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).
I'll try. So far I don't have a lot. I started with nfreader and 1eevee1 both voting for SIB with seemingly identical reasons, because this seemed like it could be suspicious. I can't find much evidence for them being connected, however, after examining the list of events. 1eevee1 appears to have spent a lot of time voting for SIB (p3, p6). nfreader forced a three way SIB/mrxak/Hypochondriac tie (p3). He then voted for SIB (p5). 1eevee1 had had a vote on him from EKhawkman (p3), then EK was killed (p4).
I moved outwards from there after observing that, aside from making a single defense vote against darth in page 5, Mackilroy has not done anything but jump on bandwagons. (SIB in page 3, egroeg, which was a secondary bandwagon, in page 5, shortly before his defense vote.).
Here's a list of facts, in more or less chronological order.
Facts:
EKhawkman had voted for JacaByte, but changed his vote (p2)
Mackilroy voted for SIB, jumping on a bandwagon (p3)
1eevee1 had previously voted for SIB, jumping on a bandwagon (p3)
EKhawkman had voted for 1eevee1 (p3)
Nfreader had voted for Hypochondriac, thus creating a three way tie. (p3)
EKhawkman was nightkilled. (p4)
Mackilroy voted for egroeg, jumping on a small but present bandwagon (p5)
Mackilroy self-defense voted against darth_vader (p5)
Nfreader and 1eevee1 vote for SIB. Neither gives a concrete reason for voting, aside from having 'a feeling they can't quite put their fingers on' (p5/6)
There's definitely something fishy going on, as numerous people have observed. I'd like to observe that there must be an assassin amongst us, given that three people were killed. Either Templer could kill two people with his rich paranoid ability, or we have an assassin with us.
Assuming that the assassin is an innocent, then, why did he kill his victim, and who was his victim? Was it SIB? Or was it JacaByte? And what would be his motive for killing off his victim?
With no other leads the most suspicious behaviour seems to be that of mrxak whos aggressive tactics have got us nothing but dead innocents.
I'm going to have to go with mrxak, for the tl;dr post if nothing else.
In fact I did read the post and your arguments sound desperate while making sense only to someone who doesn't really know how to play the game. I've played ever game since game IV, including Rickton's truncated one and nfreader's ######ed up one, so I'll call this my 20th game. You're looking more suspicious than you have in quite a while. The stuff about playing this way always doesn't quite fit since you're being noticeably more aggressive than usual. The stuff about playing the game for the innocents always is also pretty far fetched. You're also trying to pass off some people's perennial lurking behavior as more suspicious than your perennial aggression. We will deal with that in time. Right now, you're our best lead, and killing a terrorist is the best possible thing that could happen for the innocents at any time no matter what nonsensical alternatives you're implying.
I believe it was Eugene Chin that pointed out that we can't look for terrorists based on bandwagoning anymore, since there've been so many games. I don't know who to vote for right now, so I'm going to give some more thought to it and probably vote tonight after I get home from work.
@shlimazel, on Jun 9 2008, 10:52 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
I moved outwards from there after observing that, aside from making a single defense vote against darth in page 5, Mackilroy has not done anything but jump on bandwagons. (SIB in page 3, egroeg, which was a secondary bandwagon, in page 5, shortly before his defense vote.). Here's a list of facts, in more or less chronological order. Facts:
Nfreader and 1eevee1 vote for SIB. Neither gives a concrete reason for voting, aside from having 'a feeling they can't quite put their fingers on' (p5/6) There's definitely something fishy going on, as numerous people have observed. I'd like to observe that there must be an assassin amongst us, given that three people were killed. Either Templer could kill two people with his rich paranoid ability, or we have an assassin with us.
So who are you implicating, is it nfreader? 1Eevee1? Mackilroy? All three? If you think those three are the terrorists, why not vote for one of them? For all we know there are only three of them out there anyway.
@darth_vader, on Jun 9 2008, 11:29 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
I think I was much more aggressive in the one game, I don't remember the number, but it had I think Manta as the IA who just assumed several people were innocent based on who voted out Hypochondriac. There was another game as well that I recall, but don't remember too many details about it, just that by killing a particular person would reveal which side of the fence was guilty or not. Both games innocents won, by the way. There hasn't been as much useful intelligence as other previous games, and things probably won't be clear enough until we get a bad guy. I know I'm not a bad guy, so voting me out is a bad strategy for the innocents to take. As I think Mackilroy said, I'm currently a lightning rod for them to hide behind, because I'm pretty much the only one offering arguments for killing people. The rest of you are just reacting to me, and ignoring the people who are very clearly sitting by while we lynch innocent people.
Since Shlimazel actually seems to be putting some thought into the game now, even though he hasn't yet acted on it, I'm going to change my vote to egroeg who did not vote in the first or second rounds, and then jumped on a bandwagon against me this round for vague and simplistic reasons. You can call it a self-defense vote if you wish, but he is also engaging in lurker behavior and has from the start, so my overall strategy continues.
If people still want to vote me off for provoking people (aka getting them to provide data we can use to determine guilt), that's your prerogative, but I think you'll find a game with only lurkers in it and nobody calling them on it a lot harder to win. If you kill me, at least I'll have left the game in a better state than when I found it. Can you say the same for the people I've voted out?
No. I was the IA. I got lucky investigating Hypo first round, and second round I investigated mrxak (who was innocent), which led us to the other two wolves, JacaByte and SIB(I think, I don't remember fully).
To paraphrase from a PM darwinian sent me:
"The wolves are playing a terrible game this round. Its pretty sad, really"
On another note, there are still quite a few no-votes in this round. I would appreciate if people would participate by voting, rather than turn this into a game of lurk and rhetoric with no meaningful action.
Having thought about it a bit, I'll vote for egroeg , as he's contributed very little to this other than, "That's suspicious." If he survives this round and contributes more to helping root out the terrorists then I'll think three times before voting for him again.
@mrxak, on Jun 9 2008, 12:47 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
You're not making much sense. This only solidifies my conviction that you are guilty.
@lnsu, on Jun 9 2008, 02:11 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
"The wolves are playing a terrible game this round. Its pretty sad, really" On another note, there are still quite a few no-votes in this round. I would appreciate if people would participate by voting, rather than turn this into a game of lurk and rhetoric with no meaningful action.
Ah, okay, it was you then. The point is, I acted much more aggressively that game because I had more information. We haven't voted out a rogue member yet, so it's hard to figure out what needs to be done. My aggression levels are probably lower than those other games because of it. Yet I'm still being targeted because I'm one of the few people stirring up trouble to see people's reactions. Who will take my place once I'm gone?
@darth_vader, on Jun 9 2008, 03:23 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
How does it not make sense? There are tons of people who are virtually non-participants. We cannot gain any useful data do determine the guilty when so many of them remain silent. I am stirring things up, and forcing people to react. From their reactions, you can learn motives, etc. The round ends tonight, in about 5 hours maybe, if I remember correctly from kickme, and yet the majority of players have yet to vote. Why wouldn't the terrorists hide among this majority of lurkers? It's pretty messed up, that's for sure. You can choose to vote me off if you want to, but it's not going to help you in the slightest.
Alright, I'm back, I suppose. It's going to take me a little bit of reading to catch up on all of the intrigue going on here, but I can say that I don't think mrxak is really playing like he usually does. It's different this round, or at least that's the impression I'm getting. It's not enough yet to make me want to vote for him, and in that vein I'm going to try and help him stay around by voting for egreog.
@mrxak, on Jun 9 2008, 06:19 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
If you are a terrorist, you "stirring things up" only gives you more opportunity to manipulate other players. If you're not, your death will allow other people to take center stage instead of sitting in the shadows while you dominate. That's not much of a gain, true, but I judge it enough to compensate for the relatively tiny loss of losing an active player vs. eliminating a likely terrorist. Your strategy of going after lurkers is one I'm perfectly capable of using myself, and indeed have used in the past. It isn't actually all that useful though. Stop painting yourself as our only hope for an interesting game. It's a desperate tactic. The state of the game, as you put it, is an intangible quality that no one is capable of assessing in terms of value. Killing a terrorist is valuable. I know you recognize this. You are trying very hard to preserve your own position as the mover in this game. That can only mean that you actually believe you are the only one capable of winning the game, or you're a terrorist who wants to keep the undue influence you've already had to continue to kill innocents.
This post has been edited by darth_vader : 09 June 2008 - 09:17 PM
Since nobody else has been stepping up, yeah, I think I'm the only person capable of winning this game. If you think I'm wrong, you can prove that without voting me out.
An appalling 7 people have not voted yet. It would not surprise me if multiple bad guys are hiding among those people.
egroeg , based on the evidence, you are guilty. Like a fox.
Inactive round starts now.
Ok, there's some kind of a pattern forming.
Both JacaByte and SoItBegins were odd choices to kill. Why them? They hadn't done much.
But JacaByte was framed as a terrorist. What else could it be? JacaByte very likely influenced EK to change his vote. This made JacaByte look suspicious and they appear to have taken advantage of this to frame him for killing EK.
As for SIB, they could have been trying to frame anyone. Maybe mrxak. Maybe 1eevee1 and nfreader, who both voted for SIB for practically the same reason within a five minute period of time.
The thing is, though, if these are frame ups, they aren't convincing. Barely anyone reacted to the possibility that JacaByte was a terrorist. The same when SIB was killed.
So who here is likely to operate in this manner? I'm not a skilled enough player to answer that question.
I would appreciate the advice of other players in this manner.
If I were to guess, they were night-killed to confuse us. It seemed totally random to me who was killed. Any other opinions?
Wait... did nobody die from voting out?
Templar and Hypochondriac both got lynched.
It's been over 12 hours and nothing has happened. What's the final vote tally? I'm too lazy to go back and look it up.
The inactive round is about 24 hours. Wait.