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!!
Technically it was. So we can add quacker, kdogg and jhamm, and initially NBF to the list of vote stackers. That's a long list of suspects. Good luck untangling this mess. I don't even know where to start and I have no good reason to change my vote at this moment so I remain where I am unless someone really screws the pooch and makes it obvious that they are in the mob.
It's the first round and it's been a mess. Forcing another runoff does more good then letting EAP just be voted off.
I don't yet understand the benefit of run-off after run-off. I'm sure I will eventually. Truth be told, none of these four strike me as particularly malicious (except maybe EAP, who called me a dumbo which seems pretty harsh). Anyways, my point is that our chances of voting a townsperson no matter who we vote off are pretty high if not ensured.
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.
In the vote tally before this one, Bek also had 4 votes for her. So, if this is your reasoning as to EAP (which I don't necessarily disagree with, actually), why does it not apply to Bek as well? And I'm going to need a better reason than that she voted for you.
Was this what you were talking about? I didn't say it didn't apply to Bek. Just to remind you, I did switch my vote away from Bek... do you think I'd say they're both suspicious, and then continue to stop paying attention to them? I'd also like to point out for disclosure's sake that you voted for Bek along with me. If voting for Bek is such a suspicious activity, why does it make me guilty and you righteous enough to judge me for it?
It's the first round and it's been a mess. Forcing another runoff does more good then letting EAP just be voted off.
I don't yet understand the benefit of run-off after run-off. I'm sure I will eventually. Truth be told, none of these four strike me as particularly malicious (except maybe EAP, who called me a dumbo which seems pretty harsh). Anyways, my point is that our chances of voting a townsperson no matter who we vote off are pretty high if not ensured.
We will probably vote off a Towny, you are right. The runoffs make sure that everyone has to vote and later in the game we can look back and see what the forced votes say. Then look at earlier reasons for doing so and find discrepancies.
Last Edit: May 20, 2011 3:28:14 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I'm getting really uncomfortable with my vote switch. Kdogg hasn't made an effort to address anything I've said.I know he is diligent in keeping up with this game.
SFA>>> quacker >>> sarah >>> EAP
You remember that clip from Toddlers and Tiaras I asked you to edit for me a few months ago? Yeah, I'm gonna need you to finish that up for me pronto.
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 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?
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?
There might be others. It's to late for me to dig back into this mess of a first round. I feel these were legit questions.
first of all. could we please have an updated CORRECT tally??? the one from page 6 is not right.
second of all....SFA, you wanted to even things up between sarah and i, and now you are fine with killing me? (which your vote will do). i do not understand how you guys don't see that if i have 5 votes that there is MOST DEFINITELY at least one mafia member voting for me! it is stacking plain and simple!
LLL, i am sorry if you felt dumbo was directed completely at you and "too harsh". i guess i felt like i kept reading over and over and over again "sarah can't be mafia it is her first time playing". THIS IS NOT TRUE. you can be mafia on your first time playing.
Post by ☮ superbek ☮ on May 20, 2011 10:06:42 GMT -5
So by kdogg's reasoning, quacker would be the only person who voted for me that falls into that "double positive" category like Sarah. AND he also voted for kdogg who believes that at least one of the two people who voted for him must be mafia. I admit that I find this a little unusual for kdogg to have overlooked and therefore I will be sticking to my vote for the time being and not jumping on anyone else's band wagon. I have found that the number one mistake that anyone could make in this game is following someone else's reasoning w/o a solid foundation. This is day one... there is no foundation so I don't trust any of you.
However if you are about putting Sarah in a run off with someone based on kdogg's reasoning then why wouldn't you hold true to that on the otherside and put quacker in there with her. Your call. Sad thing is that they are both first time players....
All will claim to be townies, any can claim to be the inspector, and none will claim to be mafia.
In the vote tally before this one, Bek also had 4 votes for her. So, if this is your reasoning as to EAP (which I don't necessarily disagree with, actually), why does it not apply to Bek as well? And I'm going to need a better reason than that she voted for you.
Was this what you were talking about? I didn't say it didn't apply to Bek. Just to remind you, I did switch my vote away from Bek... do you think I'd say they're both suspicious, and then continue to stop paying attention to them? I'd also like to point out for disclosure's sake that you voted for Bek along with me. If voting for Bek is such a suspicious activity, why does it make me guilty and you righteous enough to judge me for it?
I suppose this is directed at me since SFA never voted for bek along with you.
First, although I asked this question, I was not the one who asked you why you hadn't answered my question. I felt like your change from Bek to Sarah was acknowledgment of the situation, even if it wasn't really an adequate answer.
Second, you switched your vote away from bek after I asked the question, so I'm not sure really what relevance your vote switch has to that particular question.
Third, I did vote for bek into the runoff because we needed to have a runoff and nobody else was doing it, and because, as I stated previously, she was the only one I could think of a logical reason for switching to. I also changed my vote off of bek before I asked you why this reasoning did not apply to her because, by that time, I had started to think that when you looked at bek and EAP together, there were an awful lot of people voting for them, so I figured at least one of the two is most likely innocent.
Fourth, righteous enough to judge you? I asked you a simple, logical question about something you had said. Why can you not ever play this game without acting like a total ass?
So by kdogg's reasoning, quacker would be the only person who voted for me that falls into that "double positive" category like Sarah. AND he also voted for kdogg who believes that at least one of the two people who voted for him must be mafia. I admit that I find this a little unusual for kdogg to have overlooked and therefore I will be sticking to my vote for the time being and not jumping on anyone else's band wagon. I have found that the number one mistake that anyone could make in this game is following someone else's reasoning w/o a solid foundation. This is day one... there is no foundation so I don't trust any of you.
However if you are about putting Sarah in a run off with someone based on kdogg's reasoning then why wouldn't you hold true to that on the otherside and put quacker in there with her. Your call. Sad thing is that they are both first time players....
All will claim to be townies, any can claim to be the inspector, and none will claim to be mafia.
kdogg's "double positive" was (1) in the runoff, and (2) voting for EAP. Quacker never voted for EAP, so how did he fall into the double positive? I totally agree with not jumping on other people's bandwagons. I voted for Sarah for my own reasons before kdogg switched over to her. I do kind of think it would suck to vote to kill her though because I like Sarah, and I hope that she plays again, but going on what I have to go on, my gut tells me that I should stick with my vote for her. For what it's worth, my preference for a second runoff would be one between EAP and Sarah.
Fourth, righteous enough to judge you? I asked you a simple, logical question about something you had said. Why can you not ever play this game without acting like a total ass?
You do realize that I have to at least put myself into the perceivable grey area between innocent and guilty in order to survive, right? No matter what my role is, I have to skew towards the center. Too far in one direction, and I get voted off and/or whacked.
As to your questions above:
Do you see any pattern from the innocent players that voted for you? No. It just takes one player being suspicious of me, which can be legitimate, to unknowingly join forces with a Mafia voting against me.
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? The first thing that comes to mind, I'd rather not say. There is also the written voting/deliberation record to look back upon. We will also have deaths to reference later in the game.
Your data seems really solid but the mafia used your theorizing to win the game before last. Game before last, I entered the runoff with three votes. Most of the games I looked at, I was put into the runoff with two votes. This difference accounts for where I was wrong - remember how Townies were led astray by my pointing out SFA & Airline? That was because I was up in the air about the third vote against me. I do think that this line of reasoning still holds true for the first two votes.
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? Bek is not a "vital part" of my theory. She just happens to keep being involved in it by way of being my voting partner... hell, I'm surprised she doesn't want out of the arrangement. Bek's inclusion in such suspicions is coincidental to the fact that she is my voting partner. Mafia always votes for me in the first round. As someone who meets that requirement, I can't not wonder about her. As to this particular game... vote stacking against Bek has me erring on the side of her innocence.
Fourth, righteous enough to judge you? I asked you a simple, logical question about something you had said. Why can you not ever play this game without acting like a total ass?
You do realize that I have to at least put myself into the perceivable grey area between innocent and guilty in order to survive, right? No matter what my role is, I have to skew towards the center. Too far in one direction, and I get voted off and/or whacked.
For what it's worth, my preference for a second runoff would be one between EAP and Sarah.
I think this would be beneficial as well. I'd like to force some of the quieter players to have to make another vote. I probable shouldn't have switched my vote. That was an overreaction.
Will any EAP voter join me in forcing a runoff? Sorry Bacon.
first of all. could we please have an updated CORRECT tally??? the one from page 6 is not right.
second of all....SFA, you wanted to even things up between sarah and i, and now you are fine with killing me? (which your vote will do). i do not understand how you guys don't see that if i have 5 votes that there is MOST DEFINITELY at least one mafia member voting for me! it is stacking plain and simple!
I'm not fine with killing you. I was worried that I was putting to much trust in kdogg. I sorta forgot my own reasons for switching to Sarah. Which has to do with a couple players I pointed out earlier. Two are voting for you and one is sitting on there vote for Bek.
I was sort of hoping someone else would join me because there is clearly some vote stacking going on and some mafia sitting back hiding. This round has been a mess but the best way to gain anything from it is to force another runoff.
Ok i doesn't look like this is going to close tonight but i don't want to wait until Monday. I am going to close voting or start run-off 2 tomorrow afternoon.
I'm getting really uncomfortable with my vote switch. Kdogg hasn't made an effort to address anything I've said.I know he is diligent in keeping up with this game.
SFA>>> quacker >>> sarah >>> EAP
You remember that clip from Toddlers and Tiaras I asked you to edit for me a few months ago? Yeah, I'm gonna need you to finish that up for me pronto.
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.
Sorry for my lack of posting, I couldn't get on the internet in the hotel starting Thursday afternoon. Im back home now though, and my vote, atleast for now, is staying with Bek. But it looks like we will have another runoff.
