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!!
NoAge, why do you vote for me as your "placeholder", when I have already voted for someone else, and in all likelyhood have a return vote coming? I find the way you just tried to sneak it in there quite suspicious.
But I was the first person to vote for EAP, and I only did it because I thought it was suspicious how she asked me whether I wanted to be voting partners, and then went ahead and voted for me before I had a chance to respond. I wasn't sold on her being mafia, but nobody else was sticking out to me, so I went for the person who had voted for me as sort of a default choice.
. . .
At first I voted for her because she had voted for me first. Something about the way that she asked me whether I wanted to be her voting partner immediately before voting for me struck me as shady - how she asked me something and didn't even wait for a response. So that naturally aroused my suspicion. As the round progressed, I seriously considered changing my vote, but I had no idea who else to vote for. I wasn't sold on EAP's guilt, but nobody else stood out. EAP was the only person who had voted for me, so I thought she was as good a suspect as any. I also thought that changing my vote at that late stage could have been even more suspicious than not changing it, so I decided to stick with my original vote. And then when it came down to the runoff between Sarah and EAP, she still seemed the more suspicious of the two.
Jack, twice in this post you say it was suspicious that EAP asked if you wanted to be voting partners and then voted for you before you had a chance to respond. But she didn't have a whole lot of options at that point. By the time she voted, noage had voted for Sarah, SFA had voted for LLL, jhammett and I had voted for each other, and kdogg had voted for superbek.
I'm not suspicious of her just because she voted for me, I'm suspicious of her because of how she voted for me. Her request did not sit right with me at all - why was she pretending to ask me a question and then not even waiting for a response before voting? And remember, I had even fewer choices still when I had to vote. I thought returning someone else's vote would be the normal, rational thing to do in the first round, when there's next to nothing to go on to figure out who's who. EAP didn't have any votes yet either, so I knew that voting for her wouldn't make me look like I was in cahoots with anyone. I was still on the fence at that point, but what sealed my decision was that - irony of ironies - even if it turned out EAP was innocent, I at least knew she wasn't the inspector.
Where? I have spent the past 15 minutes scouring this entire page and the two pages before it looking for a reason as to why you think I'm sketchy.
Funny... NoAge asked me the exact same question you later accused me of not answering. See his post Reply #214, then see my post #217. I answered it when asked, so drop it or ask a clarification if you like. I'm not going to get any more specific with you than exact post numbers - please refer to them.
I'm just saying, would it kill you to quote these posts that you refer to? You know, the ones that actually don't give any reasons as to why you think I'm mafia? Yeah, those ones. In post #214, you vote for me but give no reason, and in post #217, all you say is that I'm code orange. But in none of your posts do you ever begin to give a rational explanation as to why you think I am mafia. All you're doing is running in circles here. You still have no logical foundation for any of your arguments as to why I'm mafia or EAP was inspector. Nobody's trying to make you look bad for "dodging a question [you] already answered", considering that you never actually answered them. You just pinned the burden of proof on someone else who's no longer here to come out and say whether it's true or not. I'm just trying to make you give some solid evidence for these accusations. And so far, I've seen shit all.
And by the way, I should probably remind you that we're playing mafia here - a game where interrogation plays a very large role. I will drop something when I have a satisfactory answer, not when someone tells me to. It makes you look incredibly suspicious when you ask me to just drop the single most important thing in this game - that is, my innocence and my survival. Of course I'm not going to drop it, it's a libelous slant against my character (uhh, that is, me in the game, not in real life). The reason I asked for a clarification was because your posts were extraordinarily vague on details, evidence and reason. You can't just make a claim like that so confidently, and then give the flimsiest reasoning for your vote.
I see absolutely nothing here that gives any explanation as to what I've done to arouse your suspicion.
You don't have to actively DO anything to arouse my suspicion, if you passively receive a vote from the right player
Simply put, Jack: I think what we have here is an Inspector that had your name, and perhaps you belong in Sarah's place. Either of these two, actually.
That doesn't answer my question - saying that you have no evidence that I'm mafia, but that you are pretty sure someone else does, does nothing to prove your claim. You still haven't explained why people should believe your assertion that EAP was the inspector. All you've done is placed the burden of proof on another player who can no longer come out and confirm or deny whether any of this is accurate. You've done nothing to support your own case for EAP being the inspector, but your absolute insistence that I am mafia has raised many red flags for me, particularly as it's still only the second day and you seem impossibly sure of yourself. But yet you make no attempt to even begin to prove that what you've said about EAP being inspector and me being mafia are even remotely true. What exactly makes you so sure that EAP was the inspector that you would risk a townsperson's life in the second day? I need something more concrete than just hunches and other lame excuses here, considering how deadset you are in your opinion.
I'm not suspicious of her just because she voted for me, I'm suspicious of her because of how she voted for me. Her request did not sit right with me at all - why was she pretending to ask me a question and then not even waiting for a response before voting? And remember, I had even fewer choices still when I had to vote. I thought returning someone else's vote would be the normal, rational thing to do in the first round, when there's next to nothing to go on to figure out who's who. EAP didn't have any votes yet either, so I knew that voting for her wouldn't make me look like I was in cahoots with anyone. I was still on the fence at that point, but what sealed my decision was that - irony of ironies - even if it turned out EAP was innocent, I at least knew she wasn't the inspector.
Just to clarify, I don't take issue at all with the fact that you voted for EAP, especially not in the beginning. I just thought it was odd that you were suspicious of the way she voted for you by asking a question and voting in the same post. I just don't see that as all that suspicious. I saw her asking the question as more of a courtesy, her way of saying, "Nothing personal, but there's not many options left, so I'm voting for you." But then, I wasn't the one she voted for, so maybe it was easier for me to look at it as not being all that suspicious.
But how did you know she wasn't the inspector? Even assuming you are a townsperson, I don't think her vote for you meant that she was not the inspector. In fact, I think it's fairly common for an inspector to vote for someone in Day 1 other than the person whose name the inspector got. So, I think it's possible that she was the inspector, she got someone else's name, and she voted for you so as not to draw attention to herself by voting for the person whose name she had. Of course, she did draw attention to herself later by implying that she was the inspector, which apparently got her killed. And there are other possibilities than her being the inspector, but I think that's still a possibility.
NoAge, why do you vote for me as your "placeholder", when I have already voted for someone else, and in all likelyhood have a return vote coming? I find the way you just tried to sneak it in there quite suspicious.
I am changing my vote, so you don't have to
JHammett >>> Bek >>> NoAge
I legitimately was just trying to get a vote in. I didn't realize someone was going to send you a return vote. I am not trying to be the deciding factor in getting anyone voted off or saving anyone at this point in the game. I suspected EAP early on and was way off on it since she got voted off.
NoAge > Jhamm > Quacker
I don't suspect quacker, I am just trying to get a vote in that will not effect the runoff.
edit: I had this page up for a while and did not see that Bek's vote came in 20 mins before.
Post by NothingButFlowers on May 26, 2011 13:34:07 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my vote for kdogg. I really feel like his whole theory about Jack seems contrived. Even assuming that EAP was the inspector, the only thing she did that pointed at Jack was voting for him in the first vote, and I'm not at all convinced that that was because she had his name. I've never been an inspector, but I know that if I was, I would not vote for the person whose name I had in the first round. His other main argument is that noage changed his vote to EAP, but it's true what noage pointed out, it was Sarah who suggested they change votes, not noage. (Also, kdogg did something similar in the first round, apparently trying to make it look as though I had asked questions that were actually asked by SFA.)
I'm sticking with my vote for kdogg. I really feel like his whole theory about Jack seems contrived. Even assuming that EAP was the inspector, the only thing she did that pointed at Jack was voting for him in the first vote, and I'm not at all convinced that that was because she had his name. I've never been an inspector, but I know that if I was, I would not vote for the person whose name I had in the first round. His other main argument is that noage changed his vote to EAP, but it's true what noage pointed out, it was Sarah who suggested they change votes, not noage. (Also, kdogg did something similar in the first round, apparently trying to make it look as though I had asked questions that were actually asked by SFA.)
I think it is safe to say that kdogg has not exactly been himself this game, fwiw.
But how did you know she wasn't the inspector? Even assuming you are a townsperson, I don't think her vote for you meant that she was not the inspector. In fact, I think it's fairly common for an inspector to vote for someone in Day 1 other than the person whose name the inspector got. So, I think it's possible that she was the inspector, she got someone else's name, and she voted for you so as not to draw attention to herself by voting for the person whose name she had. Of course, she did draw attention to herself later by implying that she was the inspector, which apparently got her killed. And there are other possibilities than her being the inspector, but I think that's still a possibility.
I think you just answered your own question there. And EAP only used the inspector defense to save her own skin once the tables had turned on her, which again makes me question her credibility. That, combined with the fact that she unprovokedly called me out as mafia on a guess when she already had another name that she knew for sure was mafia, seems like a highly irresponsible thing for an inspector to do so early on. To stick by a sheer guess and risk a townsperson's life when you have the name of a known mafia member in your possession is an incredibly dangerous, foolish and selfish move to make when your effort to deflect attention risks the life of a townsperson. Not only does it risk the lives of the inspector's fellow townspeople at a rate of 7:2 (once you subtract the known mafia member and the inspector themselves). And if she's three and a half times more likely to be voting for a townsperson over a mafia member, that is an enormous risk to her credibility if she had lived and tried to convince the townspeople she was the inspector. After all, how can you make a group of people trust their character's votes and lives when you've been voting for their members instead of guilty parties? I understand the desire for self-preservation and being able to stick around to help the townspeople - but when it risks innocent lives, that is a beyond reckless move for someone who knows the name of at least one mafia member.
And EAP only used the inspector defense to save her own skin once the tables had turned on her, which again makes me question her credibility.
1. If at all possible, the inspector would want to keep his/her identity secret for as long as possible, so she wouldn't have said it any earlier than necessary.
2. When backed into a corner, the inspector might feel forced to reveal his/her identity to try to not get killed in the first round, even though he/she has a pretty good idea that he/she will be whacked by mafia in the first night. (For the record, I had a huge conflict with AWATD in the first game where I was a townsperson because he was claiming to be inspector during the first day and I thought he was lying, but it turned out he was telling the truth.)
3. For a townsperson or a mafia member, falsely implying you are the inspector in the first day is hugely risky because there is a 100% chance that the real inspector is out there and will turn his/her attention on you because of your claim.
That, combined with the fact that she unprovokedly called me out as mafia on a guess when she already had another name that she knew for sure was mafia, seems like a highly irresponsible thing for an inspector to do so early on.
Where did EAP ever "call [you] out as mafia." She made a first round vote. I've said before, and I stand by my statement, that if I was inspector, I would not initially vote for the person whose name I had. It's not likely to lead to other people voting for that person and causing that person to get killed, and it is likely to draw attention from the mafia.
To stick by a sheer guess and risk a townsperson's life when you have the name of a known mafia member in your possession is an incredibly dangerous, foolish and selfish move to make when your effort to deflect attention risks the life of a townsperson.
She didn't stand by her vote for you. She switched her vote to noage as soon as he voted for her. And then she switched her vote to Sarah and later suggested that Bek switch her vote to create a runoff including Sarah, rather than quacker, because she said she thought quacker hadn't really done anything too suspicious yet. (Based on this, I think that if EAP really wasn't inspector/was mafia, she may have been working with quacker.)
Not only does it risk the lives of the inspector's fellow townspeople at a rate of 7:2 (once you subtract the known mafia member and the inspector themselves). And if she's three and a half times more likely to be voting for a townsperson over a mafia member, that is an enormous risk to her credibility if she had lived and tried to convince the townspeople she was the inspector. After all, how can you make a group of people trust their character's votes and lives when you've been voting for their members instead of guilty parties? I understand the desire for self-preservation and being able to stick around to help the townspeople - but when it risks innocent lives, that is a beyond reckless move for someone who knows the name of at least one mafia member.
Again, I don't see how voting for the person whose name you have does any good. If you don't, you're likely to be voting for a townsperson, yes, but even if you vote for the mafia person you know about, no one else knows you are the inspector, so voting for mafia only puts you on alert with the mafia, and doesn't convince other people to vote for that person. The only reason it would is if you start trying to convince other people that that is the right person which would then put you even more on mafia radar and also start making other people question you because they would be suspicious of a player trying to influence votes.
Jack, to be clear, I have been consistently saying that I didn't think there was all that much reason to suspect you, although your arguments do strike me as a bit defensive.
But yet you make no attempt to even begin to prove that what you've said about EAP being inspector and me being mafia are even remotely true.
Quit dismissing what I have been saying. I made this argument too, I know it and you know it and the written record supports me on this. You do realize you might not look so damn guilty to me if you were receptive to an appeal to reason, right?
A Mafia making a false Inspector claim in the first day seems just plain foolish to me. You know at that point you are infinitely certain the real Inspector is alive to contradict you. This is the logical fallacy to any claim that EAP wasn't Inspector.
Was that not good enough for you? I do believe the guaranteed presence of an Inspector in Day One guarantees that we would have had someone around to discredit a false Inspector claim.
Now, allow me to refer you to EAP's Reply #159 and Bacon's vote tally in Reply #151.
I believe EAP was the Inspector. There was a guaranteed possibility of a real Inspector discrediting her claims. As Inspector, EAP definitely would have had knowledge about the status of one player. At the time she wrote that post, there were four people voting for EAP: Jack LLL NoAge Sarah
I think one of these four players is/was Mafia. I think this because a player making an unchallenged Inspector claim - who got whacked in Night One, by the way - said so herself.
I admit that EAP's declaration leaves four possible courses of action for us to pursue, should we choose to follow her advice. I, for one, do. We have already acted upon one of them in killing Sarah, leaving us three possible courses of action to pursue. I still believe some of these courses of action are worth pursuing.
I wish I had been around to participate yesterday. I went straight from the office to my date last night, and this post is the first thing I'm doing upon returning home from her place today. I haven't seen the game since I said late Tuesday night that I probably wouldn't be around yesterday... but I did think about what I knew about the game on my drive home, particularly the implications of EAP's statement that she knew one of four players was definitely Mafia.
So we need to be focusing on Jack, LLL, NoAge, and Sarah.
I initially had been thinking Sarah was innocent, but going over EAP's statements again and the number of posts directed at certain players makes me not so sure (see my Reply #256.) Sarah was addressed/invoked in more of her posts than any other player; EAP mentioned more than once that first-time players can indeed be Mafia. (See Reply #255, my post quoting everything EAP said.) I think there's something of a case to be made that Sarah was indeed Mafia. I had been assuming that EAP's vote against Sarah was in the interest of self-preservation, but that may not have been her sole motivation.
Then there is Jack. Inspector EAP cast her first vote for Jack; her later votes reciprocated votes she had received. Aside from that, she didn't mention him in any other posts besides her initial vote. I can see this going one of two ways. One, she knew Jack was Mafia and worried about drawing attention to that fact. Two, she didn't say anything about Jack because she didn't have anything on Jack. The more I think about it, the less certain I am which of these is correct. My thoughts on Jack are actually trending towards his innocence the longer this game goes on. I think it is quite possible that Jack & I are both innocent, and there are Mafia fine with letting our squabbling take center stage so an innocent can die. I feel that if either of us were Mafia, there would be other Mafia trying to increase the size of the runoff to improve their Mafia's odds of survival.
NoAge particularly intrigues me. It was NoAge who began the assault on the Inspector, regardless of with whom he was acting in cahoots. However, it is worth noting that he did so in coordination with Sarah - another of the four players called out by EAP. Collaboration between two of the four players EAP warned us about is a red flag to me. I am uncertain whether NoAge was acting on behalf of Jack or not when he steered the vote towards Sarah, but I am definitely highly suspicious that he did so.
I'm not so sure about LLL. EAP only addressed her in two posts, and she is the only one of these four for whom EAP never cast a vote. However, the fact that she was a late vote has my attention. Could be coincidence, could not.
I do believe that, if EAP proclaimed one of these four players to be (in her words) "DEFINITELY mafia," then I think it is logical to suspect that there is cooperation/cahootery to be discovered in the ranks of players voting for EAP.
Only the original four EAP voters continued to vote for EAP once it became apparent the role she had in this game. I imagine that Mafia would have wanted EAP gone, and personally I presume two of them voted for EAP while one of them voted for Sarah. Here, I find jhammett's reluctance to cast a vote somewhat suspicious. I only think one of the seven voting for Sarah is Mafia, and think we should continue to pursue those who went after (and whacked) our Inspector.
I think it is quite possible we have two innocents in this runoff. I know I am innocent, I cannot speak for Jack.
I think that this vote should not be solely decided on the merits of the two individual players on the ballot, but also the opposing sides of an issue which we both represent. I think that EAP was the Inspector; Jack seems to disagree with me on this. Assuming that Jack & myself are both Townspeople, I encourage everyone to treat that vote as a referendum on whether EAP was the Inspector or not.
What this comes down to, I think, is whether or not the rest of you want a Townsperson who feels EAP was the Inspector. To those of you who do not believe EAP was the Inspector, I encourage you to support Jack's point of view with a vote against me. If, like myself, you believe that EAP was the Inspector, I ask you to join me in voting against Jack.
Personally, I wish I had been able to be here yesterday. At this point, I think that NoAge might have been a more fruitful vote for Mafia killing purposes.
I'm sorry this is so long-winded. I've pretty much laid out everything I have here, and I'll gladly respond to inquiries as to any statements I have made. I think I'm hot enough on the trail of Mafia that my name is atop the Mafia's to-kill list, and with the Inspector gone I suspect the Mafia will take that opportunity once Night Two comes around. I want to have my suspicions outlined here on the record for all of you to look at later.
A vote for kdogg means that you do not believe EAP was the Inspector. A vote for Jack means that you believe EAP was the Inspector.
It's as simple as that, Townspeople... I know you know the right thing to do here.
I'm sticking with my vote for kdogg. I really feel like his whole theory about Jack seems contrived. Even assuming that EAP was the inspector, the only thing she did that pointed at Jack was voting for him in the first vote, and I'm not at all convinced that that was because she had his name. I've never been an inspector, but I know that if I was, I would not vote for the person whose name I had in the first round. His other main argument is that noage changed his vote to EAP, but it's true what noage pointed out, it was Sarah who suggested they change votes, not noage. (Also, kdogg did something similar in the first round, apparently trying to make it look as though I had asked questions that were actually asked by SFA.)
It was indeed Sarah who suggested that she & NoAge change votes.
Since it seems more useful to have more people in the run-off then we should do something to try to make this happen, no?
Noage, if we each changed our votes to someone else we could add two people. Just a thought.
I can agree with this.
Noage > popsicle sarah > EAP
It was NoAge who led the charge against the Inspector. The timing of these two messages is also suspect; it suggests to me that collaboration may have taken place. Also arousing my suspicions is that NoAge changed his vote in a manner which tried to save the very player he was voting to kill. This seems logically and strategically inconsistent to me. If NoAge truly thought Sarah was suspicious, I don't understand why he would have been so willing to save the object of his suspicion.
Add to this the fact that two of these players were among the four players EAP called out as "DEFINITELY" including a Mafia... and I think we have two Mafia identified.
Something stinks about this whole situation. I think Sarah and NoAge are in cahoots.
A vote for kdogg means that you do not believe EAP was the Inspector. A vote for Jack means that you believe EAP was the Inspector.
This is a pretty bullshitty thing to say. I currently have my vote for you, and I'm not so sure that I want to change it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I believe EAP was not the inspector. You went from this super-adamant post about why EAP was pointing a finger at Jack, to almost completely the other direction of "oh, well, maybe I was wrong." I'm not sure what to make of that.
I think it's pretty bullshitty that you claim to believe that EAP was the Inspector, yet you're on the side of the guy who says that EAP as Inspector has "no logical foundation." (See my opening Jack quotes of Reply #289.)
What is your logical foundation for voting against your own stated belief that EAP was Inspector? You're on the side of the guy actively trying to discredit that notion. How do you reconcile your stated belief with your vote to the contrary?
I think it's pretty bullshitty that you claim to believe that EAP was the Inspector, yet you're on the side of the guy who says that EAP as Inspector has "no logical foundation." (See my opening Jack quotes of Reply #289.)
What is your logical foundation for voting against your own stated belief that EAP was Inspector? You're on the side of the guy actively trying to discredit that notion. How do you reconcile your stated belief with your vote to the contrary?
Just because I think EAP was likely the inspector doesn't mean I have to subscribe to everything you say. If EAP was the inspector, she only had one name, and we don't know whose name that was. I voted for you to start with because you came out with guns blazing against Jack based on some pretty flimsy evidence, and you aren't really doing much to show me that I should change that vote.
Also arousing my suspicions is that NoAge changed his vote in a manner which tried to save the very player he was voting to kill. This seems logically and strategically inconsistent to me. If NoAge truly thought Sarah was suspicious, I don't understand why he would have been so willing to save the object of his suspicion.
Did I miss something? I don't recall noage ever saying anything about Sarah being suspicious. As far as I could tell, he voted for her because they had a prearranged voting arrangement. Since when does a first round vote mean you think someone is suspicious?
I think it's pretty bullshitty that you claim to believe that EAP was the Inspector, yet you're on the side of the guy who says that EAP as Inspector has "no logical foundation." (See my opening Jack quotes of Reply #289.)
What is your logical foundation for voting against your own stated belief that EAP was Inspector? You're on the side of the guy actively trying to discredit that notion. How do you reconcile your stated belief with your vote to the contrary?
Also, I'm not on anybody's side. I'm just trying to be reasonable and logical about this, and applying my reason and logic, I don't trust you. It's not that I trust Jack either, but he seems skeptical and unsure, while you seem adamant and too sure.
You went from this super-adamant post about why EAP was pointing a finger at Jack, to almost completely the other direction of "oh, well, maybe I was wrong." I'm not sure what to make of that.
It's not that I trust Jack either, but he seems skeptical and unsure, while you seem adamant and too sure.
So... you feel I am guilty because I am willing to admit where I made a mistake and attempt to correct it (this quality is that "reasonable" of which you speak) AND you feel I am guilty because I "seem adamant and too sure." Please explain to me your justification for attacking me from both sides of this issue. You don't get to have it both ways.
Post by NothingButFlowers on May 26, 2011 17:24:22 GMT -5
^Even when you turned around and said that you might have been wrong, you were still adamant and too sure, in that you declared that we should all base our votes on what you were saying.
If saying that EAP was Inspector and trying to follow her lead is wrong, I don't want to be right.
I have made no statements today which I do not base upon the premise that EAP is Inspector. Will you give me credit for at least that much?
We do have common ground here, even though you want to kill me in favor of a player who disagrees with our shared belief.
Which, by the way, is still complete and total bullshit.
If you & I believe the same thing, and I'm guilty for it... what does that tell us about YOU?
To clarify, I think it is likely that EAP is inspector, for the reasons I put in my post directed at Jack earlier. I don't think it's the only possibility, but it does seem highly likely.
Nevertheless, just because you agree with that does not necessarily make you innocent in my eyes. And I'm still not sure whether you have been trying to follow EAP's lead or trying to make it look like EAP was pointing in directions that she was not pointing.
For the record, I've gone back five games so far, and in all of them, the inspector voted for someone other than the person whose name they were given. In Game 32, HGH voted for a mafia member, but it was accidental. Every other time the inspector voted for a townsperson.
If you & I believe the same thing, and I'm guilty for it... what does that tell us about YOU?
And I didn't say you were guilty for believing that EAP was the inspector. I am suspicious of you because you were trying to make it look like her vote for Jack in the beginning of Day 1 was meaningful when in all likelihood, it wasn't.
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-1417367-1217939740.jpeg.jpg)
