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!!
On the one hand, I can vote for LLL. It is her first game, first vote, and I don't want to kill any new player this soon. I think all us veterans are welcoming to new players and want them to enjoy their first game and play later; that's just the culture of the game, be it strategically sound or not. I don't really think she did anything that would make the Mafia want to be rid of her. She had two votes against her before she even posted in the thread, so it's not as if she earned those votes because of something she said or did.
On the other hand, I could vote for JHammett. I'm not so certain he's done anything wrong, either. He found a voting buddy and stuck with it. He's in the runoff because another new player, NoD, stacked against him. Unlike LLL getting into this runoff, I think that JHam's runoff candidacy could be construed as a Mafia reaction to his vote. I'm not saying that is definitely the case; I'm just saying it is only plausible on one side of the fence here. I want to note for posterity, that I mentioned all three No-name players were potentially suspicious - and all three are currently voting together against JHam. However, this isn't a ballot about the people voting for JHam, it's a referendum on the man himself. I'm not so sure he's done anything wrong, either.
Meanwhile, I have my own voting partner, Bek... I profess I'm not terribly fond of my two options here. We all know I wanted to expand the field. I just wasn't straying from our voting arrangement to expand the field without renegotiating that with Bek. She wasn't having it, which seemed uncharacteristic of her to me. We've been partners and rivals long enough that it seemed that way to me, at least... I know another veteran player commented on that this game as well, so it's not just me who picked up on that. Anyway, I gave her an opportunity to expand the runoff - something we have discussed/cooperated on in the past - and she did not take me up on it. I still think such a course of action would have benefited we the Townspeople. Just because we missed the opportunity to expand the runoff doesn't mean this round is a total loss - it is quite possible that this runoff does not need expanding and I just don't know it.
As such, I'm announcing in advance: I am voting however Bek does this round, and I do not yet even know who that is.
Meanwhile, I have my own voting partner, Bek... I profess I'm not terribly fond of my two options here. We all know I wanted to expand the field. I just wasn't straying from our voting arrangement to expand the field without renegotiating that with Bek. She wasn't having it, which seemed uncharacteristic of her to me. We've been partners and rivals long enough that it seemed that way to me, at least... I know another veteran player commented on that this game as well, so it's not just me who picked up on that. Anyway, I gave her an opportunity to expand the runoff - something we have discussed/cooperated on in the past - and she did not take me up on it. I still think such a course of action would have benefited we the Townspeople. Just because we missed the opportunity to expand the runoff doesn't mean this round is a total loss - it is quite possible that this runoff does not need expanding and I just don't know it.
As such, I'm announcing in advance: I am voting however Bek does this round, and I do not yet even know who that is.
First of all, I understand that you and Bek are voting partners, but if you really wanted a more expanded runoff, why didn't you just change your vote and make it a three-way runoff instead of standing on your partnership and blaming Bek for not agreeing to a change? (Not that I'm saying it's not strange how Bek reacted because I still find that very odd as well.)
Also, in one breath, you are saying that Bek acted uncharacteristically (which, to me, implies suspicion), and in the next, you are saying you are going to vote with her no matter who she votes for. I find this interesting.
I don't exactly trust her, but at some point we Townspeople are going to have to start getting along. It's the only way we win.
I think my reasoning makes it plain to see that I have a preference between voting JHam and voting LLL. I would have just taken one of those courses of action, were it not for the company I would find myself in. My distrust of the most suspicious of No-name players has me reluctant to endorse your course of action, either. It matters not which of you I find most suspicious when you all vote the same way.
The decision I've made comes down to a matter of who I trust more: Bek vs. the guiltiest of the No-name players.
The fact that I'm hesitant to trust Bek is exactly why I'm seeking her guidance. I, personally, do not trust you No-name players - some more so than others. The only thing that's going to make me trust you No-name players, if only for this vote, is whether my dissenting voting partner endorses a vote alongside you.
As it stands, I believe NoDepression voting against JHammett is the most suspicious vote of this round... and the most plausible explanation I see is that he did so to protect you, NBF. Just because he's a new player doesn't mean he can't be Mafia receiving coaching from his associates. Perhaps that will help you understand why I trust Bek more than I trust you, even if she won't make a runoff-expansion deal with me.
I should have gone solo from my arrangement and expanded the runoff, yes... but who would I have gone with? I wanted to equalize the field with it evenly weighted on both sides of that situation. You might understand why this was a difficulty for me: JHam, LLL, NBF, NoD, SFA & Bacon were all involved in the situation, taking up six of my options. My only other options aside from Bek/myself were noage (who had 0 votes, making it pointless,) Kel (whose late arrival complicated things) & Higgi (the latter two forming a voting pair, itself dangerous for a lone player to confront - which is why they were a possibility I presented to Bek.) I hope you can understand why I chose to stay put without having a partner with whom I could vote alongside. That's why I was talking to Bek about a vote change. Ideally, I wanted both JHam & LLL to bring one of their accusers into the runoff... I hope you can understand why I put a premium on balancing the field.
Why am I the one getting yelled at for wanting to expand the field, anyway? I still believe it improves the Townspeople's chances. I'd rather try doing it and fail - which I did - than sit back and do nothing. I have no regrets about making that offer.
As it stands, I believe NoDepression voting against JHammett is the most suspicious vote of this round... and the most plausible explanation I see is that he did so to protect you, NBF. Just because he's a new player doesn't mean he can't be Mafia receiving coaching from his associates.
How do I make you believe I'm a townie without casting more suspicion on myself?
Also, your use of "we townspeople" or whatever sounds suspicious to me. I feel like your just throwing a lot of words up there to try and distract everybody from the real issue here.
Nah. I'm just getting the most attention because I'm participating the most. Killers hide in shadows.
I'm sure every veteran player here can agree that my role does not affect my verbosity. I run at the mouth regardless of my role. We can all agree on at least that much, right?
As it stands, I believe NoDepression voting against JHammett is the most suspicious vote of this round... and the most plausible explanation I see is that he did so to protect you, NBF. Just because he's a new player doesn't mean he can't be Mafia receiving coaching from his associates. Perhaps that will help you understand why I trust Bek more than I trust you, even if she won't make a runoff-expansion deal with me.
Are you seriously suggesting that if nodepression and I were mafia together, I would have told him to cast an oddball vote like that, drawing attention to himself, in order to "protect" me because one person voted for me?
Also, who is "yelling" at you? I asked you a question because I thought what you were saying and what you were doing were out of sync with each other.
But, yes, you certainly do talk a lot regardless of your role.
"Yelling" might have been a bit extreme of a choice of words, I'll admit. I am slightly confused about why blame for the runoff not being expanded is being assigned to me... when I'm sitting here feeling like I tried harder to make it happen than anyone else here did.
Can we collectively and preemptively agree that any potential Day Two runoffs should consist of more than two candidates? I don't know what's going to happen, but I still think that course of action is best for the Townspeople. I hope some of y'all can agree with me on the principle of that in advance, even though we might not see eye-to-eye on the specifics.
"Yelling" might have been a bit extreme of a choice of words, I'll admit. I am slightly confused about why blame for the runoff not being expanded is being assigned to me... when I'm sitting here feeling like I tried harder to make it happen than anyone else here did.
Can we collectively and preemptively agree that any potential Day Two runoffs should consist of more than two candidates? I don't know what's going to happen, but I still think that course of action is best for the Townspeople. I hope some of y'all can agree with me on the principle of that in advance, even though we might not see eye-to-eye on the specifics.
I wasn't blaming you so much as I was pointing out that you were the one who made a big deal of saying you wanted an expanded runoff, but you didn't do what was in your immediate power to do to actually expand the runoff. Instead, you put it all on Bek and made it her fault instead of yours. Personally, I think it's both of your faults. (So, yeah, I guess I am blaming a little.)
For the record, if it had been in my power, I would have changed my vote to add another player to the runoff because I generally agree that more players in a runoff is better, but as you have pointed out (over and over again), I was already voting for one of the players with 2 votes so I was not capable of expanding the pool.
And while I'm typing, what's up with the absence of Bek and Kel?
I wasn't blaming you so much as I was pointing out that you were the one who made a big deal of saying you wanted an expanded runoff, but you didn't do what was in your immediate power to do to actually expand the runoff. Instead, you put it all on Bek and made it her fault instead of yours. Personally, I think it's both of your faults. (So, yeah, I guess I am blaming a little.)
Did you bother to read my explanation six posts back? Without weighting things towards one side or the other, there wasn't much I could do. I can see what's happening with this, but I'm not sure who's doing it... hence, my approach was to try and expand things equally on both sides of the situation. You do realize that you probably would've gotten my vote had I switched, right? Still, I tried, and I would have been receptive to other offers - had there been any. There weren't. I do suspect we've got two Townspeople in this runoff
And while I'm typing, what's up with the absence of Bek and Kel?
Kel was late to the party. Bek's been here but far more quiet than usual. Talking to you these past couple hours has me less sure that I should trust her, though...
I'm starting to think maybe I shouldn't be placing my trust with either you No-names or Bek more than other players...
I see more possible shenanigans going on in the JHam half of this situation, so I have no other choice but to cast my vote to counter it.
kdogg >>> LLL
^ Not so much a vote against LLL as a refusal to vote with those voting against JHam. (For this round, at least.)
Post by NothingButFlowers on Apr 26, 2011 18:00:13 GMT -5
Yes, I read your explanation, and yes, I realize I would have most likely gotten your vote. Still think it was worth pointing out.
For the record, I have never intended any of my posts to mean that you should trust Bek any more or less than any other player. At this point, I'm just trying to get input so that I can make reasoned decisions later.
Kdogg, I am newer at this game so forgive me if you think I am wrong, but I think you look too much into the first round votes. Last game, when I was mafia, we killed you off to make it look like you were on to something (which you were a bit with Bacon at least) and used the info in your post to get the townspeople to vote against who you said were mafia. All I'm saying is to not jump to conclusions too early in the game.
I know several of you like to post the voting results throughout the round. Please keep this to a minimum, if at all. The past few games I have seen these voting tallies being incorrect, and that was a little crappy while I was playing. I will do my best to keep an official tally very current.
Discouraged? Yes. Prohibited? No. I feel I am in line with keeping it "to a minimum," as per Mike D's specific request.
Kdogg, I am newer at this game so forgive me if you think I am wrong, but I think you look too much into the first round votes. Last game, when I was mafia, we killed you off to make it look like you were on to something (which you were a bit with Bacon at least) and used the info in your post to get the townspeople to vote against who you said were mafia. All I'm saying is to not jump to conclusions too early in the game.
Last game, when you killed me off, I was onto something by looking at first round votes. I had the overall 2-to-1 breakdown right, I just incorrectly divided the "2" side of it. Had I broken that "2" side down slightly differently, it could have made a big difference in the outcome of that game.
You're right, though... I might be giving the Mafia too much rope with which to hang me.
The rest of y'all (besides NBF) are welcome to step up and finally play this game with us any time now...
To clarify, the posting tallies thing is more about not having 6-8 different folks posting them. There have been mistakes in the past and everyone doesn't always double check before posting. One mistake leads to several false tallies it can really screw a round up. If it's the start of a new page or I haven't checked in the past couple posts, go ahead, but there is typically no need for one with every single vote.
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.
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-1417367-1217939740.jpeg.jpg)
