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!!
Post by ☮ superbek ☮ on May 17, 2011 9:47:09 GMT -5
Jeez... this is still day one, right? I don't think I have ever seen so much vote switching on day one!
I don't really understand how all of these accusations could prevail so early in the game but something tells me that this is a trap. I honestly think that everyone has their panties in a wad for no apparant reason.
I usually stay pretty quiet the first couple of rounds until I am able to draw conclusions based on actions. The mafia wants to confuse you... don't let them know when you're vulnerable or they will only target you! Right now you guys are leaving the door wide open for them!
BUT I am curious as to why jhamm wants to see myself and quacker in a run off so badly, I mean I understand quacker has been rather mouthy from early on but I don't really understand why I should be his competitor. I know you have to vote for someone but I don't understand why you would push for me a he is the reason I am in the run off to begin with.
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.
Alright, I've seen a couple people calling me out for being quiet, so I feel I should probably try to defend myself. I know I've been really quiet this game - but I am always more of a lurker in mafia. In fact, I generally tend to make more noise when I am mafia. To me, mafia is like a game of chess - you have to spend a long time studying other people's actions and thinking 5 moves ahead of your opponent before you even begin to do anything.
Also, without going into too much detail, it has just been an incredibly stressful week around here to say the least, so that's why I haven't been around as much. I won't go into too much detail here, but we recently had not one, not two, but three separate major family emergencies pop up within a two-day span. I know it seems like a weak excuse, but it's the truth.
quacker did raise my suspicions somewhat initially, but I'm starting to think he really might have not been sure of who was mafia, and that because he's a new player, he didn't realize that changing your vote so much so early on causes you to look guilty.
JHammett does seem unusually confident that either quacker or bek is mafia - a little too confident for the first round, IMO. The first round is always tough because you can't really know anything in this game until after the first night time kill. To be so sure this early on strikes me as fairly suspicious. I wasn't really sure about EAP being mafia yet - it was moreso just a default, reciprocal vote until I had something more solid to go on. By no means am I sold on him being mafia just yet; however, at this point he seems as good a suspect as any.
Post by NothingButFlowers on May 17, 2011 12:35:42 GMT -5
^So, by doing that, you realize that you just changed it back to a 2 person runoff between bek and quacker, which is what jhammett said that he wanted in the first place?
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.
Alright, I've seen a couple people calling me out for being quiet, so I feel I should probably try to defend myself. I know I've been really quiet this game - but I am always more of a lurker in mafia. In fact, I generally tend to make more noise when I am mafia. To me, mafia is like a game of chess - you have to spend a long time studying other people's actions and thinking 5 moves ahead of your opponent before you even begin to do anything.
Also, without going into too much detail, it has just been an incredibly stressful week around here to say the least, so that's why I haven't been around as much. I won't go into too much detail here, but we recently had not one, not two, but three separate major family emergencies pop up within a two-day span. I know it seems like a weak excuse, but it's the truth.
quacker did raise my suspicions somewhat initially, but I'm starting to think he really might have not been sure of who was mafia, and that because he's a new player, he didn't realize that changing your vote so much so early on causes you to look guilty.
JHammett does seem unusually confident that either quacker or bek is mafia - a little too confident for the first round, IMO. The first round is always tough because you can't really know anything in this game until after the first night time kill. To be so sure this early on strikes me as fairly suspicious. I wasn't really sure about EAP being mafia yet - it was moreso just a default, reciprocal vote until I had something more solid to go on. By no means am I sold on him being mafia just yet; however, at this point he seems as good a suspect as any.
Jack >>> EAP >>> JHammett
With this vote you are making the first round a runoff between two people, which is what many of us were trying to avoid. I'm not sold on EAP being mafia, but I changed my vote to allow for more than a two person runoff. I'd rather not change my vote again, but I feel that in the first round having just two people is a bad idea. In fact, every time I have played both people in the first round runoff have been townys. Just something to think about.
Ok I think i'm going to have to set a deadline or you guys are going to continue changing votes forever. I would like to close by 5 pacific 10 is the very latest.
Ok I think i'm going to have to set a deadline or you guys are going to continue changing votes forever. I would like to close by 5 pacific 10 is the very latest.
^So, by doing that, you realize that you just changed it back to a 2 person runoff between bek and quacker, which is what jhammett said that he wanted in the first place?
Oh Jack, did you mean to take the runoff down to only 2 people???
*sigh*
Well now we are back to where we were 2 pages ago. I guess, for some reason, Jham and Jack don't believe it better to have more than 2 in the runoff.
^So, by doing that, you realize that you just changed it back to a 2 person runoff between bek and quacker, which is what jhammett said that he wanted in the first place?
Leno, that is a very valid point, I guess I didn't really stop to consider how it would affect vote totals. I still think jhammett seems kind of sketchy, but I definitely don't want to force a run-off between two people who I don't really have any reason to believe are mafia. On second thought, I'm going to nix my last vote.
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 like my vote as it is. I pretty much already told you who my second vote would go to, had I had two. Bek & quacker remain in the runoff, and I am fine with that.
I'm working with an earlier theory about games in which I am a Townsperson; I did my research before I brought it up 2 or 3 games ago, and found that - though it needed some improvement - my theory had adequate validity to keep working on. I had a good stretch of games where I narrowly survived one-vote Day One margins as a Townsperson. Every time I had one of these, I figured Mafia was always out to get me first. When I actually did go back and research my previous five games as Townsperson, I found out that there always was a Mafia sending me into a runoff. It happened five times out of five, six for six counting the game in which I first brought it up. When I finally did bring this up in a game, I was pretty close to right... I've since hypothesized on where I was wrong. The games I'd researched, some of them had two players sending me into the runoff & others had three players send me in. So my research/theory was iffy on the third vote against me... but in 100% of games where I've been a Townsperson the past year, a Mafia cast one of the first two votes for me.
In this game, that is quacker and Bek. Make of that what you will - I know I am.
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. ???
BUT I am curious as to why jhamm wants to see myself and quacker in a run off so badly, I mean I understand quacker has been rather mouthy from early on but I don't really understand why I should be his competitor. I know you have to vote for someone but I don't understand why you would push for me a he is the reason I am in the run off to begin with.
^So, by doing that, you realize that you just changed it back to a 2 person runoff between bek and quacker, which is what jhammett said that he wanted in the first place?
Why is everyone making this about jhammett being the one pushing this agenda? I'm sorry, but I was the one who expended the time and effort to draft a theory and research past games to test its accuracy. As such, I request that y'all give me credit where credit is due. I think I have a solid strategic foundation upon which to be 50-50 suspicious of both Bek and quacker at this point, even in the first round. I suspect neither of these as particular individuals just yet, but I find that the space they occupy in this game definitely contains a Mafia.
If you're going to attack jhammett for espousing a course of action which fully aligns with my theory, you are essentially attacking my theory. I don't know what jhammett's role is, but I know at this point I trust this theory more than I trust ten out of ten players. If y'all keep wanting to go down this path, you're going to have to go through me.
Now, some of you have been pointing out that I've been a bit quiet, and that is a legitimate point of criticism. (Oh, and btw LLL... bring up post counts all you want, but I got Double Or Nothing on last game's beer that I've put more words into this game than you.) I would like to say, in my defense, that I always have a strategic suggestion for the best runoff available which I recommend... and it consistently never happens. Not this time. I want Bek & quacker in the runoff, and Bek & quacker are in the runoff. I don't want to rock the boat, because the present situation is actually my prescripted remedy for a changed - at least at the basic level.
If anyone wants to follow me further down the rabbit hole...
kdogg >>> null
If anyone should be in the runoff with quacker & Bek, it should be me. Without me in the runoff, my most trusted tool in my Townsperson toolkit is no good. If you trust me, I ask that you vote me into the runoff.
Oh, I will mention that I will only revert my vote to one of three players: Bek, quacker or myself. Whichever vote it would take to put the three of us 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, 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.
For my part, I wasn't so much concerned with the fact that this was what jhammett said he wanted as with the fact that Jack said he didn't trust jhammett and then proceeded to do exactly what it was jhammett said he wanted.
Another Jhamm possibility is that his post was a drunken rambling. I've been to "software conferences" before. PARTY!!!
I didn't throw either of you into a run off, but rather removed someone I feel is innocent from the runoff.
Also, I was tired, and pissed off about using this suck-ass tablet to surf the internet, not drunk. If I were a drinker, I am pretty sure I would have been lit though, so you are definitely right about that.
(Oh, and btw LLL... bring up post counts all you want, but I got Double Or Nothing on last game's beer that I've put more words into this game than you.)
Counting this novella you just wrote, yes. Prior to that, you've got a bet.
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 like my vote as it is. I pretty much already told you who my second vote would go to, had I had two. Bek & quacker remain in the runoff, and I am fine with that.
I took that into account but I couldn't just leave you off the list. It's not all that telling at this point of the game anyway. I do think it was worth mentioning because I don't see all three mafia being involved in these vote switches. I might be wrong.
I'm working with an earlier theory about games in which I am a Townsperson......... but in 100% of games where I've been a Townsperson the past year, a Mafia cast one of the first two votes for me.
In this game, that is quacker and Bek. Make of that what you will - I know I am.
Do you see any pattern from the innocent players that voted for you? I assume the innocent was Bek, in the games where she was a townperson. Let's say your theory is correct and one of those two is mafia. Can you think of anything that might lead you in the guilty party's direction?
Last Edit: May 18, 2011 0:44:26 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on May 17, 2011 23:49:19 GMT -5
Give me a little bit of time on this one. I have to mull this over. I am at work and the Nuns have caught on to me logging into an old network so that I could circumvent their block on "message boards" and Ebay.
I haven't played with Bek or EAP (well, Bek for one round ) So I don't know how they usually handle their roles. Sarah and Quacker seem like unlikely suspects due to being new players, and that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. However, if this is one of those games when noobs are given a Mafia assignment, my beers would be on Quacker over Sarah based on behavior alone.
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.
oh .i guess quacker would be my only other choice.
what do you guys think?
I'm not sure. If you vote for quacker then that's leading us back to the run-off we had originally. You'll probable have to do it for self preservation, if you see the angles I'm seeing.
oh .i guess quacker would be my only other choice.
what do you guys think?
Your data seems really solid but the mafia used your theorizing to win the game before last.
So I'll bring it up again, Bek is your established voting partner. How does your theory hold up with Bek being a vital part of the first rounds in question?
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-1417367-1217939740.jpeg.jpg)
) So I don't know how they usually handle their roles. Sarah and Quacker seem like unlikely suspects due to being new players, and that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. However, if this is one of those games when noobs are given a Mafia assignment, my beers would be on Quacker over Sarah based on behavior alone.