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!!
My reasoning. Probably BS of the highest order but in the interest of full disclosure: First though was same as Rummy and Jimmy - to quiet, mafia must be happy. Second thought - Why didn't either of them do anything? I should vote one of them for saying something and not changing their vote. Third thought - Do I really want to change off Miffy because last time a new player convinced me they weren't mafia by not fully understanding the rules they turned out to be mafia, and do I want to get burned by the same thing twice? fourth thought - F it, I can't hold her responsible for the actions of a different player several games ago, I'm changing the vote. fifth thought - who to vote for? Farris is obv out as a vote for him does nothing at this point. Jimmy and Rummy have both put someone in the runoff already and Tainted would have an open vote should this hold. Lets see how it plays out...
My reasoning. Probably BS of the highest order but in the interest of full disclosure: First though was same as Rummy and Jimmy - to quiet, mafia must be happy. Second thought - Why didn't either of them do anything? I should vote one of them for saying something and not changing their vote. Third thought - Do I really want to change off Miffy because last time a new player convinced me they weren't mafia by not fully understanding the rules they turned out to be mafia, and do I want to get burned by the same thing twice? fourth thought - F it, I can't hold her responsible for the actions of a different player several games ago, I'm changing the vote. fifth thought - who to vote for? Farris is obv out as a vote for him does nothing at this point. Jimmy and Rummy have both put someone in the runoff already and Tainted would have an open vote should this hold. Lets see how it plays out...
A little foggy this morning in my decoding but I can appreciate your approach, though it wouldn't make much sense for me to vote for Jimmy (given that I find commentary to be standard early on) and my vote is already on rummy.
I think? Miffy has her vote on you, which does leave a cushion in case I decide to take the logical approach. I'll go ahead and take that route.
My reasoning. Probably BS of the highest order but in the interest of full disclosure: First though was same as Rummy and Jimmy - to quiet, mafia must be happy. Second thought - Why didn't either of them do anything? I should vote one of them for saying something and not changing their vote. Third thought - Do I really want to change off Miffy because last time a new player convinced me they weren't mafia by not fully understanding the rules they turned out to be mafia, and do I want to get burned by the same thing twice? fourth thought - F it, I can't hold her responsible for the actions of a different player several games ago, I'm changing the vote. fifth thought - who to vote for? Farris is obv out as a vote for him does nothing at this point. Jimmy and Rummy have both put someone in the runoff by AutoDealsApp"> already and Tainted would have an open vote should this hold. Lets see how it plays out...
I'm with Jimmy in that I'm not entirely sure what some of these points are meant to demonstrate. Namely that last part - where did your mention of Farris come from; you discussed me, Jimmy, Miffy...then threw Farris and Tainted into your post at the very end, switching vote to Tainted. I don't think carini did anything particularly questionable here, but I didn't follow the logic exactly either. Might just be me slow on a Monday though, definitely possible.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
Tejas
Showerless Shakedown Vendor The Beardless Wonder
I'm assuming we would want a 3 or 4 person runoff. With Jazmo at 3 votes that leaves 4 players with 2 votes (billy, myself, carini, and tainted). Those players are most likely to get thrown in the run off. I'm one of the 3 votes for jazmo but at the moment it seems hes only in the runoff for trying to create some movement. I'm keeping my vote on jazmo for now.
I know it was the weekend and mafia is usually quiet on the weekend but I'd like to hear from Farrisbueller. Other than his initial vote on me he hasn't posted.
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.
My reasoning. Probably BS of the highest order but in the interest of full disclosure: First though was same as Rummy and Jimmy - to quiet, mafia must be happy. Second thought - Why didn't either of them do anything? I should vote one of them for saying something and not changing their vote. Third thought - Do I really want to change off Miffy because last time a new player convinced me they weren't mafia by not fully understanding the rules they turned out to be mafia, and do I want to get burned by the same thing twice? fourth thought - F it, I can't hold her responsible for the actions of a different player several games ago, I'm changing the vote. fifth thought - who to vote for? Farris is obv out as a vote for him does nothing at this point. Jimmy and Rummy have both put someone in the runoff by AutoDealsApp"> already and Tainted would have an open vote should this hold. Lets see how it plays out...
I'm with Jimmy in that I'm not entirely sure what some of these points are meant to demonstrate. Namely that last part - where did your mention of Farris come from; you discussed me, Jimmy, Miffy...then threw Farris and Tainted into your post at the very end, switching vote to Tainted. I don't think carini did anything particularly questionable here, but I didn't follow the logic exactly either. Might just be me slow on a Monday though, definitely possible.
Could be my late night corn fed typing confusing again. I thought I mentioned everyone I could change my vote to so that is where Farris got his mention. After initially thinking of voting for Jimmy of Rummy I decided that having put someone in the runoff already they weren't the ones responsible for changing it up. I also wanted to see how Tainted would react with his vote. Hope this clears things up for you and Dr. Joe
I'm assuming we would want a 3 or 4 person runoff. With Jazmo at 3 votes that leaves 4 players with 2 votes (billy, myself, carini, and tainted). Those players are most likely to get thrown in the run off. I'm one of the 3 votes for jazmo but at the moment it seems hes only in the runoff for trying to create some movement. I'm keeping my vote on jazmo for now.
I know it was the weekend and mafia is usually quiet on the weekend but I'd like to hear from Farrisbueller. Other than his initial vote on me he hasn't posted.
Unless my mental math is failing, I don't think we can go from 5 to 3 without Null being allowed.
Post by actually @fortyfive33 now on Jun 29, 2015 13:19:52 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has a ready solid reason for being in the runoff.
That being said I don't like anything Tejas has posted. Saying someone is "only in the runoff for trying to create some movement", which in my opinion, seems you're almost taking pity on Jazmo, and then keeping your vote on him seems fishy.
I don't think anyone has a ready solid reason for being in the runoff.
That being said I don't like anything Tejas has posted. Saying someone is "only in the runoff for trying to create some movement", which in my opinion, seems you're almost taking pity on Jazmo, and then keeping your vote on him seems fishy.
Slack > Jazmo > Tejas
Not taking pity on Jazmo just stating why hes in the runoff.
Two people voted for me. Only 1 of them was in the runoff. Jazmo was also the one to stack on me. That is my reasoning.
So, me stating why hes in the runoff isn't taking pity, just stating fact. And I kept my vote on him because like you said, no one has solid reasoning for being in the runoff, but jaz did stack on billy. While thats not much to go off of, I have to have some logic behind my vote.
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.
Unless my mental math is failing... 3, 3, 3, and 2 votes would get a 3 person runoff.
Typo. Should can't go from 5 to 4
Rummy > Billy >> carini
Maybe that one sorta vague rambling post was a ~corn infused~ message and all, but then this happened too and I feel carini has generally been infusing some confusion into the conversation. Could totally be on accident, but it leads me to suspect slightly more than anyone else so far.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
Maybe that one sorta vague rambling post was a ~corn infused~ message and all, but then this happened too and I feel carini has generally been infusing some confusion into the conversation. Could totally be on accident, but it leads me to suspect slightly more than anyone else so far.
Maybe that one sorta vague rambling post was a ~corn infused~ message and all, but then this happened too and I feel carini has generally been infusing some confusion into the conversation. Could totally be on accident, but it leads me to suspect slightly more than anyone else so far.
Someone pulls the "corn!" card every few games.
For my experience Carini does it quite often.
Yeah I remember someone did it last game too haha, can't recall if they ended up being Mafia or not... But it definitely happened.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
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.
I was about to defend Tejas on this point, not because I'm the first person to stack, but because by definition this game cannot proceed without someone being "the first person to stack." I don't see why someone should be penalized for that.
I'd be more concerned with stacks that look like they are putting a potentially innocent yet volatile player into the mix, or are saving another player from the runoff, etc.
I was about to defend Tejas on this point, not because I'm the first person to stack, but because by definition this game cannot proceed without someone being "the first person to stack." I don't see why someone should be penalized for that.
I completely agree with this. It just seems like an easy excuse to put a vote on someone. The issue is in sussing out whether or not the person voting actually believes that voting for the first person to stack does any good, or whether that person has another reason to change their vote.
I'd be more concerned with stacks that look like they are putting a potentially innocent yet volatile player into the mix, or are saving another player from the runoff, etc.
I also agree with you on the second half of this, but can you explain what you mean but "potentially innocent yet volatile player"? We're all potentially innocent (and guilty) at this point.
I'm not saying I necessarily see that here in this game, but I've seen volatile noobs or Viking/KDogg get tossed in a runoff just because they are being antagonistic without any real suspicion.
I was just giving some examples, and my list wasn't meant to be exhaustive.
Still, using the "But he stacked!" argument is the pot calling the kettle black.
Fair point, I see where you're coming from. It's my fault for not explaining myself better. My initial vote was a stack on jazmo. Jimmy had just stacked on me so why not stack on another player to get some kind of runoff going. With jazmo, he was the first person to move off his initial vote, which was you and stack on billy.
At this point everyone is guilty, so I can imagine a scenario where mafia vote for each other with their initial vote as a way of distancing themselves.
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.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
Post by Farrisbueller on Jun 29, 2015 18:29:26 GMT -5
I dont have much input at this point in the game. The town went from a 3-5 person runoff which limited/altered the movement people have to make this round. Right now I have no reason to move off of Tejas due to me not having enough to feel one way or another about him. I do have a couple people in my head that arent in the runoff I would like to be in it but not enough for me to move my vote. After the first whack things will get more clear, its just poking around and guesswork during round 1. Unless something major happens its a shot in the dark and more likely than not we will lynch a townfolk. But I am all for getting everyone to participate/talk... as long as it doesnt turn into another 10+ page first rounder again, ugh that shit sucked and thats coming from a townfolk last game.
Post by potentpotables on Jun 29, 2015 18:36:00 GMT -5
I'm in the same boat as Farris. I haven't talked much but its because I cast my first vote for Carini per my first round voting policy, and I've seen nothing to move it. Carini's posts from this morning didn't help his cause either, but of course that isn't dispositive. I'm all ears if someone wants to convince me to move my vote.
I was about to defend Tejas on this point, not because I'm the first person to stack, but because by definition this game cannot proceed without someone being "the first person to stack." I don't see why someone should be penalized for that.
I'd be more concerned with stacks that look like they are putting a potentially innocent yet volatile player into the mix, or are saving another player from the runoff, etc.
I'm not saying I necessarily see that here in this game, but I've seen volatile noobs or Viking/KDogg get tossed in a runoff just because they are being antagonistic without any real suspicion.
I was just giving some examples, and my list wasn't meant to be exhaustive.
Still, using the "But he stacked!" argument is the pot calling the kettle black.
Fair point, I see where you're coming from. It's my fault for not explaining myself better. My initial vote was a stack on jazmo. Jimmy had just stacked on me so why not stack on another player to get some kind of runoff going. With jazmo, he was the first person to move off his initial vote, which was you and stack on billy.
At this point everyone is guilty, so I can imagine a scenario where mafia vote for each other with their initial vote as a way of distancing themselves.
As the tallies stand, Jazmo and Carini will have an open vote. I find it odd that two of the stacked are the ones with open votes in the run off. Jaz and Slack also voted for each other initially, then both changed their votes. I don't know if this means anything, and I have no real reason to change my vote, in fact I feel the mafia are too comfortable i.e. happy with how the votes are stacked. I'd like to see what moves around if I guarantee Carini's vote.
