia first
5) first range is 1-11, generate number, that number is mafia, repeat with 1-10 and taking out the picked number and relisting the names, same order but without the drawn name, that number is mafia, repeat with 1-9, that person is mafia
6) range 1-2, for inspector or townie, generate number, inspector came up
7) range 1-8, generate number, that person is inspector
8) all remaining names are townie folk
bling bling, roles are assigned
Basically it was random selection for the order I picked the roles, the roles them selves, and who is that role, three dimensions of randomness. If that is not random enough for yall, then
all this talk about roles, I need a dinner roll from Red Lobster, who's coming with me?! I'm driving
check your mail soon, thread will be started shortly, PMs will be sent today!!!
:
between JHam and LLL