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!!
Yes. I do not think I need to take a player saying things about being mafia, and with someone else, seriously. So I wasn't sure the question was serious either.
I know I'm like, old and not fun anymore but sometimes I legit can't tell when people are joking in this game. Dan saying he was Mafia with you certainly reads to me like a joke (and I'm sure others did as well), but it seems like you're taking it seriously, which is kinda a bit of a head scratcher. I mean, if Dan is Mafia, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to even jokingly out himself. I mean I guess it could be a "hide in plain sight" type thing but otherwise I don't think it accomplishes much for Mafia-Dan. In the end this makes your reaction more sus to me than what he said.
I again feel like Potent was taking shit weirdly seriously here. Similar to the post I quoted that was his deadly serious response to rummy joking about him voting for her even though she was house hunting all day. Then Jaz does the same thing. He couches it in being an old timer. I don't know why either of them couldn't tell that Kanye and Teddy were fucking around.
I mean, I guess you could take it as me being weirdly serious here. I would take it as Silver being weirdly serious - I moved my vote off of Dan, because it seemed pretty obvious he wasn't mafia or wasn't deserving of a D1 probe at least (plus, he was the D1 exile in 137, which is always a reason I won't vote for someone the next game and nobody asked me about this). Silver is the one who quoted my vote and basically called me out on the fact that Dan was saying he was mafia and I was moving my vote off him. That's why I responded that I didn't know if he actually wanted me to answer the question - and when he did, he basically indicated HE was serious. So actually, I'm not sure how this is taken as me being weirdly serious.
Anyway, as soon as I saw that Silver was the whack I realized it would easily frame me for this interaction. It is what it is.
Interesting to me that pretty much everyone, myself included, is on the narrative that rummy voters need a look at. I think it’s correct atm but I Wonder what the meta implication of it is.
Interesting to me that pretty much everyone, myself included, is on the narrative that rummy voters need a look at. I think it’s correct atm but I Wonder what the meta implication of it is.
I think it makes sense here because we know that one mafia was on Rummy, and it seems unlikely that the other two were voting their teammate off. Think there's a higher likelihood of getting a mafia in the Rummy voters.
Interesting to me that pretty much everyone, myself included, is on the narrative that rummy voters need a look at. I think it’s correct atm but I Wonder what the meta implication of it is.
I think it makes sense here because we know that one mafia was on Rummy, and it seems unlikely that the other two were voting their teammate off. Think there's a higher likelihood of getting a mafia in the Rummy voters.
Quoted to add - for me, this is only because we know Tranter is mafia. I don't think it does anything to the meta, due to that fact.
Interesting to me that pretty much everyone, myself included, is on the narrative that rummy voters need a look at. I think it’s correct atm but I Wonder what the meta implication of it is.
I think it is likely that two were on me and one was on T, but it is absolutely possible that it was two on T for distancing, just one on me. I am not going to get tunnel vision on 2-1 v 1-2 split
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.
I think it makes sense here because we know that one mafia was on Rummy, and it seems unlikely that the other two were voting their teammate off. Think there's a higher likelihood of getting a mafia in the Rummy voters.
Quoted to add - for me, this is only because we know Tranter is mafia. I don't think it does anything to the meta, due to that fact.
Yeah I think you may be right. My mind was wondering if the maf strategy today could give any insights to how they played yesterday, but I think any conclusion I’d reach would just be speculation I’m hoping is right.
Post by Jeremy Fragrance on Mar 9, 2021 14:43:53 GMT -5
Notes:
This game started out weirdly aggressive for really no reason at all, with a lot of focus on Rummy.
Pretty much everyone ignored my idea about not switching at all, and we had a lot of switches. I think townies just have a lot of anxiety over their initial votes and they assume there's a problem with leaving their vote on the person they initially randomly voted for, so they decide to instead randomly switch their vote away. This also allows for mafia to have way more control over the runoff because they're able to maneuver around without looking suspicious at all.
There were 3 initial votes for Tranter, being Maddog, Jortles, and a superstack from Jaz. Would not at all be surprised if 1 of these 3 are mafia.
We skipped 4 person runoff and went straight to 3. None of the 3 Tranter voters switched off in round 1.
Lots of very bizarre switches in round 2. The highlight for me is Potent using a revote on Tranter, then later switching off to put Rummy into the runoff ahead of Tranter. I switched from Dan to Tranter to put him back in the runoff, taking Dan out, also giving Rummy a revote. I did this because I voted for Dan originally because of a joke and I really had no reason to vote Dan and Tranter's posts were rubbing me the wrong way, and I don't actually care all that much about people in the runoff having revotes because everyone else should end up voting the way they want to anyways, leading to the same result that you'd get from all the complicated switches made to ensure someone in the runoff doesn't get a revote.
As I said in my whack analysis post, I do think the whack is intended to make us look at Dan, but looking back I do want to also look at Teddy, especially considering we haven't had an inspector reveal yet. I also want to look at Potent for those round 2 switches
I was pretty transparent about it with all my notes in the last couple pages after re-reading. My vote currently sits on someone with suss actions. We will see if it lands there at the end of the day.
sort of hate being in a position of Dan or tranter with the other revotes being Dan or tranter
but will get over it
At the point maddog said this, it was the runoff below after a move or two. Maddog noted that it sucked that Tranter had a revote. In this case against him, he was drawing attention to this because he knew the only way for us to end up with a runoff where nobody in the runoff had a revote (a scenario that everyone traditionally wants to aim for) was for someone to move from Tranter to Rummy, because none of me, you or Jaz was currently in the runoff. There couldn't be a more slick way to prompt someone else a switch as it is total consensus that it is bad to have runoff members involved in the revotes. I also think it is interesting that maddog made a point to double post to say he would "get over it" as if he was worried about how the first post would look in hindsight.
So then Potent comes in and fulfills Maddogs wishes. Potent was looking good by superstacking Tranter earlier in the game, but totally ruined that image here. This sequence of events is why I think Potent and Maddog look sus.
It should be noted that even after this effort, Tranter still ended up in the runoff.
Is there anyway to move around so rummy doesn’t have a revote?
So now Tranter is employing the same technique that Maddog did later on, trying to find a consensus town practice to use to convince someone to switch off of him in the name of runoff revote purity.
I think one thing I've noticed (if someone wants to pull data and prove me wrong) in a role reveal world, is mafia has flipped language from explaining why you should vote for someone else to how the reveal will exonerate them. may have just been hold over from the people I was mafia with but with the reveal there's only so much martyrdom that can happen
And then one more time Maddog tries to throw suspicion onto Rummy by saying it is becoming a trend that mafia is telling town that the reveal will exonerate them, which Rummy had just done in the post I quoted just above this one.
This is the story that is competing with my gut town read on maddog. While I'm not sure where I'll end up with it, I think he is well worth a position in this initial runoff.
At the point maddog said this, it was the runoff below after a move or two. Maddog noted that it sucked that Tranter had a revote. In this case against him, he was drawing attention to this because he knew the only way for us to end up with a runoff where nobody in the runoff had a revote (a scenario that everyone traditionally wants to aim for) was for someone to move from Tranter to Rummy, because none of me, you or Jaz was currently in the runoff. There couldn't be a more slick way to prompt someone else a switch as it is total consensus that it is bad to have runoff members involved in the revotes. I also think it is interesting that maddog made a point to double post to say he would "get over it" as if he was worried about how the first post would look in hindsight.
So then Potent comes in and fulfills Maddogs wishes. Potent was looking good by superstacking Tranter earlier in the game, but totally ruined that image here. This sequence of events is why I think Potent and Maddog look sus.
It should be noted that even after this effort, Tranter still ended up in the runoff.
Is there anyway to move around so rummy doesn’t have a revote?
So now Tranter is employing the same technique that Maddog did later on, trying to find a consensus town practice to use to convince someone to switch off of him in the name of runoff revote purity.
I think one thing I've noticed (if someone wants to pull data and prove me wrong) in a role reveal world, is mafia has flipped language from explaining why you should vote for someone else to how the reveal will exonerate them. may have just been hold over from the people I was mafia with but with the reveal there's only so much martyrdom that can happen
And then one more time Maddog tries to throw suspicion onto Rummy by saying it is becoming a trend that mafia is telling town that the reveal will exonerate them, which Rummy had just done in the post I quoted just above this one.
This is the story that is competing with my gut town read on maddog. While I'm not sure where I'll end up with it, I think he is well worth a position in this initial runoff.
Good post. Would you say you think mad dog or potent is more suspicious?
Post by Jake Jortles on Mar 9, 2021 16:25:01 GMT -5
Dan808 I think Maddog did more suspicious shit throughout Day 1. Potent did less suspicious shit but is also behaving suspicious in addition to his actions. So I'm between the two at the moment.
@jostles — some of the quotes you pulled from MD definitely remind me of shit I’ve said trying to sound chill/go-with-the-flow-y while actually pushing an agenda bc I’m mafia.
I feel like a runoff of potent/Teddy/Md might be primo
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.
