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!!
Hey Sarah, I'm curious, is Mike D helping you at all so far in the game? I don't think there's any reason why he shouldn't be. Like I said . . . just curious.
He's not "helping" me, but he is keeping track of the game. I've asked him to read after I've posted to make sure what I said makes sense.
the one thing that has struck me as strange is the fact that popsicle sarah changed her vote.
you said you wanted a runoff with more people sarah, i gave you that by switching my vote to noage (after he switched to me). yet, you still changed your vote taking him OUT of the runoff.....any particular reason??? seems weird you would want to save him.
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. I was in the kitchen cooking (breakfast for dinner yum!) as I was writing a reply on my phone and it decided to be janky and lock up. I'm finished cooking and now on my computer...
Two things:
If you notice, my post changing my vote to NBF is 9 minutes after your vote-changing post. I didn't see your vote change to Noage until after I submitted my vote change to NBF. Yeah, it took over 9 minutes to write that post because I was originally using one of those random number generator things to choose who I would vote for, but then I looked over the vote tally again. I noticed that if I changed my vote to NBF she wouldn't be likely to change her vote because her vote is already for someone in the run-off. I figured this would be a good choice so it might stop the "tit for tat" vote changing that was going on.
And, even if I would've seen your vote change to Noage, I probably would've made a vote change anyways (and explained why) because I had already seen that Noage agreed to change his vote for me if I changed my vote for him. It would've been pretty shady of me to not hold up my end of the deal, right?
Post by popsicle sarah on May 16, 2011 19:09:12 GMT -5
EAP - why did you change your vote anyways? Noage and I had already stated in the thread that we were no longer going to be voting for each other. You should've already known voting for Noage wouldn't put him in the run-off.
well, i had no way of knowing how long it would take you to post, or that you were posting at the same time as me or using a random generator for nine minutes (which you did not end up using it seems??).
i figured once you saw i had changed my vote, you wouldn't change yours'. i don't think that would be shady. it would in fact be doing exactly what you said....putting more people in the runoff.... me, noage, quacker and bek.
instead you change it to me, nbf, quacker and bek. that's all i'm saying.
well, i had no way of knowing how long it would take you to post, or that you were posting at the same time as me or using a random generator for nine minutes (which you did not end up using it seems??).
i figured once you saw i had changed my vote, you wouldn't change yours'. i don't think that would be shady.
Let's say for a second that I saw your post and since you changed your vote to Noage, which put him in the run-off, I decided to keep my vote for Noage even though I had already agreed to change my vote from him. I'm sure that might look a little suspicious, maybe not to you, but definitely to other people.
Sorry, I had a really busy weekend, and I am presently at software conference. I will check in twice a day, and try my best to remember to vote when I need to. That said, the people I wanted to see in the run off were quacker and bek, and since my vote for NBF is putting her in harms way, without a good reason, I am going to change my vote.
JHammett >>> NBF >>> Popsicle Sara
Lady Popsicle, I am not trying to accuse you of anything, and currently hold no ill will torwards you. I am voting for you because as it sits, you have 0 votes, and therefore my vote is not throwing you into a runoff.
Sorry, I had a really busy weekend, and I am presently at software conference. I will check in twice a day, and try my best to remember to vote when I need to. That said, the people I wanted to see in the run off were quacker and bek
Jhammett, It sounds like you haven't had a lot of time to check on things but I'm really glad you had Bek and me in your sights quickly. Why would you have had such a quick opinion on two specific people? THAT sounds suspicious even to me and I'm pretty oblivious in general. ???
That said, I'm not sure what to make of quacker. He's bringing an awful lot of attention to himself to be a first-time player/mafia member. It would actually be a pretty bold strategy if he is mafia. Then again, I don't really know much about what he's like in general, so it's hard to judge.
I thought about this today at work. I can't think of why the other 2 mafia members would advise a newb to draw so much attention to himself. That , to me, sort of lowers my suspicious. However, I'm all ears if someone has a theory on this.
I don't know what to make of all these votes swaps. I'm pretty sure one of the people involved switched with an agenda in mind but I don't have a clue which. Maybe the following rounds will shade some light on this.
I'm going to read the thread again. I might post some more thoughts later tonight.
Edit:typos typos typos
Last Edit: May 16, 2011 23:52:10 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Sorry, I had a really busy weekend, and I am presently at software conference. I will check in twice a day, and try my best to remember to vote when I need to. That said, the people I wanted to see in the run off were quacker and bek
Jhammett, It sounds like you haven't had a lot of time to check on things but I'm really glad you had Bek and me in your sights quickly. Why would you have had such a quick opinion on two specific people? THAT sounds suspicious even to me and I'm pretty oblivious in general. ???
It seems this is the way it went last game too. For the most part Mafia really seemed to zero in on certain targets in an unrelenting manner. I think that the first round is an especially odd time to get one's panties in a bunch over a player's voting habits.
That being said, I also wonder about all of these vote changes. I think that there are some attempts here by Mafia to either MAKE certain people look suspicious to others, a nudge of sorts. Or to save Mafia.
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 May 17, 2011 1:01:39 GMT -5
An addendum to the above post.
Looking at the changed votes I see that Kdogg and Noage were each saved twice. And quacker saved both of them. I'm not sure if the changing of votes here is a pattern starting of Mafia saving Mafia, or Mafia trying to cast suspicion on townies, or just plain coincidence.
I see that one of the vote changes seems to be an agreed upon swap. So maybe that one can be eliminated.
Other saved players:
LLL once Jack once Jhamm once Sarah once
Also to consider: that the Inspector may have changed his/her vote to lead us in the right direction. To early to tell who the light of suspicion should be cast upon, because I can't tell if this is random or pattern, but points to ponder.
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.
We have Jack, LLL and Kdogg making no vote switches. Jham would have been in this group, if not for his switch earlier tonight. There is a decent chance that one of these 4 is mafia.
I'm saying "saved" in the sense that they had a vote, someone changed a vote, and now they have no votes. Regardless of the person's stated reasons for changing votes.
I'm sticking with my voting partner, as per the way that I understand protocol to be. It seems that protocol may not apply in this game, but I'm sticking to it because I'm relatively new still and I don't understand what the reason for all of the vote changing is. I'm not sure who I would change my vote TO. No reason to pick anyone off at by giving them a 3rd vote. And no reason to put someone else in the 4 person run-off.
Maybe I'm reading this all wrong. I'm still figuring out the ins and outs of strategy in the game of Mafia.
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.
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 saying "saved" in the sense that they had a vote, someone changed a vote, and now they have no votes. Regardless of the person's stated reasons for changing votes.
Yes, I'm now seeing your point and you are possibly on to something. However, what should stick out more it the reason that people are switching others out of a runoff. Is there a something to be gained by this? If so, how? That should be our main concern at this point.
Last Edit: May 17, 2011 3:08:31 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
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.
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.
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 saying "saved" in the sense that they had a vote, someone changed a vote, and now they have no votes. Regardless of the person's stated reasons for changing votes.
Yes, I'm now seeing your point and you are possibly on to something. However, what should stick out more it the reason that people are switching others out of a runoff. Is there a something to be gained by this? If so, how? That should be our main concern at this point.
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.
Let's say for a second that I saw your post and since you changed your vote to Noage, which put him in the run-off, I decided to keep my vote for Noage even though I had already agreed to change my vote from him. I'm sure that might look a little suspicious, maybe not to you, but definitely to other people.
Yeah, If Sarah hadn't changed her vote I would have thought that was pretty suspicious. Especially since it was her idea.
Well the speculation is running rampant now and at least I've got some thoughts to read. My musings:
It could be suspicious that Jhamm is directing attention to me and Bek right off the bat. Or it could be that he's the inspector and wants to direct attention to a Mafia person. Or it could be that he is a clairvoyant. If he's directing me and Bek to a runoff because he knows one of us is Mafia then it would be Bek because I know I'm a Towny.
Post by NothingButFlowers on May 17, 2011 8:12:36 GMT -5
EAP, I would have found it suspicious if Sarah made a proposal to noage to change her vote and then left noage in the runoff. It would have looked like she set him up. It seems to me that you should be able to see that that would have been suspicious.
LLL, the voting partners sort of evolved as a way to get things started in the first round. There isn't really any protocol involved, and vote switching in the first round is not really all that uncommon because without it, whoever did not end up having a voting partner would end up making all the first round decisions. Incidentally, I didn't have a voting partner until the last game, when I seem to have picked up jhammett as mine. More on the vote switching, though: here, I switched my vote in order to create a runoff because if I hadn't, and no one else had, kdogg would have just been voted off day 1, and if you look at the day 1 votes prior to that, we wouldn't have really learned anything about who was in the mafia. A runoff can be helpful to get more information.
You can see the vote count by clicking on the number of replies on the main arcade screen:
But as you demonstrated, one can elevater her number of posts without actually saying much . . . (or anything at all really, if you look back at EAP's meepmoop post). It's an interesting list. I can't say I would ordinarily expect kdogg or superbek to be that low down on it. Jack is obviously very low too, but in the games I've played with him, he's been pretty silent regardless of whether he is mafia or townsperson. But one post in three pages might be exceptionally quiet, even for Jack.
Finally, not that I want to draw attention to it because I really don't want to be put back in the runoff, but I actually thought it was a little strange that jhammett changed his vote to take me out of it.
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-1417367-1217939740.jpeg.jpg)