Global Thermonuclear War

We still need a few people to vote, so I'm (again) extending it - this time, until noon Central Time. Get in or I'll go ahead without you.

And we better not have another tie.

Come on guys, only 40 minutes left to vote.

Time's up! xander didn't vote, but that's his loss. The final results are: Mispeled - 1 vote; 1Eevee1 - 2 votes.

Without further ado...

The Security Council has decided that 1Eevee1 is one of the suppliers of weaponry to the bunnies, and his country is promptly destroyed by a volley of ICBMs. 1Eevee1 himself is taken captive by US and German troops, and he is brought before the Security Council. While protesting his innocence, they vote to hang him, and he is hung three hours later.

A message arrives, unmarked:

"1Eevee1 was not one of us. You've failed, AGAIN."

Dictators, PM me with your choice of target. Intelligence Agent, send me your guess on who one of the dictators is.

@mackilroy, on Aug 17 2007, 02:19 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War:

Hmm. Sure, no lynch is an option.

@mackilroy, on Aug 18 2007, 05:08 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War:

Time's up! xander didn't vote, but that's his loss. The final results are: Mispeled - 1 vote; 1Eevee1 - 2 votes.

<snip>

The Security Council has decided that 1Eevee1 is one of the suppliers of weaponry to the bunnies, and his country is promptly destroyed by a volley of ICBMs. 1Eevee1 himself is taken captive by US and German troops, and he is brought before the Security Council. While protesting his innocence, they vote to hang him, and he is hung three hours later.

A message arrives, unmarked:

"1Eevee1 was not one of us. You've failed, AGAIN."
<snip>

I do not appreciate the way you have dissembled to us, Mackilroy. "No lynch" is not and does not mean "Abstain." If you were going to count it as an abstention, you should have said it wasn't an option. If you were going to treat it as a Sudden Death round, that's something you should have made clear, Before Hand.

(Edit) If I sound whiny, it's because this got under my skin. Also, this is the first round. We couldn't have failed AGAIN , we haven't even failed YET. (I'm counting 1Eevee1 as a victim of the Dictator Mackilroy. Vote Mackilroy next round! )

@gutlesswonder, on Aug 17 2007, 07:04 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War:

The only way to end this nightmare is to destroy everyone who isn't me. 1Eevee1 must fall.

Whoa there. Startin' to sound a little... creepy. Little... Dictator... ish.

Just thinking out loud here, in case I disappear in a bright flash of light soon.

• Mackilroy
• prophile
• mrxak
• Gutlesswonder

I also must protest, using my last post in this thread to do so. I was under the impression that no lynch would not equal abstain, and to back up myself... The Oxford Dictionary.

lynch |lÉŞn(t)Ęƒ|
verb ( trans. )
(of a mob) kill (someone), esp. by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial.

abstain |É™bËŒsteÉŞn|
verb ( intrans. )
formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion : forty-one voted with the opposition, and some sixty more abstained.

I did not abstain my vote, I merely voted against an illegal killing.

If I knew that no lynch was the same as abstaining, then the outcome would have been very different.

But I'm not a man possessed by revenge. Mostly because I'll be gunning for you next round.

EDIT - Sounds good to me. Used my last post, so I'll edit this one and put this note saying it's okay for you guys to go ahead. Exactly like that. AMAZING!

EDIT 2 - In response to mrxak's post on page 3, I'd just like to say that the only words I understood was Mispeled and 1Eevee1. If you are reading this, anybody, can you please summarise?

This post has been edited by 1Eevee1 : 20 August 2007 - 01:08 AM

To clarify. By not voting to lynch somebody, you turn over all power over who goes in this game over to the evil dictators who kill somebody in each round too, and as you can imagine they're not voting off themselves. I still believe that Mispeled is an evil dictator, and he's perpetuated this sham of a security council in order to make sure that the innocents have no say in what happens in this game.

WHAT THE ######, mrxak, CAN YOU READ?!

@mispeled, on Aug 15 2007, 12:38 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War:

This is how the game would progress if we lynched one person each day, assuming no dictators are lynched. (Numbers being what is left at the end of that stage, after dictators kill or town lynches.)

D1: 5 towns / 2 dictators.
N1: 4 towns / 2 dictators.
D2: 3 towns / 2 dictators.
N2: 2 towns / 2 dictators.
D3: Town/Dictators tie when voting for a lynch. No one is lynched.
N3: 1 town / 2 dictators.
D4: Dictators lynch last town. Dictators win.

or, if we voted no lynch on D1:

D1: Town votes no lynch. 6 town / 2 dictator.
N1: 5 towns / 2 dictator.
D2: 4 towns / 2 dictator.
N2: 3 towns / 2 dictator.
D3: 2 towns / 2 dictators.
N3: 1 town / 2 dictators.
D4: Dictators lynch the last town. Dictators win.

In the first example, we only lynch someone on days 1 and 2. The intelligence agent gets to investigate nights 1, 2, and 3 but his investigation on nights 2 and 3 don't do any good since there isn't a lynch day 3, and on night 3 the town loses.

In the second example, we only lynch someone on days 2 and 3. The intelligence agent gets to investigate nights 1, 2, and 3. Investigation on N3 doesn't do any good since town loses on D4. Even then, the town gets an extra day for discussion.
As far as I can tell, there is no advantage to the dictators. The town gets an extra day for discussion and the intelligence agent now has two chances for investigation.

And it's not all that unlikely for the IA to hit a dictator. On the first night, if we don't lynch anyone during day 1, there will be 7 other people besides himself to choose from, so a 2 in 7 chance (28.57%) of hitting a dictator. On the second night, after a kill during night 1 and a lynch during day 2, there will be 5 people remaining, and if the person he already investigated is still alive, there is a 2 in 4 chance of hitting someone (50+28.57=78.57% chance over the two nights).

I don't really care about your hypothetical scenarios, if the conclusion is for innocents to not play the game.

@mrxak, on Aug 18 2007, 11:08 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War:

I don't really care about your hypothetical scenarios, if the conclusion is for innocents to not play the game.

What are you talking about? There will be just as many lynches as there would be if we didn't do a no lynch vote.

It's almost as if mrxak doesn't want to give the intelligence agent extra time to work.

Although I'm sure that there's a perfectly logical explanation for him:

• Taking random, baseless shots at the new guy
• Trying to pass that off as an educated guess
• Bandwagoning against you, Mispeled, once that seemed like a stronger case
• AND that he doesn't want to give the intelligence agent more time to work

Sorry about that, fellows. I've learned something. Shall we move on and then I'll remember not to do that in case of next round?

Seeing as you as much as told us last round that we'd have an option not to lynch, I think it'd be fair that that is how you'll be running the game from here on out.

That is, when 'No lynch' gets half or more of the total votes, even in tie-breaker rounds, there really won't be a lynching.

I don't think it's too much to ask. Is this how you will be running this game from here on out?

Yeah, I'll be doing that. Everyone clear, now?

In other news...

The UN wakes up in the morning to find darwinian's country in flaming ruin and he himself dead by the bunnies' hand. A message is sent after they discover the attack:

"darwinian was only the first to die. Beware our wrath."

That's an odd nightkill. Darwinian's only post (besides one telling me how to change my vote) was this:

@darwinian, on Aug 15 2007, 11:09 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War:

I generally distrust bandwagoning on the first day. There is nothing to go on, and no reason for it. Generally, I see no reason to vote for the first person to vote for the bandwagoned individual, as their vote is random. Also, there is often no reason to vote for the second person (though mrxak does strike me as suspicious). However, the third person to vote on a bandwagon, especially in a game this small, is often an evil dictator trying to blend in with the rest of the UN. Thus, 1Eevee1.

There's a couple things we could conclude:

1. They got rid of him simply because he's apparently a smart, rational player who would help the town.
2. "though mrxak does strike me as suspicious" got him killed, because mrxak wanted to get rid of someone who was suspicious of him but not a complete opponent.
3. 1Eevee1 wanted to get rid of an opponent.
4. Since he maintained a pretty low profile, the dictators thought he was a possible intelligence agent.

Or, of course, it could have been random.

#3 is extremely unlikely – I don't think any mafia would be that stupid, unless he was trying to make us follow that train of thought.
#2 is also unlikely.
#1 and #4 seem the most likely to me.

Anyway, we can still no-lynch today as well, with 6 alive.

This post has been edited by Mispeled : 19 August 2007 - 11:32 AM

@eugene-chin, on Aug 18 2007, 10:49 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War:

It's almost as if mrxak doesn't want to give the intelligence agent extra time to work.

Although I'm sure that there's a perfectly logical explanation for him:

• Taking random, baseless shots at the new guy
• Trying to pass that off as an educated guess
• Bandwagoning against you, Mispeled, once that seemed like a stronger case
• AND that he doesn't want to give the intelligence agent more time to work

Too much talking, not enough blood flowing in rivers down the streets. Retracted, see new post mrxak is too crafty for our own good.

This post has been edited by GutlessWonder : 20 August 2007 - 08:09 AM

@gutlesswonder, on Aug 18 2007, 07:04 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War:

The only way to end this nightmare is to destroy everyone who isn't me.

Sounds suspiciously like a dictator's goal. Thus I vote GutlessWonder

Preliminary Analysis:
1Eevee1: <Innocent> <Gone>
darwinian: <Innocent> <Gone>

2 Dictators, Identities Unknown.
1 Intelligence Agent, Identity Unknown.

GutlessWonder: <Suspicious>
mrxak: <Highly Suspicious>
darth_vader:
Mispeled:
kickme:

If mrxak was a dictator, then forcing us to lynch our own would help him. But then, why vote for Mispeled when the vote had clearly turned against 1Eevee1? Consistency, deniability, and to throw suspicion off of himself. He could have had his counterpart vote opposite him, and further skew attention.

Why was darwinian eliminated? To parallel phrase Mispeled's analysis, since darwinian maintained a low profile, the the dictators thought he could be eliminated without throwing suspicion in any clear direction.

darwinian voiced suspicion of mrxak, so if anyone brought that up, mrxak could argue 'Why would I do something so obvious? Why would I cast suspicion on myself like that?' Essentially, mrxak would argue that someone else was trying to cast suspicion onto him. darth_vader directly voted to eliminate mrxak last round, so that kill would be too obvious to argue away. Killing darth_vader could easily backfire and polarize the players against mrxak. Killing darwinian simply confused us.

"My M.O. as an evil dictator has been in the past to eliminate somebody who voted the same as me, thereby spreading blame to whoever voted against me in the next round. I can't guarantee that will be the same next time around, but be assured that I'm much too smart to be caught doing something so obvious." Admitted Here.

darwinian voted 1Eevee1 last round, and mrxak voted Mispeled. If mrxak was trying to skew our attention away from himself by not emulating his previous behavior, he'd do it by, at least at first, destroying someone who voted opposite his choice, hence darwinian's demise. This isn't a course I imagine he'd stick to, for in the long run it would point too much attention at himself, so he was probably planing to destroy someone whose vote coincided with his own this round. Of course, the act of observation changes that which is observed.

kickme voted the same as mrxak at first, but switched his vote away from Mispeled to 1Eevee1 for the tie-breaker because of Mispeled's continued arguments for a No Lynch vote.

The only other who voted opposite mrxak, both times, was GutlessWonder, and I already suspect him.

I know I took the side of No Lynching last round, but I'm sorry, Mispeled, I feel compelled to act now.

Vote (Tentative): mrxak

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 19 August 2007 - 05:32 PM

If the intelligence agent investigated mrxak last night, now would be a good time to claim. If we lynch mrxak and we're worng, that's it.

If no one claims, I think it would be good to vote no lynch today and let the intelligence agent investigate tonight.

This post has been edited by Mispeled : 19 August 2007 - 06:37 PM

Mispeled. I refuse to turn over control of the game to whoever is killing people in the night. People don't seem to understand my point of view here, so I'll explain it simply. By not voting in the security council, the only people being eliminated are those that the evil dictators pick. That's not the sort of game that I want to be in. You talk about the intelligence agent, but in none of our games has the intelligence agent made any difference. They will especially make no difference if there are many players not playing.

Yeah, I've certainly called attention to myself here, and a lot of you think I'm the evil dictator here, but have you ever considered that the reason I've ended up with this attention is because everybody else is listening to Mispeled and not voting? It's certainly an interesting new strategy here, getting the players to stop playing the game so they can be picked off one by one. Maybe the reason darwinian got killed off was because the evil dictators are so confident that they will win this way, that they're just getting rid of people at random while I'm made to be the bad guy.

To be honest, I don't even remember darwinian accusing me. I suppose it does make for a good frame job though, as really thin as it is.

Your accusations of Gutless are pretty unfounded as well, but I'm sure he can defend himself.