Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
The screen springs back to life as nfreader walks into frame. "Well gentlemen, this is it. Mister Lynn, looks like the cards were against you all along. Guards, TAKE HIM!" An armed SWAT team suddenly breaks through the skylight and tackles prophile. They quickly hustle him out of the room as the rest of the delegates brush the glass shards off themselves. nfreader looks at his watch. "The terrorists should be striking right about.... now." An faceless underling hands him a paper. "Ah, there we go. Manta, so sorry, your country just got nuked." Manata begins to hyperventilate and soon expires from a stress induced heart attack. "Well that was unfortunate. Anyways, the terrorists will strike again in about 24 hours. Get to voting." nfreader walks off screen. ...and then jumps back in a few moments later. "How are you gentlemen? All you base are belong to us... sorry, couldn't help myself." He walks off and the screen goes dark again. ---- I won't tell you what he was until the game ends. Anyways, next round ends in 24 hours. Get cracking.
@nfreader, on Nov 19 2007, 10:26 PM, said in GTW XIII:
Poor Manata.
darth_vader said:
Manta said:
I vote no lynch for lack of intelligence other than the initial couple of posts. My vote may change later if I am attacked or I deem that someone is acting overly suspicious in my opinion.
I vote Manta. That tactic is so six games ago.
Why is it that someone who only wants peace gets verbally attacked? Furthermore, why is it that after he votes darth_vader in self-defense, he gets attacked by the terrorists?
Hmmm... Manta votes against darth_vader... is attacked by terrorists... do we have a new baddie here?
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 19 November 2007 - 10:53 PM
@nfreader, on Nov 20 2007, 03:26 AM, said in GTW XIII:
I won't tell you what he was until the game ends.
rrrrRRRRAAAAGGGGHHHHhhhh....
@eugene-chin, on Nov 19 2007, 09:56 PM, said in GTW XIII:
As you pointed out, it's unlikely sure that prophile was lying, so we got one. I don't like the blindness either, but apparently some people do.
SotItbBegins, a few things. First of all, I've been in this game for 10 rounds now, not counting this one. I'd be smarter to vote against someone and them immediately nuke them. Secondly, if you read over the first game where that tactic was used (either 6 or 7, I forgot which) you'll notice it has limited use. It really doesn't work in a game with this few players, where everyone is blind, and there are no special roles other than the IA. It's also an easy way for a terrorist to hide while not accusing anyone. Under these circumstances, I don't support using it at all, and would consider anyone using it to suspicious. I realize I didn't say much that last round, and it's entirely possible that whoever the other terrorist is nuked Manta in the hopes that you would all then jump on me.
Well, that was unexpected...
@darth_vader, on Nov 19 2007, 08:26 PM, said in GTW XIII:
SoItBegins, a few things. First of all, I've been in this game for 10 rounds now, not counting this one. I'd be smarter to vote against someone and them immediately nuke them. Secondly, if you read over the first game where that tactic was used (either 6 or 7, I forgot which) you'll notice it has limited use. It really doesn't work in a game with this few players, where everyone is blind, and there are no special roles other than the IA.
What, can't somebody withhold judgement? You'll note that Eugene Chin got away with not voting by posting about other stuff and never casting a vote-- how is this so different?
It's also an easy way for a terrorist to hide while not accusing anyone. Under these circumstances, I don't support using it at all, and would consider anyone using it to be suspicious.
Ok, you got a point there.
I realize I didn't say much that last round, and it's entirely possible that whoever the other terrorist is nuked Manta in the hopes that you would all then jump on me.
Well, it is possible...
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 20 November 2007 - 12:29 AM
@soitbegins, on Nov 20 2007, 05:28 AM, said in GTW XIII:
You'll note that Eugene Chin got away with not voting by posting about other stuff and never casting a vote-- how is this so different?
Once prophile outed himself, his death was a foregone conclusion.
This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 20 November 2007 - 07:37 PM
@eugene-chin, on Nov 20 2007, 06:28 PM, said in GTW XIII:
Exactly, that's why I didn't bother voting for him either.
@eugene-chin, on Nov 20 2007, 04:28 PM, said in GTW XIII:
I'm not saying that not voting for prophile was suspicious. Bandwagons happen. What I'm saying is a bit off is the fact that you, Eugene Chin, didn't vote at all.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 20 November 2007 - 08:11 PM
@soitbegins, on Nov 21 2007, 01:09 AM, said in GTW XIII:
Once prophile outed himself, his death was a foregone conclusion. Vote or no vote, what's your point?
Eugene Chin said:
Vote or no vote, what's your point?
Point: darth_vader votes against Manta, saying you're his second choice for a target. Manta is subsequently attacked, throwing suspicion on darth_vader. Why do our terrorists want suspicion thrown on this guy?
Point: You never voted, so in effect you voted 'no lynch' last round. darth_vader on 'no lynch':
Quote
It really doesn't work in a game with this few players, where everyone is blind, and there are no special roles other than the IA. It's also an easy way for a terrorist to hide while not accusing anyone. Under these circumstances, I don't support using it at all, and would consider anyone using it to be suspicious.
Theory: You, Eugene Chin, kill Manta, knowing that it'll throw suspicion on darth_vader. While seeing Manta killed might increase darth_vader's suspicion of you, it's a small risk and (hopefully) you can get two birds with one rock...
Theory, and vote, have BOTH since been retracted.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 21 November 2007 - 12:07 AM
Well so far we only have one vote so you all have another 24 hours to vote.
And, what, exactly about this theory specifies that I'm the one pointing the finger at Manta? You could plug anyone's name into that spot, and the first part would still work.
For the second part, you've started with the assumption that I'm evil, and tried to build up speculation around that. That's very different from making a convincing argument that I'm evil. I think the only thing you're really going on is that I'm the only one responding right now.
The only thing concrete you've got is that I didn't vote last round, to which I again respond:
@eugene-chin, on Nov 21 2007, 12:28 AM, said in GTW XIII:
Voting against prophile after he outed himself would not say anything of the guilt or innocence of the voter. Once prophile outed himself, his partner could easily vote against him and then hide in the crowd, claiming "Hey, I helped kill prophile! I can't be guilty!" Which of course is a flawed argument, because at that point everybody thought prophile was guilty.
Voting against someone else after prophile outed himself would have been, in my view, even more suspicious. A bald-faced attempt by dictator to keep his partner from dying.
prophile had a plurality of the vote. prophile had declared himself evil. His death was a foregone conclusion.
Me voting against prophile wasn't going to make him more dead, deader, or in the ground faster. Me voting against somebody else would have been extremely suspicious.
Conclusion: You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
------------------------------------
Additionally, "No Lynch" is strictly different from "Abstain."
No Lynch means "We definitely shouldn't kill somebody this round." Abstain means "I don't care about the current top targets / I don't care who dies / I don't know who to vote against / I think my vote doesn't matter, he's dead anyways / Meh. I just don't care."
At least you didn't make the accusation in All Caps.
(EDIT) In regards to nfreader ninja posting me: Thanks for not ending the round right at that moment.
The only concrete thing I have to go on right now is self defense, and SIB working so hard to stick to a random vote, so:
Vote: SoItBegins. Retracted, for now.
This is liable to change.
This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 21 November 2007 - 11:27 PM
SoItBegins , You're not making a damn bit of sense. Please try to make more sense.
SoItBegins seems quite suspicious... Eugene Chin's accusations make sense. That and some of his other messages... I vote for him.
(sigh) Just like the proverb says: The nail that sticks out gets hammered down first...
Anyway, I have retracted my vote. **
EDIT:** What is it about me that makes me suspicious? I'm acting in good faith here, or trying to.
SECOND EDIT:
No Lynch means "We definitely shouldn't kill somebody this round."
Abstain means "I don't care about the current top targets / I don't care who dies / I don't know who to vote against / I think my vote doesn't matter, he's dead anyways / Meh. I just don't care."
Wait, they're different?!
OOOPS. That knocks my chief piece of evidence straight out of the running.
@Eugene Chin: Sorry. I'm still learning the ropes.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 21 November 2007 - 12:10 AM
I vote darth_vader retracted , because he looks too innocent and I think the votes for SoItBegins will be retracted soon(or not, in which case my vote doesn't matter).
This post has been edited by RJC Ultra : 22 November 2007 - 10:37 AM
I look too innocent? That's a bad reason. I am innocent, and I'm not stupid enough to do anything to make myself look guilty. Is RJC Ultra looking to off me?
I guess I'm going to have to pick a side, so I'm going against darth_vader.