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!!
Players are listed in the order they signed up. Numbers 1 -11 are written on same size paper slips and crumpled up. Numbers are drawn from the hat and assigned to the players in the sign up order.
All numbers go back in the hat. The number for the inspector is pulled. Then three numbers are pulled for the mafia. The mafia numbers go back in the hat, and of the three the number pulled is the name the inspector gets.
Viking, I have a hard time thinking you'd be this vocal as Mafia this early in the game. Obviously I have no real way of knowing that for certain, but so far I'm not really suspicious of you at all. You claim to be a Townie, I am a Townie as well this game.
CSTNZ, the same goes for you too. I don't have any real suspicion with you either based on your voting or your posting.
This is weaksauce, but it is all I really have to go on right now. EAP was the first to request a 3 person runoff, as soon as she was voted for by bacon and became the 2nd potential in a 2 person runoff (with SFA). I know that lots of players request and see the benefit of having a 3 person versus a 2 person runoff, even in Day 1. However, I feel that it eases the ability for MOafia to separate from each other in their votes.
Duddits >>> EAP
I don't want to harp on him too hard because I don't have a ton to go on, but I disagree that Viking wouldn't be as vocal. Being vocal and analytical is his thing... If he was quiet people would get crazy suspicious. So I wouldn't count him out just because he's involved.
Viking, I have a hard time thinking you'd be this vocal as Mafia this early in the game. Obviously I have no real way of knowing that for certain, but so far I'm not really suspicious of you at all. You claim to be a Townie, I am a Townie as well this game.
CSTNZ, the same goes for you too. I don't have any real suspicion with you either based on your voting or your posting.
This is weaksauce, but it is all I really have to go on right now. EAP was the first to request a 3 person runoff, as soon as she was voted for by bacon and became the 2nd potential in a 2 person runoff (with SFA). I know that lots of players request and see the benefit of having a 3 person versus a 2 person runoff, even in Day 1. However, I feel that it eases the ability for MOafia to separate from each other in their votes.
Duddits >>> EAP
I don't want to harp on him too hard because I don't have a ton to go on, but I disagree that Viking wouldn't be as vocal. Being vocal and analytical is his thing... If he was quiet people would get crazy suspicious. So I wouldn't count him out just because he's involved.
I don't count anyone out. Thats why I would like to hear from EAP before I lock in on you. And CSTNZ is correct. analyzing is my thing. I think it is more effective than lurking, because in addition to your own thoughts, you can see where I am coming from. At least you have one more reasoned viewpoint than "i'm not mafia" which to CSTNZ's credit, he is not doing.
I am working on something based on an article I read and some of the comments made. Should be back soon.
This is weaksauce, but it is all I really have to go on right now. EAP was the first to request a 3 person runoff, as soon as she was voted for by bacon and became the 2nd potential in a 2 person runoff (with SFA). I know that lots of players request and see the benefit of having a 3 person versus a 2 person runoff, even in Day 1. However, I feel that it eases the ability for Mafia to separate from each other in their votes.
Duddits >>> EAP
yeah....you realize i did this so that there would be less of a chance of myself being voted off. the more people in the runoff, the better chance i have.
now if i wasn't in the runoff and suggested adding others, than that would be a little sketch.
what i can say in my defense is i'm definitely a townie and i really think that i am a good one. i suck at being inspector (hard core) and my record as mafia is meh....but i usually do well as a townie and i'd really like to stay around help figure some shit out (with no name calling ).
we have just started the game and really the only person who looks shady to me so far is bacon b/c he said he voted for me based on this "theory" but then he didn't really follow his theory and in turn made himself exactly what his theory was going against.
as far as constanza and viking......i don't know.
i do think the long winded thing is just viking's style but that could also be really easy to hide behind. constanza is kind of all over the place, helpful but not really doing anything out of the ordinary??
Well damn. All I can say in my defense is that I really don't feel I've done anything suspicious. If you don't get my vote change onto viking I can't really say anything else. He had tons of players to choose from for the runoff, and he knows from last game that SFA can be really really helpful. I almost bought EAP's fake inspector nonsense until SFA broke it down a bit. I would say quite possibly that he and LLL pretty much saved last game from descending into madness. So why, when there were 8 people already on the board with a vote besides yourself, would you throw him into the runoff? I understand that there IS a 3/11 chance that he is mafia, but I wouldn't want to put him in danger until I had a reason to be suspicious. You say you were willing to change your vote, but you had to know that even if you did that, in the runoff, theres always a chance that he gets eliminated.
There were so many choices for the runoff, and yet you chose a player who could potentially be one of the Mafia's biggest threats, and then immediately tried to get people to turn on me once I pointed it out. I'm sorry but from where I stand, that doesn't just look like nothing to me.
I'm not changing my vote just yet but if push comes to shove, EAP, I will take my crosshairs off Viking and vote for you to protect myself. But, you said it best, Vikings long winded style could be really easy to hide behind. I think you should reconsider your vote.
we have just started the game and really the only person who looks shady to me so far is bacon b/c he said he voted for me based on this "theory" but then he didn't really follow his theory and in turn made himself exactly what his theory was going against.
Actually I am. Don't get caught up on the SFA vote that was just something random I used to choose who to vote for. The heart of my theory is it is better to have a known towny (me [obviously only known to me]) choose who is in the run-off.
OK, I want to preface this post by saying sorry Phi. You used the method to select us, and I am going to turn over any rock looking for mafia, and helping out the townies. I sent you the article last night to give you a heads up that random is not as random as you think.
So thursday, we got into a discussion on odds, which I believe I mentioned yesterday. In this game, each play starts with a built in 27.27% chance of being mafia provided selection was completely random. The problem is, unless you use the manual method like fawn, or a random number generator, methods are not random.
While killing time, I found this article yesterday:
For those of you who are not interested in revisiting calculus class, it essentially proves that if you can see the side of the coin that is up before it is flipped, you can gain an inherient advantage in a coin toss based on side bias. In the case of a coin, the side up will come up just over 51% of the time, while the side down just less than 49% of the time.
I took out the formulas, and built a model of how phi selected the mafia in order to help determine who is more or less likely to be mafia. I used the initial list he provided and assumed he didn't randomize, since the list was the same between mafia 46, and mafia 47. Also, the scroll speed of excel is roughly 30 spaces per second, so I used that as my constant, and extrapolated the data out to 10 seconds.
The point is, provided that phi scrolled under 6 seconds, there is more than a 2% upward and 2% downward shift at the extremes from the standard 27.27%, with the shift being as drastic as 10% at 1 second. The reason for this is that as the first name on his list, by scrolling, it takes 10 spaces for me to get my first shot at being mafia, and everyone gets a shot before me. This goes on and on until he stops.
I know I am a townie, but this is to help those of you who are more calculus and statistically minded like me. The highest chance is Nic, since he gets first look each time through. Duddits is the median, and I am on the low end. If anyone is interested, I can post the model with percentages.
For the interests of this runoff, if we assume a 3 second scroll, CSTNZ is 1.2% more likely, EAP is 1.2% less likely, and I am 3% less likely. Again, none of this is proof. Just another data point for you to look at.
OK, I want to preface this post by saying sorry Phi. You used the method to select us, and I am going to turn over any rock looking for mafia, and helping out the townies. I sent you the article last night to give you a heads up that random is not as random as you think.
So thursday, we got into a discussion on odds, which I believe I mentioned yesterday. In this game, each play starts with a built in 27.27% chance of being mafia provided selection was completely random. The problem is, unless you use the manual method like fawn, or a random number generator, methods are not random.
While killing time, I found this article yesterday:
For those of you who are not interested in revisiting calculus class, it essentially proves that if you can see the side of the coin that is up before it is flipped, you can gain an inherient advantage in a coin toss based on side bias. In the case of a coin, the side up will come up just over 51% of the time, while the side down just less than 49% of the time.
I took out the formulas, and built a model of how phi selected the mafia in order to help determine who is more or less likely to be mafia. I used the initial list he provided and assumed he didn't randomize, since the list was the same between mafia 46, and mafia 47. Also, the scroll speed of excel is roughly 30 spaces per second, so I used that as my constant, and extrapolated the data out to 10 seconds.
The point is, provided that phi scrolled under 6 seconds, there is more than a 2% upward and 2% downward shift at the extremes from the standard 27.27%, with the shift being as drastic as 10% at 1 second. The reason for this is that as the first name on his list, by scrolling, it takes 10 spaces for me to get my first shot at being mafia, and everyone gets a shot before me. This goes on and on until he stops.
I know I am a townie, but this is to help those of you who are more calculus and statistically minded like me. The highest chance is Nic, since he gets first look each time through. Duddits is the median, and I am on the low end. If anyone is interested, I can post the model with percentages.
For the interests of this runoff, if we assume a 3 second scroll, CSTNZ is 1.2% more likely, EAP is 1.2% less likely, and I am 3% less likely. Again, none of this is proof. Just another data point for you to look at.
So instead of basing it off of facts and voting patterns and suspicious activity you base it upon a statistical analysis of our names that you did by yourself? The thing is, if even the tiniest assumption on your part is incorrect (like you said scroll speed of excel is roughly 30 spaces per second... what if it was 28? or 32? that would fuck up all the rest of your data. This doesn't jive with me. I would really recommend that the townies base none of their decision on this. These percentages reflect very little onto how this actual game will play out.
I know you said yourself that its not proof so I don't want to come off as attacking you, but I just really feel that the stuff you posted is meaningless.
OK, I want to preface this post by saying sorry Phi. You used the method to select us, and I am going to turn over any rock looking for mafia, and helping out the townies. I sent you the article last night to give you a heads up that random is not as random as you think.
So thursday, we got into a discussion on odds, which I believe I mentioned yesterday. In this game, each play starts with a built in 27.27% chance of being mafia provided selection was completely random. The problem is, unless you use the manual method like fawn, or a random number generator, methods are not random.
While killing time, I found this article yesterday:
For those of you who are not interested in revisiting calculus class, it essentially proves that if you can see the side of the coin that is up before it is flipped, you can gain an inherient advantage in a coin toss based on side bias. In the case of a coin, the side up will come up just over 51% of the time, while the side down just less than 49% of the time.
I took out the formulas, and built a model of how phi selected the mafia in order to help determine who is more or less likely to be mafia. I used the initial list he provided and assumed he didn't randomize, since the list was the same between mafia 46, and mafia 47. Also, the scroll speed of excel is roughly 30 spaces per second, so I used that as my constant, and extrapolated the data out to 10 seconds.
The point is, provided that phi scrolled under 6 seconds, there is more than a 2% upward and 2% downward shift at the extremes from the standard 27.27%, with the shift being as drastic as 10% at 1 second. The reason for this is that as the first name on his list, by scrolling, it takes 10 spaces for me to get my first shot at being mafia, and everyone gets a shot before me. This goes on and on until he stops.
I know I am a townie, but this is to help those of you who are more calculus and statistically minded like me. The highest chance is Nic, since he gets first look each time through. Duddits is the median, and I am on the low end. If anyone is interested, I can post the model with percentages.
For the interests of this runoff, if we assume a 3 second scroll, CSTNZ is 1.2% more likely, EAP is 1.2% less likely, and I am 3% less likely. Again, none of this is proof. Just another data point for you to look at.
So instead of basing it off of facts and voting patterns and suspicious activity you base it upon a statistical analysis of our names that you did by yourself? The thing is, if even the tiniest assumption on your part is incorrect (like you said scroll speed of excel is roughly 30 spaces per second... what if it was 28? or 32? that would quack up all the rest of your data. This doesn't jive with me. I would really recommend that the townies base none of their decision on this. These percentages reflect very little onto how this actual game will play out.
I know you said yourself that its not proof so I don't want to come off as attacking you, but I just really feel that the stuff you posted is meaningless.
Shifting the constants does not "quack" up the formula. All it would do is adjust the percentages somewhat. I worried about posting this, since I knew I would get a response like yours. Look, all it is is another FACTUAL data point, which helps qualify suspicions. This does not say I am innocent or you are mafia. All it did was reclarify the 27.27% odds based on how phi selected. Your mafia could still be me and the next 2 lowest odds. The point of the post was to show the bais.
I understand that, but when you post that all you do is skew viewpoints. Statistics like that don't matter in single situations. You're statistically more likely to get struck by lighting than attacked by a shark, but in a single situation it doesn't matter if you're the one getting eaten by a shark. You can't base decisions like this on statistics.
And also, you're still kind of marring the point. I keep asking why you chose one of the most potentially threatening players to the mafia to go into the runoff. Instead you just posted a bunch of stats on why I am 1.2% more likely to be mafia than EAP, and 3% more likely than you
You said it was "for luck" but I still don't buy it/get it.
EAP is playing a lot like she did last game so for right now I am going with her until I hear more or see something more damning from the other 2.
rdk >>> EAP
Well I actually don't think she is but this brings up a point that I hadn't thought of. Last game EAP was mafia but went all crazy and faked inspector, but the game beforehand she was cool and quiet. Not only that, but she let me and sarah just wring each others throats and scream at each other while she sat back as the final mafia. Now me and viking are doing a similar thing and everyone is just sitting back and watching. So maybe it's not EAP, instead it's someone else, but I have a feeling that the mafia are sitting back and loving that me and viking are going at it right now.
I've still got my eye on you, viking, but I'm giving you the slight benefit of the doubt for now, because your enthusiam came off a bit sketchy last game but you clearly weren't mafia. I think for this round EAPs silence and also her voting for me for next to no reason (she even said herself I didn't seem suspicious before voting for me...) give me good reason to switch.
I understand that, but when you post that all you do is skew viewpoints. Statistics like that don't matter in single situations. You're statistically more likely to get struck by lighting than attacked by a shark, but in a single situation it doesn't matter if you're the one getting eaten by a shark. You can't base decisions like this on statistics.
And also, you're still kind of marring the point. I keep asking why you chose one of the most potentially threatening players to the mafia to go into the runoff. Instead you just posted a bunch of stats on why I am 1.2% more likely to be mafia than EAP, and 3% more likely than you
You said it was "for luck" but I still don't buy it/get it.
How can you say statistics don't matter? Yes, it skews a viewpoint, because the selections was skewed. All I did was calculate the opening odds of being selected. Why is that making you so angry?
As for your comment, I think I have answered it before, but I will repeat it, citing quotes so you can be happy. First of all, I don't care if SFA is the oracle. He could still be mafia, and if he is mafia, your leaning on him for guidence could get all of us townies killed. Why are you so vested in his survival when there are other experienced mafia players playing.
Well it's hard to say. Because I feel like both possible defenses against mafia are representing themselves. Some mafia like to just play it cool and sell their "innocence" with their confidence. This doesn't exactly make sense to me in the first round because, just like its hard to prove someone guilty in round one, its also hard to prove your innocence in round one. So I find it so hard to believe that if she were a townie, she wouldn't be freaking out right now trying to make sure that a mafia gets voted off instead of the one person she KNOWS is a townie (her).
The other possible defense is the accusatory one, which is what I thought viking was doing. Even though I feel that stack on SFA was still odd, I feel more and more like he possibly just didn't think it through. I mentioned that one thing (the SFA stack) and he just want feet first into the assault on me, switching up the runoff only when it was pointed out how weird and senseless his vote was. But as he continues to describe things I am growing less, though still slightly, suspicious of him. Even though I thought that percentages thing was kind of meaningless in terms of actually figuring out mafia, it would be a pretty strange mafia strategy to go thru all of that statistics legwork for absolutely no real reason. So right now I'm going to ease up on viking and stick with EAP.
EAP is playing a lot like she did last game so for right now I am going with her until I hear more or see something more damning from the other 2.
rdk >>> EAP
Well I actually don't think she is but this brings up a point that I hadn't thought of. Last game EAP was mafia but went all crazy and faked inspector, but the game beforehand she was cool and quiet. Not only that, but she let me and sarah just wring each others throats and scream at each other while she sat back as the final mafia. Now me and viking are doing a similar thing and everyone is just sitting back and watching. So maybe it's not EAP, instead it's someone else, but I have a feeling that the mafia are sitting back and loving that me and viking are going at it right now.
I've still got my eye on you, viking, but I'm giving you the slight benefit of the doubt for now, because your enthusiam came off a bit sketchy last game but you clearly weren't mafia. I think for this round EAPs silence and also her voting for me for next to no reason (she even said herself I didn't seem suspicious before voting for me...) give me good reason to switch.
CSTNZ >>> Viking >>> EAP
This is a very good reason for me to switch. I would love to hear from EAP at this point.
^^^ that post, and the "its hard to say" line was supposed to be to RDK saying that I've brought up good points against both of you. I'm starting to doubt your innocence less, viking, because you're sticking to your guns and even though I disagree with your concepts (I really do feel like statistics don't matter in the individual event if its all random) but you truly seem to believe they will do the townies good, so either you're great at internet acting or you're innocent.
Well it's hard to say. Because I feel like both possible defenses against mafia are representing themselves. Some mafia like to just play it cool and sell their "innocence" with their confidence. This doesn't exactly make sense to me in the first round because, just like its hard to prove someone guilty in round one, its also hard to prove your innocence in round one. So I find it so hard to believe that if she were a townie, she wouldn't be freaking out right now trying to make sure that a mafia gets voted off instead of the one person she KNOWS is a townie (her).
The other possible defense is the accusatory one, which is what I thought viking was doing. Even though I feel that stack on SFA was still odd, I feel more and more like he possibly just didn't think it through. I mentioned that one thing (the SFA stack) and he just want feet first into the assault on me, switching up the runoff only when it was pointed out how weird and senseless his vote was. But as he continues to describe things I am growing less, though still slightly, suspicious of him. Even though I thought that percentages thing was kind of meaningless in terms of actually figuring out mafia, it would be a pretty strange mafia strategy to go thru all of that statistics legwork for absolutely no real reason. So right now I'm going to ease up on viking and stick with EAP.
Thanks. I don't want people to feel like I am attacking. I really would like to hear from EAP, since it is pretty bizarre that she has posted nothing, despite a lot of activity on other boards. Using lessons learned from last game, I am keeping an open mind on this in the first round, since Surf tried the same thing to skate by. EAP was on late night last night when we were already in the runoff, and then again for a while this morning while we have been going back and forth.
My vote is definitely not locked in. I would love to see what she has to say.
honestly this is kind of making me feel like BOTH of you are mafia and you are trying to make me look quiet.
the reason i haven't really responded is b/c i don't really have anything to say??? i guess you guys are always wanting people to say so much! sometimes i don't do that! geeze.
viking i appreciate and respect all your "data" stuff. the thing is, you can't really ever count on that stuff.
guys. most of you have only played the last two games with me when i was mafia. in almost every single game i played before that (literally like 15 games or something) i was either inspector or a townie. if you want to see my playing style as a townie, please go back and look at one of those.
i usually don't do much accusing till later rounds and then i try to back it up with quoting and votes. i am trying realllllllllly hard not to be a liability this time to make up for all the shit i caused last game.
the fact that all these votes have been so quickly stacked up on me is suspicious!!! surely you guys can see that???
Well it's hard to say. Because I feel like both possible defenses against mafia are representing themselves. Some mafia like to just play it cool and sell their "innocence" with their confidence. This doesn't exactly make sense to me in the first round because, just like its hard to prove someone guilty in round one, its also hard to prove your innocence in round one. So I find it so hard to believe that if she were a townie, she wouldn't be freaking out right now trying to make sure that a mafia gets voted off instead of the one person she KNOWS is a townie (her).
The other possible defense is the accusatory one, which is what I thought viking was doing. Even though I feel that stack on SFA was still odd, I feel more and more like he possibly just didn't think it through. I mentioned that one thing (the SFA stack) and he just want feet first into the assault on me, switching up the runoff only when it was pointed out how weird and senseless his vote was. But as he continues to describe things I am growing less, though still slightly, suspicious of him. Even though I thought that percentages thing was kind of meaningless in terms of actually figuring out mafia, it would be a pretty strange mafia strategy to go thru all of that statistics legwork for absolutely no real reason. So right now I'm going to ease up on viking and stick with EAP.
Thanks. I don't want people to feel like I am attacking. I really would like to hear from EAP, since it is pretty bizarre that she has posted nothing, despite a lot of activity on other boards. Using lessons learned from last game, I am keeping an open mind on this in the first round, since Surf tried the same thing to skate by. EAP was on late night last night when we were already in the runoff, and then again for a while this morning while we have been going back and forth.
My vote is definitely not locked in. I would love to see what she has to say.
the reason i didn't post last night was b/c it was friday, and i had been out a show and then having fun talking with everyone in the chatroom. i didn't want to be serious and focus. rdk, sarah and SFA were in there too and none of them posted either.
So wait, EAP, you vote for me with shitty reasoning (again, you said I wasn't really that suspicious and then voted for me in the damn runoff) and I reciprocated after a little bit of thought. I would hardly call that a suspicious stack. What did you expect? I said unless Viking made himself look way more suspicious than he already did, that I was probably going to change my vote to you to defend myself, and thats what I did. The only thing my vote has to do with RDK is that he triggered a memory in my head of me and sarah fighting while you just sat and watched, and how similar it is to this situation, save being at the end of the game.
the reason i haven't really responded is b/c i don't really have anything to say??? i guess you guys are always wanting people to say so much! sometimes i don't do that! geeze.
Thats not true. CSNTZ actually was one fo the lowest post counts in the last two first rounds he played in. Going back to my chart, your statement about you not posting is relatively correct, except for mafia 40, when you were tossed in the Day 1 runoff. That game, you flipped your poop, partially because you didnt like scrog, partially because you were defending yourself. You were a townie in that game. Since I have not charted past Mafia 39 yet, I haven't looked to any other game where that happened. Just using the 1 data point though, if you are a townie, you are acting very different.
viking i appreciate and respect all your "data" stuff. the thing is, you can't really ever count on that stuff.
Same thing I said to CSTNZ. I never said count on it. I just did the analysis. And just like I said to him, it seems strange that you are saying, thats great that you have data, but you should not really use it.
We are in a run-off by the way. Votes tend to stack in these.
