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!!
Basically, I knew I was in the runoff and I wasn't going to change that. So, thinking through what would happen if we had our votes on each other going into the runoff, I thought I'd make my vote movable. More options. If Jaz and I voted for each other it would be tough to get my vote off him since his vote was still on me. That way moving my vote actually has more of an effect.
Of course, this is just a theory - and I've yet to see how it plays out, but it made sense to me at the time.
My first consideration was weather or not I should just reciprocate and call it a day. Ultimately I figured someone else would get him in the runoff anyways, because of the confusion with his posts. Either way, I get to free my vote up to move with less risk to myself
In the past, haven't you said that you believe that anyone who voted for you is mafia in your eyes, deserving a reciprocal vote? By what you just typed you thought Jazmo was sure to get votes based on inconsistencies in posting.
Why would you need to change your vote from someone you suspect to be mafia if you thought everyone else would pile on him due to suspicion regarding those inconsistencies? What would "locked" votes matter at that point? Still confused, but thanks for (semi) explaining.
I think my way of thinking and the way I have communicated it in the past has been a little skewed probably my fault.
When someone votes against me I consider them mafia. In other words, I look at them more closely and look for reasons that they may be mafia. In this case, combining that with the inconsistency I have a second reason to think that.
So in the end he ends up in the runoff without me having to vote for him. And I still have a vote to cast that I can then turn to him. It's a way to garner another vote for him without me having to cast it so I can have my vote in my pocket to help lynch him. Had he not been a lock for the runoff I would have, for sure, but I didn't have to.
Between the top three vote-getters, there's nine players investing a vote in the Surfbum vote switch situation. That's more than eight Townspeople..
Another point of interest from a vet's perspective: this game has a maximal runoff slate of five. We don't have a set of official Mafia statistics to refer to*, but I'm guessing Max-5 runoffs would probably be the least-occurring possible configuration? Worth considering what/if/any gameplay factors impact a maximal runoff??
In the past, haven't you said that you believe that anyone who voted for you is mafia in your eyes, deserving a reciprocal vote? By what you just typed you thought Jazmo was sure to get votes based on inconsistencies in posting.
Why would you need to change your vote from someone you suspect to be mafia if you thought everyone else would pile on him due to suspicion regarding those inconsistencies? What would "locked" votes matter at that point? Still confused, but thanks for (semi) explaining.
I think my way of thinking and the way I have communicated it in the past has been a little skewed probably my fault.
When someone votes against me I consider them mafia. In other words, I look at them more closely and look for reasons that they may be mafia. In this case, combining that with the inconsistency I have a second reason to think that.
So in the end he ends up in the runoff without me having to vote for him. And I still have a vote to cast that I can then turn to him. It's a way to garner another vote for him without me having to cast it so I can have my vote in my pocket to help lynch him. Had he not been a lock for the runoff I would have, for sure, but I didn't have to.
That's the whole train of thought there
This is what I don't understand. At that time I was the only vote on him. How was he a lock for the runoff?
I'm suspicious for wanting a mutual way out and creating a runoff? C'mon. Someone had to do it.
I made that proposal when we had a nine-way tie for second & 12 hours until initial deadline. It wasnt even a runoff situation then.
Most players, ourselves included, were operating under constraints there. I made an offer which served the purpose of relieving the pressure off the two of us, so we would both be more comfortable breaking that stalemate. It was a diplomatic move to create a runoff. I picked a different voting pair & deferred the choice of individuals to you. No different than one team choosing "kick or receive?" & the other subsequently picking a side of the field.
You suggested I targeted you for some kind of reaction or observation? Funny of you to say that, since you were the one who voted for me first. Exactly how did I choose you with that chronology?
Enough ranting. Back to my original issue.
In initial, you weren't okay with both Jazmo & Munky getting both another vote. In this runoff, you're perfectly okay with a vote for Jazmo. What's different there?
When this runoff began, yourself and the other player spared by that action BOTH switched your votes to the same player. Munky's mixed up in Surf voting too; still not sure how it plays into things. Sorry, but it's kinda starting to look less like coincidence to me.
Even if I'm wrong about you & Munky, I still think a runoff bigger than two would be to Townspeople's benefit. That alone was reason enough withdraw from that commanding Jazmo lead.
Jeez, this took a while. I'll send this & do a separate vote post.
Nothing personal, just the logic behind it. We cast the biggest net possible, and Hakuna has zero votes. I can be fairly certain Mafia don't want him dead, and he happens to have the other swing vote.
I'm comfortable with the current three-way as many of you seem to be. I just think locking it in like this could be a safeguard on further narrowing. I'd rather run off from 5-to-3 than run a risk of running off from 5-to-2.
I'm suspicious for wanting a mutual way out and creating a runoff? C'mon. Someone had to do it.
I made that proposal when we had a nine-way tie for second & 12 hours until initial deadline. It wasnt even a runoff situation then.
Most players, ourselves included, were operating under constraints there. I made an offer which served the purpose of relieving the pressure off the two of us, so we would both be more comfortable breaking that stalemate. It was a diplomatic move to create a runoff. I picked a different voting pair & deferred the choice of individuals to you. No different than one team choosing "kick or receive?" & the other subsequently picking a side of the field.
You suggested I targeted you for some kind of reaction or observation? Funny of you to say that, since you were the one who voted for me first. Exactly how did I choose you with that chronology?
Enough ranting. Back to my original issue.
In initial, you weren't okay with both Jazmo & Munky getting both another vote. In this runoff, you're perfectly okay with a vote for Jazmo. What's different there?
I just explained this all above, but I will repeat:
When you suggested the deal with the vote, I had no reason to vote for Jazmo, other than because you suggested it. That struck me as shady. Why him over the other ten players? Suggesting a vote shift didn't make you suspicious, but the way you suggested it did, by attempting to predetermine who I could vote for. That move struck me as 100% strategic, not diplomatic, as you presented it.
Then Jazmo came along and misquoted me, and I wasn't happy with his explanation when I pressed for details, or with the way he was talking in general. Jazmo was now someone I was genuinely suspicious of, so I changed my vote.
I didn't suggest only Jazmo. I suggested a Jazmo-Munky package. I understand Jazmo continuing to play is a plausible scenario, just as I hope you & others understand that you saving Munky and the two of you then voting together is a plausible scenario. So there's that.
Important to note that, in the post I made the offer, I also told you I was open to alternative suggestions from you. You offered none and changed your vote.
Anyway, I'm fine with the three we've got now if everyone else is. Just a matter of Hakuna speaking up. I know where I'll go in the next runoff, it's just that going from Point A to Point C leaves room for more meddling at Point B. I want to avoid that if we can.
Ref Notes -voting will close when all votes are cast. depending on activity, I may close voting early at the end of Friday...or I may let it run into the weekend.
I've typically found that there is usually at least one Mafia member that tries to lie low for most of the game in order to skate by undetected - after all, if there's no heat on you, why draw attention to yourself? I can't help but notice that even though Hakuna and Tejas are both in the runoff, they are two of the three most infrequent posters. I'm not saying that necessarily makes them suspicious, but I felt it was worth noting.
I think my way of thinking and the way I have communicated it in the past has been a little skewed probably my fault.
When someone votes against me I consider them mafia. In other words, I look at them more closely and look for reasons that they may be mafia. In this case, combining that with the inconsistency I have a second reason to think that.
So in the end he ends up in the runoff without me having to vote for him. And I still have a vote to cast that I can then turn to him. It's a way to garner another vote for him without me having to cast it so I can have my vote in my pocket to help lynch him. Had he not been a lock for the runoff I would have, for sure, but I didn't have to.
That's the whole train of thought there
This is what I don't understand. At that time I was the only vote on him. How was he a lock for the runoff?
I think at the time I was making a (what turned out to be correct) assumption that he would catch a vote.
There was talk about the inconsistent posts, so I figured someone would either move a vote or we would go to a 5 person runoff
If it helps, I work seven days straight starting tomorrow & take on a county party office Tuesday so y'all have time to catch up? Timing kinda sucks for me, since I've basically talked my way into a Day Two candidacy when I'll have my hands full.
I can't help but notice that even though Hakuna and Tejas are both in the runoff, they are two of the three most infrequent posters. I'm not saying that necessarily makes them suspicious, but I felt it was worth noting.
When I first started playing mafia I made it a point to post as much as possible so I could leave my mark on the game, regardless of my role. However, after a few games I've learned its about quality of post instead of quantity. If I don't feel I have something to add then I'd rather not add fog to the already foggy game.
You're just too young to grasp how stylin' I really was. All the boys wanted to do me when I was 5. Actually the girls did too. My haircut was confusing.
After consulting some chicken entrails monkybunney>>jazmo for now...my vote is not entirely locked in yet. I have suspicions about 1 other person right now but they are not in the runoff. I've got chores to run so I won't be able to check this thread for the next few hours. I'm hoping some conversations ensue that might bolster or contradict my thinking. For the moment though I'm keeping my cards close to my chest.
Please post your votes so that they are more visible for someone scanning the thread.
So we went from surfbum being in sole lead to get killed to him being 2 votes away from finding himself in the runoff. Munky voted for surfbum originally and then was the one to put out vote #4 for jazmo which put jazmo in more danger and saved surf. To me, that is the one question I would like answered.
To munky: you implied you had reasons to move from surfbum to jazmo. Would you like to share them?
I havent had an opportunity to check inforoo since signing off yesterday. It was a gamble but I figured we wouldn't be lynching anyone before Sunday. I also expected some vote shifts after I put jazmo at 4. Looks like it worked. I also said my vote wasn't entirely locked in. I have some suspicion of Jazmo because Jazmo seems to be pushing suspicion on to other people by questioning there moves. Do I honestly have anything solid to go off of that Jazmo is one of the bad guys. Nope. It's still too early to tell. My vote for Jazmo is a little less random than my vote for Surf. My initial vote for surf was entirely superficial. He voted for me in the first round of the aborted slaughter, I needed to pick a name for the first round of voting and his stuck. I don't think voting for Jaz in the runoff, at least at this point in the game, constitutes me "moving' from surf to jaz.
I haven't had a chance to read everything that's been posted in detail but I wanted to respond.
So we went from surfbum being in sole lead to get killed to him being 2 votes away from finding himself in the runoff. Munky voted for surfbum originally and then was the one to put out vote #4 for jazmo which put jazmo in more danger and saved surf. To me, that is the one question I would like answered.
To munky: you implied you had reasons to move from surfbum to jazmo. Would you like to share them?
I havent had an opportunity to check inforoo since signing off yesterday. It was a gamble but I figured we wouldn't be lynching anyone before Sunday. I also expected some vote shifts after I put jazmo at 4. Looks like it worked. I also said my vote wasn't entirely locked in. I have some suspicion of Jazmo because Jazmo seems to be pushing suspicion on to other people by questioning there moves. Do I honestly have anything solid to go off of that Jazmo is one of the bad guys. Nope. It's still too early to tell. My vote for Jazmo is a little less random than my vote for Surf. My initial vote for surf was entirely superficial. He voted for me in the first round of the aborted slaughter, I needed to pick a name for the first round of voting and his stuck. I don't think voting for Jaz in the runoff, at least at this point in the game, constitutes me "moving' from surf to jaz.
I haven't had a chance to read everything that's been posted in detail but I wanted to respond.
How is it suspicious to question people about their moves?
Post by monkybunney on Dec 13, 2014 18:29:18 GMT -5
It's not so much asking for clarification but the tone of your line of questioning. Or at least how I'm reading their tone. I know this is the internet & tone is subjective but it seems like you are implying, maybe even instigating suspicion on players who have moved their votes. This early in the game I find it hard to be suspicious of anyone with anything more than a gut hunch. Even with a large first round runoff I still think the results are a shot in the dark at best. I did stack a vote on you, but I did so knowing that votes would shift and various reasons would be given. For the moment I'm not shifting my vote away from you. Of the 3 people looking at facing a 2nd runoff I still think you're the more suspicious. If only because you've posted more. How scientific is that? Not at all. Notice I'm not encouraging anyone to vote for you either. My suspicions are based on some pretty flimsy evidence, but it's all the evidence I've got.
It's not so much asking for clarification but the tone of your line of questioning. Or at least how I'm reading their tone. I know this is the internet & tone is subjective but it seems like you are implying, maybe even instigating suspicion on players who have moved their votes. This early in the game I find it hard to be suspicious of anyone with anything more than a gut hunch. Even with a large first round runoff I still think the results are a shot in the dark at best. I did stack a vote on you, but I did so knowing that votes would shift and various reasons would be given. For the moment I'm not shifting my vote away from you. Of the 3 people looking at facing a 2nd runoff I still think you're the more suspicious. If only because you've posted more. How scientific is that? Not at all. Notice I'm not encouraging anyone to vote for you either. My suspicions are based on some pretty flimsy evidence, but it's all the evidence I've got.
That makes sense to me, based on your reasoning. I'm pretty much suspicious of everyone at every point in the game, and I've always tried to highlight scenarios that paint people as Mafia. It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in them, but I feel like it's my duty to point them out to see if other people want to springboard off of them. I am suspicious - that's pretty much just how I play the game. (And I'm about to do it again lol).
A question for kdogg: early in the game, you stated that your reason for initially voting for sleepy was reciprocity; that makes sense to me (it's not usually how I play, but a lot of people do). Then after surf was stacked on, you expressed the desire for a larger runoff, but said that you were going to stay on sleepy until he moved off of you. You express that interest again several hours later, noting that we were only 12 hours away from the deadline and didn't even have a runoff yet. Yet your vote stayed. This is when you made your voting proposal to sleepy. Forty-five minutes later sleepy moves his vote off of you and onto Tejas, and the next day you move your vote off of him (onto me). I'm wondering: why you were so resolved to keeping your vote on sleepy until he moved off you? You haven't really explained WHY. If you wanted a runoff so badly, you had several opportunities to get one going, yet you wanted to wait for Sleepy to move - the decision to commit to keeping your vote on him until he moved seems rather arbitrary. How does such a self-limiting strategy benefit the town?
And I'm not saying that it was intentional, but I notice that by you and sleepy both moving your votes off of each other, you both essentially saved each other from a first-round runoff (because then you each had no votes, making it much less likely that either of you would get the 2 votes needed for a runoff). I fully admit that this is wild speculation and it's probably not likely that you're both in cahoots, but as I said before...I'm suspicious of everything.
I didn't suggest only Jazmo. I suggested a Jazmo-Munky package.
But you did suggest a package, and that was enough for me. On Day One, why should I limit myself to considering only 2 of the other 10 participants? On the suggestion of someone whom I have no reason to trust? Smells fishy.
Important to note that, in the post I made the offer, I also told you I was open to alternative suggestions from you. You offered none and changed your vote.
Important to note - that was my alternative suggestion. I was willing to consider other players, but I wasn't going to let someone else have say over which player I voted for. Get real.
A question for kdogg: early in the game, you stated that your reason for initially voting for sleepy was reciprocity; that makes sense to me (it's not usually how I play, but a lot of people do). Then after surf was stacked on, you expressed the desire for a larger runoff, but said that you were going to stay on sleepy until he moved off of you. You express that interest again several hours later, noting that we were only 12 hours away from the deadline and didn't even have a runoff yet. Yet your vote stayed. This is when you made your voting proposal to sleepy. Forty-five minutes later sleepy moves his vote off of you and onto Tejas, and the next day you move your vote off of him (onto me). I'm wondering: why you were so resolved to keeping your vote on sleepy until he moved off you? You haven't really explained WHY. If you wanted a runoff so badly, you had several opportunities to get one going, yet you wanted to wait for Sleepy to move - the decision to commit to keeping your vote on him until he moved seems rather arbitrary. How does such a self-limiting strategy benefit the town?
Self-preservation. Are you really suggesting that there would have been zero backlash if I had unilaterally broken the reciprocation? Please. Pretty sure it would have been worse. I took what I saw as the less risky of two paths. As I said, and the written record shows, I was not insistent on those two. I asked for Sleepy's suggested alternatives. I did unto Sleepy as I would have had Sleepy do unto me.
Since you're on the receiving end of their runoff votes, and considering what's happened this runoff, I'd especially like to hear your thoughts on Sleepy & Munky's vote changes. How many instances of cooperation do you think it takes to rule out coincidence?
On an aside, I think what I did there was a product of having such a long-standing frenemy/vote-partner arrangement with ☮ superbek ☮.
We'd always cast Day One votes with each other, and kind of evolved our reciprocal voting into that. We understood we'd sometimes want out of situations while we wouldn't trust each other, and devised that as our method. Our understanding was that when one of us wanted to un-reciprocate, the first party would propose a paired switching to begin negotiations. The second party would then either reject it, accept it and pick from suggestions, or accept and counter-propose options.
Feels totally natural to me, but the more I think about it the more I understand how a newer player might be a bit thrown off.
Don't trust me? I get it. A lot of that old Mafia crowd is gone, but I'm sure there's some who could vouch for me - with familiarity with my Mafia history, but zero knowledge of my role this game. I'm sure baconMike DNothingButFlowers @eap730 LD @lovelucklaughter @superfurryanimal & others have been around long enough to remember those times.
A question for kdogg: early in the game, you stated that your reason for initially voting for sleepy was reciprocity; that makes sense to me (it's not usually how I play, but a lot of people do). Then after surf was stacked on, you expressed the desire for a larger runoff, but said that you were going to stay on sleepy until he moved off of you. You express that interest again several hours later, noting that we were only 12 hours away from the deadline and didn't even have a runoff yet. Yet your vote stayed. This is when you made your voting proposal to sleepy. Forty-five minutes later sleepy moves his vote off of you and onto Tejas, and the next day you move your vote off of him (onto me). I'm wondering: why you were so resolved to keeping your vote on sleepy until he moved off you? You haven't really explained WHY. If you wanted a runoff so badly, you had several opportunities to get one going, yet you wanted to wait for Sleepy to move - the decision to commit to keeping your vote on him until he moved seems rather arbitrary. How does such a self-limiting strategy benefit the town?
Self-preservation. Are you really suggesting that there would have been zero backlash if I had unilaterally broken the reciprocation? Please. Pretty sure it would have been worse. I took what I saw as the less risky of two paths. As I said, and the written record shows, I was not insistent on those two. I asked for Sleepy's suggested alternatives. I did unto Sleepy as I would have had Sleepy do unto me.
Since you're on the receiving end of their runoff votes, and considering what's happened this runoff, I'd especially like to hear your thoughts on Sleepy & Munky's vote changes. How many instances of cooperation do you think it takes to rule out coincidence?
To be honest, I've never really understood how reciprocal voting is in any way different from voting for someone random in the first round (maybe this is similar to jfg's confusion about surf being "locked in"? I'm not sure. I don't fully understand that either - maybe it's a vet thing?.) Unless you're saying that if you moved your vote off of sleepy and he didn't move it off of you, that's what would open you up to being voted into the runoff? Because that makes sense. Is that what you mean by self-preservation? Because Sleepy moved his vote off of you and onto Tejas, and I didn't see too much backlash for him doing that - why would it be different for you?
I've been rather mum recently regarding the votes on me because I'm painfully aware of the target I've painted on my back, and as monky noted, talking too much or trying to cast too much suspicion in different directions apparently just makes the target bigger. While I don't think anything I've done raises red flags, I do understand that this early in the game, there's little to go off of, so people will take what they can and run with it. When I make a mistake, I expect a little heat. I also didn't want to try and defend myself too strongly and just dig my hole deeper. However, at this point in the game, there is not much evolution in their explanations - especially monky's vote switch. "His tone made me feel like he's suspicious so I voted for him". Okay, I get that. I've voted emotionally before as well. But I didn't see any need to stack me up to four. That prevents a three-way runoff and the opportunity for more information. It doesn't seem strategically sound to me, which makes me question other possible motivations. It makes me wonder if it's a strategy to divert attention away from someone else in the runoff. That's why I posted about the low activity levels of Hakuna and Tejas. I'm not ready to say that I definitely think Sleepy and Monky are working together (because like I said, moving a vote to a player who has drawn attention on themselves isn't too out of the ordinary), but overall I think something is amiss.
On an aside, I think what I did there was a product of having such a long-standing frenemy/vote-partner arrangement with ☮ superbek ☮.
We'd always cast Day One votes with each other, and kind of evolved our reciprocal voting into that. We understood we'd sometimes want out of situations while we wouldn't trust each other, and devised that as our method. Our understanding was that when one of us wanted to un-reciprocate, the first party would propose a paired switching to begin negotiations. The second party would then either reject it, accept it and pick from suggestions, or accept and counter-propose options.
Feels totally natural to me, but the more I think about it the more I understand how a newer player might be a bit thrown off.
Don't trust me? I get it. A lot of that old Mafia crowd is gone, but I'm sure there's some who could vouch for me - with familiarity with my Mafia history, but zero knowledge of my role this game. I'm sure baconMike DNothingButFlowers @eap730 LD @lovelucklaughter @superfurryanimal & others have been around long enough to remember those times.
Haha I'm the opposite, that sort of diplomacy feels very unnatural to me. To each their own I guess. It does indeed explain away my previous speculation though.
A question for kdogg: early in the game, you stated that your reason for initially voting for sleepy was reciprocity; that makes sense to me (it's not usually how I play, but a lot of people do). Then after surf was stacked on, you expressed the desire for a larger runoff, but said that you were going to stay on sleepy until he moved off of you. You express that interest again several hours later, noting that we were only 12 hours away from the deadline and didn't even have a runoff yet. Yet your vote stayed. This is when you made your voting proposal to sleepy. Forty-five minutes later sleepy moves his vote off of you and onto Tejas, and the next day you move your vote off of him (onto me). I'm wondering: why you were so resolved to keeping your vote on sleepy until he moved off you? You haven't really explained WHY. If you wanted a runoff so badly, you had several opportunities to get one going, yet you wanted to wait for Sleepy to move - the decision to commit to keeping your vote on him until he moved seems rather arbitrary. How does such a self-limiting strategy benefit the town?
Self-preservation. Are you really suggesting that there would have been zero backlash if I had unilaterally broken the reciprocation? Please. Pretty sure it would have been worse. I took what I saw as the less risky of two paths. As I said, and the written record shows, I was not insistent on those two. I asked for Sleepy's suggested alternatives. I did unto Sleepy as I would have had Sleepy do unto me.
Since you're on the receiving end of their runoff votes, and considering what's happened this runoff, I'd especially like to hear your thoughts on Sleepy & Munky's vote changes. How many instances of cooperation do you think it takes to rule out coincidence?
This is only my second rodeo so I didn't think voting for someone else in the runoff was considered switching votes especially on the first round since unless you are a clumsy inspector or mafia your first pick in round 1 is pretty much a random guess. How are you figuring that mine and sleepy's votes are in anyway related except that we both voted for Jazmo? We haven't said a word to each other nor voted in any discernible pattern.
A question for kdogg: early in the game, you stated that your reason for initially voting for sleepy was reciprocity; that makes sense to me (it's not usually how I play, but a lot of people do). Then after surf was stacked on, you expressed the desire for a larger runoff, but said that you were going to stay on sleepy until he moved off of you. You express that interest again several hours later, noting that we were only 12 hours away from the deadline and didn't even have a runoff yet. Yet your vote stayed. This is when you made your voting proposal to sleepy. Forty-five minutes later sleepy moves his vote off of you and onto Tejas, and the next day you move your vote off of him (onto me). I'm wondering: why you were so resolved to keeping your vote on sleepy until he moved off you? You haven't really explained WHY. If you wanted a runoff so badly, you had several opportunities to get one going, yet you wanted to wait for Sleepy to move - the decision to commit to keeping your vote on him until he moved seems rather arbitrary. How does such a self-limiting strategy benefit the town?
Self-preservation. Are you really suggesting that there would have been zero backlash if I had unilaterally broken the reciprocation? Please. Pretty sure it would have been worse. I took what I saw as the less risky of two paths. As I said, and the written record shows, I was not insistent on those two. I asked for Sleepy's suggested alternatives. I did unto Sleepy as I would have had Sleepy do unto me.
Since you're on the receiving end of their runoff votes, and considering what's happened this runoff, I'd especially like to hear your thoughts on Sleepy & Munky's vote changes. How many instances of cooperation do you think it takes to rule out coincidence?
It's day one, and you think you can already pick out patterns? Because we [Munky & I] happened to be voting for the same person - and mafia always vote together on the first day, right? When we've had zero communication? Listen to how flimsy your logic sounds.
I found an alternative, but that doesn't seem to matter to you - you are insistent that I pick your alternative. I was wary of you before you made the deal, and even moreso now that I've seen your reaction when I've gone the other way.
