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).
@manta, on Feb 22 2008, 09:14 PM, said in GTW Round 19:
mrxak, you might want to know that the terrorists seem to have taken a dislike to you, but at the same time you also have a guardian angel looking out for you. On their way from Mackilroy's office my guards found this deactivated bomb outside your office door. I also received a report that nuclear missiles were on their way to your country when they suddenly fell out of the sky, landing harmlessly in the ocean.
Booyah! I figured I was going to get killed at the end of the round, good to learn that somebody was watching my back.
I'm going to vote for
Spoiler
JacaByte
again. My reasons haven't changed, except for an addition, because I think it's probably likely JacaByte wanted me dead after I accused him. Better to kill me right quick before I built any support against him.
egroeg has also been quiet. Come on guys, you have to post if we want to figure out who's who.
I should have seen that coming... The terrorists saw an opportunity to frame me with the death of mrxak, and they exploited it; what better way to make sure that two innocents die for sure? Thankfully that plan backfired for now. I'll plead my innocence, and will refuse to participate in mrxak's little charade and abstain from voting for now, until the true terrorists show their faces. We can't kill any rogues if we just point fingers at each other!
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 22 February 2008 - 11:10 PM
How interesting. Those sorts of "retaliation" roles are such a bother.
@darth_vader, on Feb 23 2008, 03:55 AM, said in GTW Round 19:
I vote darth_vader in self defence. The only reason I've not posted is I've got exams next week and two pieces of coursework to do for school by monday so I've been unable to find much time.
I promised to come after mrxak if SIB was in fact an innocent, and so I am. Killing off someone just because it might be convenient, without evidence that they are a terrorist is a policy at least as dangerous as random voting. After all, mrxak could decide any one of us is doing something he thinks justifies that person's elimination, and he is eloquent enough to sway the masses to vote for anyone he desires. Possibly this is a bad idea, but I vote for retracted.
This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 23 February 2008 - 01:48 PM
I vote for darth_vader retracted. He's overly interested in people lurking around, while terrorist are more likely active players who try to affect the voting as much as they can.
This post has been edited by RJC Ultra : 24 February 2008 - 12:27 PM
@shlimazel, on Feb 23 2008, 10:18 AM, said in GTW Round 19:
I promised to come after mrxak if SIB was in fact an innocent, and so I am. Killing off someone just because it might be convenient, without evidence that they are a terrorist is a policy at least as dangerous as random voting. After all, mrxak could decide any one of us is doing something he thinks justifies that person's elimination, and he is eloquent enough to sway the masses to vote for anyone he desires. Possibly this is a bad idea, but I vote for mrxak.
Considering that the terrorists attempted to night-kill him, he's pretty much innocent. Shlimazel , it was a bad idea.
D'oh. I missed that. Ok, I withdraw my vote for mrxak.
@rjc-ultra, on Feb 23 2008, 11:31 AM, said in GTW Round 19:
I vote for darth_vader. He's overly interested in people lurking around, while terrorist are more likely active players who try to affect the voting as much as they can.
I've seen several games where the terrorists try to evade notice by hardly posting. In a game as big as this one, it's easy to lose track of people, and I don't like the idea of anyone flying by under the radar. Also, if you rarely post or vote, patterns cannot be found in your actions, which means it's very difficult to establish who someone is. That is something that a terrorist would want to exploit, especially if they were new at the game and not as well-versed in how it is played as the veterans. With a large amount of new players in this game, that's another reason to call out the lurkers.
Well, Shlimazel goes on my list.
List of what?
Probably the same list that has my name on it.
Man, what's with everybody wimping out and not voting for anybody?
I'd like to propose something. Everyone that's already voted, change your votes to
kickme
, the person who hasn't voted once this entire game. I still think JacaByte's guilty, but we can get back to that once we've eliminated some of these people who don't seem to even be playing.
kickme Is the only who hasn't voted in the game yet?
Actually, on closer look there's more than kickme. According to my records, in round one, six people didn't vote; egroeg, Eugene Chin, kickme, lemonyscapegoat, Rickton, and Shlimazel. In round two, six people didn't vote; Buffalo the Kid, 1Eevee1, kickme, Rickton, and Shlimazel.
Of those people, kickme, Rickton, and Shlimazel didn't vote in both previous rounds. kickme and Rickton both haven't yet voted in this round either. Shlimazel voted for me then retracted his vote.
Now, I haven't gone back through the topic and double checked, but I'm usually pretty good about keeping track, so I'm pretty sure the list is accurate.
Having survived death once, I believe I'm probably going to be killed again tonight successfully, so I might as well make all my enemies now and get it over with. So, here's my list.
As you all know, JacaByte was already on my list. I first suspected him when I remembered his post in the sign-up topic, he requested not to be an IA. I myself had made a request of Manta in terms of the role I hoped he'd pick me for, and I know that Manta tried to accommodate my request. The role I had requested was the assassin-type, which I had never been before. I was informed that there is no assassin role in the game, and given a role that was at least somewhat related. The lack of this role is further evidenced by the fact that no such assassinations have been made in the game. So if JacaByte isn't an IA, and he's not an assassin, maybe he's a mad scientist or SDI? Well, wouldn't a mad scientist have acted by now, after people we know to be innocent have been killed off? So there must be none in the game. As for the SDI, it seems I was saved by one in the last round, so we know there is one in the game. It seems to be unlikely that JacaByte's most ardent accuser would be the beneficiary of such protection if JacaByte controlled it. What roles are left? We know there's no vote changers. There might be other sorts of roles but I cannot think of any and so far we've seen no effects of any. There's only one special role remaining here, and that is terrorist. JacaByte has never been the terrorist before, and we know he was requesting to try a new role. I know that Manta was accommodating requests, so it makes a great deal of sense if JacaByte is one of the bad guys.
kickme was also on my list (and would have been the person I accused next had JacaByte been voted off as I hoped), because he made very few posts, and no votes besides a joke vote for Manta. It's a good tactic, people see the bolded name in his post so they think he's active and voting (I believe Eugene Chin even marked down his vote as legitimate in one of his posts), and nobody gets offended. The evidence I have against kickme is the weakest of the four names I'm giving here, I'll admit that. But in terms of gut feeling, he's pretty high up there. By making a non-threatening vote he has the appearance of being active with none of the risk. Why would an innocent, with no control of who lives and dies other than his vote, throw it away? kickme has not made a legitimate vote once in this entire game, and here we are on the last day of the third round. He's posted I think only twice. If he is innocent, he's done nothing for us. Everything about his behavior so far has aided the enemy, and he's been so quiet it seems quite clear to me that he must be one of them, and doing everything he can not to be noticed.
I added Shlimazel to the number three spot because he voted for me (then later retracted it), despite the fact that terrorists tried to lynch me. I suppose it's possible he simply overlooked the attempt on my life, but I think it's more likely he and the other terrorists wanted me dead in the second round night kill, and failing that they wanted me dead in a vote. He only retracted that vote when somebody called him on the attempt. So far in this game he's abstained every round. Why would an innocent player throw away their only control in the game? I would suggest that he is not innocent at all, and he's simply trying to go unnoticed and inoffensive. All he's done is throw subtle support against SoItBegins in the first round, which he then reversed and made threats against me even after I was virtually declared innocent. This lurking behavior is very unlike Shlimazel, who voted without fail in every round of the last two games. Why would he suddenly not vote at all, and only give brief lip-service to the popular prevailing view? Let us also not forget, that he voted against me after I voted against JacaByte, the person I've so far been most verbal about suspecting as a terrorist. Is this the inexperienced Shlimazel coming out to defend his cohort? I urge everyone to carefully examine Shlimazel's sudden personality change over previous games, and his relationship with JacaByte. I strongly believe Shlimazel to be guilty.
I'm going to add a fourth name to the list now, in light of the recent awareness that he has yet to vote in this game, and that is Rickton. First he was accused right off the bat, and in stellar form he deflected such accusations by not stooping to their level with a self-defense vote. The best defense when you're guilty is to not give any accusations the weight of your denial. So who defends him? JacaByte of course, his willing ally and first on my list of suspects. Rickton's next post of course is a simple joke. It gives the appearance of activity without any of the danger of offense, and perhaps if it garners a laugh or two, Rickton seems non-threatening to anybody. Next Rickton replies to SoItBegin's protestations of innocence, saying only that SoItBegins appears guilty, but does not back it up with a vote, lest anybody accuse Rickton of bandwagoning. A subtle alignment with the majority without any of the risks involved. He posts twice more to the same effect, agreeing with the people voting in the majority but not voting himself. Then, in round two, it's more of the same, this time with nfreader instead of SoItBegins. He calls nfreader insane, but doesn't vote for him. Perhaps he chose not to support me in the second round because he knows JacaByte is a terrorist just like he is. He waits for somebody else to get a vote against them and throws his support for them, rather than let the round come down between me and JacaByte, his ally. Once again JacaByte has a strong relationship with another suspicious person, and the circle becomes complete.
I do not feel it is all that unlikely that there would be four terrorists among us. There are 19 players, and in a game half that size there would ordinarily be two terrorists. Manta's smart, I think he's learned the lessons well from previous games and making four bad guys in a game this large is something I'm fairly confident he'd come up with. So gentlemen, before my near-certain death tonight, I give you the four terrorists: JacaByte, kickme, Shlimazel, Rickton. Eliminate them for me, or I shall have died in vain. Three of the four are connected in common voting strategy, or I should say, lack-of-voting strategy. Another set of three are connected in their defenses for each other. All four have behaved in such ways as to cast serious doubt on their innocence.
Whether I am targeted again to die tonight or not, I believe the result will not subtract from the above group of four's guilt. If they kill me, they may be trying to get rid of their harshest critic, or they may simply be trying to finish what they started last round. If they don't try to kill me, they may simply be trying to discredit me, or they may simply fear that my role may cause one of them to die if they do kill me. Having said this, I believe they'll kill me to eliminate my guaranteed vote for them in future rounds and my voice to remind the rest of you about their actions. Either way, I urge all innocent members of the council to vote for these four in this and subsequent rounds. I'm also going to change my vote from kickme to Shlimazel , as that way a greater number of votes are against one of my suspects, instead of splitting between more than one.
I'm pretty sure mrxak is innocent so will be following his lead. Sorry Shlimazel but mrxak has an uncanny ability to find the terrorists
Ok, let me put it like this. Remember the rich paranoid? I can assure you that if I am lynched, mrxak, you will die. Do not make the mistake of killing me off, because I have the rich paranoid special ability also. This ability could be useful in killing actual terrorists.
As for why I voted for you, I voted for you because I promised to vote for you if SIB was innocent, and he was. But I missed the part when they failed to kill you, so that is why I voted as I did and retracted.
@shlimazel, on Feb 24 2008, 10:52 AM, said in GTW Round 19:
I think you know as well as I do that I'm a dead man whether you kill me with some supposed paranoia ability or not. The terrorists are going to kill me. I'm not changing my mind about you, but if somehow you are totally paranoid, I would suggest you target somebody you think is guilty, perhaps another name on my list if you have no better ideas. At least target somebody that's not going to be dead anyway. Threatening me like this when you know perfectly well that I'm innocent is just a greater sign of your guilt. Carrying out such a threat if you're innocent is self-defeating to your cause. Declaring who you're going to target with such an ability is just begging the terrorists to kill you too. Furthermore you make no rebuttal against the fact that your behavior has vastly changed from previous rounds.
Look, if you have such an ability, targeting me with it is a mistake on so many levels. If you don't, and I'm pretty sure you don't because the evidence points to you being a terrorist, don't bother threatening me unless you're willing to at least respond to the accusations I've made.
I don't have time for this. I haven't been posting as much as I'd like to this round because I've been busy, I've been posting as often as I can. I'd also mention that if this goes the way your stance against SIB did, then I'm also a dead man anyway. It's noteworthy that he was innocent. You are certainly off your game, since you've been giving awefully good reasons to kill innocents, as you'll see when you kill me. I don't want to kill you. But you want to kill me, apparently. This is a shame, because you are a valuable resource to the innocents.
You do have a point in that killing you is a waste of my ability. Who on your list would you reccomend as a target, assuming that I do have this ability? Never mind that. I'll kill rickton, since I don't like him anyway.
Lastly, I absolutely do NOT expect you to believe that I am innocent. I WILL be lynched this turn. Because you act like a rabid dog when you find a target that appeals to you. Therefore, I certainly hope that you also die this turn, since you will be responsible for killing me when I am lynched.
This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 24 February 2008 - 11:51 AM