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).
No. I usually get killed because I'm a nuisance (and will try to wreck the game if a terrorist win is completely inevitable.)
And as for mrxak: Just take a loooong, close look at his record, will you?
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 08 June 2008 - 04:07 PM
Well, I'm more than a little suspicious of you to be honest, mrxak. It seems like you've almost been throwing yourself in the spotlight. I know that you always play aggressively, but this just seems odd. It's almost like you are trying to hide in plain sight, by being seen to be aggressive and attack people if there's even a chance they could be terrorists or are not being especially helpful. If that's what is going on, it's working. You appear to have been accepted as innocent with no actual basis in fact.
I have no evidence, aside from a gut feeling. I want to get that right out in the open. I also don't like voting blind; that's why I abstain until I can find a better target. Still, though, if you or anyone else can provide a better target, a target with real suspicious activity, then I will change my vote.
mrxak , I suspect YOU.
mrxak does always play that way, but you already pointed that out. I'm not sure he's evil (for that matter, I'm not sure of anyone's evil-innocent status). He did have a fair reason for voting for you, though. Doesn't that make your vote more of a revenge vote?
My motive for voting is tainted by the desire for revenge, yes. However, I do suspect mrxak of acting oddly. Like I said, I will change my vote if there's a concrete reason to do so.
Yeah, I'm not buying your reasons for voting for me. I think it's clear to everyone it's self-defense.
@mrxak, on Jun 8 2008, 06:07 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
This argument would have more strength if Shlimazel were denying that self-defense were a factor; but Shlimazel has admitted to self-defense, and given other reasons on top of that.
Egroeg For not voting early enough for the vote to count last round and because jacabyte voted for you, then got nightkilled.
@lnsu, on Jun 9 2008, 12:23 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
Death Post:
_Hi, this is Templar's answering machine. For some reason, I can't take your call at the moment. screams in background Please leave a message after the tone, and, uh, I'll call you back if I ever get to it. Cheers!
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep._
Have fun everybody!
This post has been edited by Templar98921 : 08 June 2008 - 07:29 PM
Hi everyone, I was actually away for the two days (From Friday noon CST to a few hours ago). but it seems I didn't miss a vote, so good. At any rate, that was the reason for my extended silence in the last half of last round.
OK, game: mrxak, I don't think you can say it was only self-defense. I recall similar accusations in the first round of this game.
Yeah, and I still think the reasons are contrived.
Active round ends in roughly 24 hours (when I get back from football practice.)
mrxak seems very interested in killing off people because they're unhelpful or annoying, not because they're terrorists. Indeed, his aggressive mob manipulation tactics have not yet led us to kill a terrorist. It was pointed out earlier that assuming mrxak's mind works like mine is silly, but at the same time, this is EXACTLY what I did last game as a terrorist. I convinced people that delegates weren't useful, or that they were terrorists, and got them lynched. If someone attacked my actions, I attacked them back, standing behind my assertion that my style of play was the logical one and that anything else was too passive or too aggressive or too mindless... in this way, as a terrorist, I not only got my night kills, but also managed to make the council lynch about 4 innocents. Just because I wanted them dead and people are sheep when it comes to this game. Sure, he's mrxak and I'm jrsh92. We play differently. But the fact that he reminds me so thoroughly of myself when I'm playing evil makes me very hesitant to let him live.
Woo, now let's all bandwagon on me again! :rolleyes:
Is this something we're gonna do every odd-numbered round, or can we actually try to kill the bad guys?
Sure, you guys could vote me out, and maybe I am a rogue member, but the people voting for me are overlooking a pretty big fact. There are three or four rogue members in this game. I act this way every game , so my behavior is no indication of my true role. You can lynch me for playing as I always have, and it's a roll of the dice. And if I were a rogue member, then fine, you killed one. But then you have another two or three out there, and you aren't even thinking about who they may be. I, as an innocent, am trying to figure out who those people are. You are just jumping on me because I'm acting as I always do.
Instead of lynching me for doing what I do every game (and am innocent more often than not), why not go attack somebody who's behaving much more suspiciously? There are plenty of people who are lurking quite a lot. You expect that from nfreader after a while, so maybe he's innocent, I don't know, probably as much as a coin flip as my own role. But there's egroeg, lemonyscapegoat, Shlimazel, and others who are really laying low when they usually aren't in a game. I see Eugene Chin constantly sniping at me with little posts, which is a different behavior from his usual long well-thought-out posts. I'm sure if you looked at the voting histories of a lot of other people, you'd see that they're posting less, changing their votes less, or maybe they're changing them more and posting more. It's those people who you should consider more carefully, because it's their behavior that has changed. Why has it changed? Well I'd actually like to find out. But if you guys just want to start another bandwagon against me every other round, get tunnel vision on me for doing what I always do as an innocent, then that's your own funeral.
You know why I'm aggressive? Because this is a game of life and death. Do the bad guys want to live? Yes. Do the good guys want to live too? YES. As long as I'm alive in this game, I can keep trying to figure out how to win. This game I'm playing for the innocents, and you should let me stay alive so I can continue to do so. Some other players in this game seem to care about winning, they don't bother to vote or make their views heard. How does that help us find the bad guys? It doesn't, not in the slightest. They're just taking up space and mucking up the works. That, or they are terrorists laying low. Concentrating on me is just what they want. And for all I know the people accusing me are exactly those people. They don't night-kill me because they can prod you all into bandwagoning on me every time. Apparently I make a good distraction. You have two choices though, you can vote me out to remove the distraction, or you can simply not get distracted.
Remember, even if I were a bad guy, I'd still be the only one of the bad guys acting my way. Therefore my behavior is not the end-all definition of suspicious, and you should be more concerned with figuring out who is actually acting differently, not who is acting the same way they always do. I offer other definitions of suspicious, definitions that include multiple people. Your definition includes only one person, and so it's worthless for winning the game. You'll lynch me, and whether I'm guilty or not, you'll still be left with nothing. When you kill people that fall under my definition of suspicious, whether they are guilty or not, there will still be more targets available and a viable continuing strategy.
If nothing else, you need me because I stir the pot and see what bubbles up. If you kill me, you'll be stuck with no leads and yet another innocent dead. And just for those self-preservationists out there (read: everbody), remember, without me standing out trying to move this game along, people will just start voting randomly again, and it could be you on the chopping block.
One final note: it is a fallacy to think that unhelpful and annoying people can't be terrorists. You're voting me out because I act the same as I always have, because I might be a terrorist this time. How is that any different than voting people out for not voting, because they might be a terrorist this time? By voting for me, you're just doing the same thing I am, except that I'm basing it on changed behavior and destructive behavior, and you're doing it based on the same aggressive behavior as I always exhibit.
Call me a terrorist, but I'll abstain. I have no idea who the bad guys are, and I think both mrxak and his opponents are innocent. I shall not join this argue, and since I only want to vote for people I really mistrust, I'll not vote at all in this round.
Sorry for that. I'm not happy with it either.
Of course, you realize that arguing about how we're getting distracted by voting for you and should be ignoring you to examine other people is in itself a suspicious statement. You also are putting out a lot of effort pointing at your acting the same as you always do. That's exactly why I'm suspicious-because you appear to be deliberately making an effort to be seen playing the way you always do. Perhaps it's total bull on my part. But I have my suspicions.
I'll take advantage of the lull to point out that if we focus solely on mrxak for now (not that he's innocent/evil, I don't know), we risk allowing the terrorists to go unnoticed while they use him as a lightning rod to draw off attention. I'd recommend we also see if anyone else is acting suspiciously. Capiche?
I'm doing that right now. So far I have nothing concrete, except a set of unconnected observations. I will post when I have something that's solid, and if it's solid enough I'll change my vote.
@shlimazel, on Jun 9 2008, 09:30 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
I do the same pointing-out most games too.
@shlimazel, on Jun 9 2008, 09:53 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
At least you're trying. Find a better target than you, and I'll be happy to change my vote.
@rjc-ultra, on Jun 9 2008, 01:21 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
"I shall not join this argue?" That's evil foreign speak! What a giveaway.
RJC Ultra