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).
@shlimazel, on Jun 11 2008, 01:00 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
Look at the first turn. He launched a veritable crusade againt SIB, which was massively more distracting than what SIB actually did. He continued acting in a manner which was, not just aggressive, but I would go so far as to say was over the top with aggressiveness. It's like he's trying to exaggerate his own aggressiveness to hide in plain sight. After all, everyone else doesn't seem to realize that he's being more aggressive that usual.
But also, how many terrorists have he killed? None. He's attacking people who aren't around, or for idiotic reasons. Isn't the goal of terrorists to kill innocents? Well, mrxak is killing innocents all over the place! Who care's if they aren't around-every innocent person we kill because of the faith people have in mrxak's judgement (and said faith is strong indeed) is one less person the terrorists need to kill.
I'm very suspicious of mrxak. I hope that darth will assist me in explaining why mrxak is acting in a dangerous and atypical manner.
On the flip side though, if mrxak is innocent and the terrorists are trying to frame him, then this fits with my observations from before. It looks like the terrorists could be killing people that they can use to frame others. If that's true, they aren't doing a partictularly good job given that no one seems to be paying attention to this.
Big surprise! You're voting for me again. :rolleyes:
Once again, maybe the reason nobody else seems to think I'm acting any different is because I'm not.
I am responsible for only my vote. If other people see the merit in voting for the same people as I do, they are just as responsible. If I'm wrong, it's up to you to convince otherwise. Part of the reason I'm voting for the inactive people is precisely because they bring no other points of view to the debate. They're worthless in helping us figure this out, and I'd rather get rid of them to save the more active players who are actually playing this to win. If I were to have voted out people much more active in the previous rounds, then it would end up as just me, a bunch of afk innocents, and the terrorists. Am I supposed to convince the AFK people or the terrorists to vote out the terrorists at that point? It almost always takes several rounds to get a picture of what's going on, innocent people will die before we can figure things out. I would far rather those sacrifices be among the useless players than the useful players. Apparently you would much rather have just the inactives left once it becomes clearer who the bad guys are. Probably so you can kill them off one at a time when they're not around to vote after it's become clear your true role to everyone who was paying attention. Your desire to silence active investigation and thought process screams of your guilt, and I look forward to voting you out next round. Any rational innocent knows that it's better to have people left who are playing the game towards the end. You're either an irrational innocent, or a rational rogue member, and either way you should die before a rational innocent. I'd vote for you now, but darth_vader is acting much more suspiciously. He's been around for far longer, and he knows this is how I always act.
@shlimazel, on Jun 11 2008, 01:24 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
No, I mean that I suspect that the terrorists are killing people who, by their deaths, frame other people for having killed them. Does this make more sense?
Also, I should add that I will again be absent on Thursday and Friday.
And apparently you are voting for people they are trying to frame... they must be more clever than you think. :rolleyes:
Alternative explanation: If you do manage to kill me, you can claim that I was just framed after all, and erase any guilt on yourself.
@rjc-ultra, on Jun 11 2008, 01:09 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
So, everybody who doesn't know who to vote for votes for me now? Well, I can't say you aren't right about that. I'm not really completely innocent looking.
However, I think I'll vote LNSU for the moment, he's acting a bit shady.
I do find it a bit odd the votes cast against you. 1Eevee1 and Mackilroy are both on my list for questionable behaviors. The other option of course is that all three of you are bad guys attempting to establish a record.
Quote
Apparently you would much rather have just the inactives left once it becomes clearer who the bad guys are...... Any rational innocent knows that it's better to have people left who are playing the game towards the end.
That actually makes sense. It hadn't occured to me that the inactives would help the terrorists out by not being around when we know who the terrorists are. Alright. I'll consider this.
Which is why you shouldn't read into their kills.
...
Would you care to explain that, please?
mrxak, answer me this; Who do you suspect of being terrorists and why? Besides myself, of course.
I feel pretty sure you are guilty. If you aren't you'll get a heartfelt apology from me. Of course, you'll still be dead, but it's the thought that counts.
This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 11 June 2008 - 02:44 PM
He is saying that reading into terrorist kills, or deciding who is innocent/not based on who the terrorists nightkill is a bad idea and usually leads to terribly unproductive accusations.
retracted:
Spoiler
mrxak
, becuase voting for him makes him more likely to die than me, and is thus an indirect self-defense vote. He's either been framed by the terrorists, or is one who is controlling the game.
This post has been edited by LNSU : 11 June 2008 - 05:38 PM
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
@lnsu, on Jun 11 2008, 02:38 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
mrxak , becuase voting for him makes him more likely to die than me, and is thus an indirect self-defense vote. He's either been framed by the terrorists, or is one who is controlling the game.
You have only one vote against you, and it wasn't from me. Not really an easy self-defense argument to make...
@darth_vader, on Jun 10 2008, 11:52 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
Why is everyone crediting mrxak with playing just like he always does? He's being noticeably more aggressive. I can't believe that the only people who see this are me and Shlimazel. This makes no sense. Pay attention people!
To be honest, if anyone is acting out of the ordinary, it's you. Your push for mrxak is becoming more and more desperate, and he really isn't anymore aggressive than usual in my eyes. darth_vader
Well, if darth is a terrorist than it's the s###s for me because I'll never convince you all of my innocence because I have hauled the same line darth is for a while now. If darth is innocent, then I'd cast another careful look mrxak's way, though. If terrorists want him gone, that's perfectly reasonable. They would want him gone, because he is good at getting terrorists (usually). But if innocents want him gone, that changes the equation a little.
This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 11 June 2008 - 03:14 PM
Or it could mean that the terrorists tricked you into wanting me dead.
LNSU: now that there's two votes for darth_vader, it would actually lessen your chances of being voted out if you joined forces with me and Mispeled, instead of against me.
very well, to keep consistent with my self-defense line of reasoning, I change my vote to
darth_vader
No, because it was your actions that made me suspect you in the first place.
I haven't made my death post yet so this is it. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Interesting to see what going on. I would comment more but dead people aren't supposed to voice there opinions
beep... beep... beep... beep...
I was expecting you guys to have lynched me because of my absence, but to my great surprise I had been killed anyway. Well, thanks to the guy who did that to me; it saved me and the innocents quite a bit of trouble over a broken computer.
darth_vader: (3) mrxak Mispeled LNSU
mrxak: (1) Shlimazel
RJC Ultra: (1) Mackilroy
LNSU: (1) RJC Ultra
No Vote: (7) 1Eevee1 darth_vader Eugene Chin GutlessWonder lemonyscapegoat nfreader prophile
kickme, you're missing Shlimazel from your player list.
Wondered why I was off by a player...
Anyway, this round may end a little later, but should be within 26 hours.
Somebody explain to me just what mrxak is doing that's different from usual.
I see there is a bandwagon against me, which is unfortunate. I'm disappointed at how few people are seeing how easily mrxak is influencing the tide of this game. Please read all of what I have written, it took me a long time to write. I know there's a lot of it. Just bear with me.
Mr. mrxak has made many extraordinary claims. First is the claim that he is being no more aggressive than usual. I can't quantify that of course, but anyone who is willing to take the time to go over past game threads should see my point. I'm not sure if the goal has been to hide in plain site or not, but here is something for your consideration: while mrxak has been eagerly perusing people based on slim reasoning (why is anyone taken in by the "vote for lurkers" tactic? Plenty of past games have proven it doesn't work) not a single terrorist has been killed. Not one. After this many rounds, random voting seems pretty likely to have turned up at least one but we've done worse than that. Obviously I'm not advocating random voting, but it's pretty clear by now that this is more than just unluckiness. There is one person who has had enormous influence in this game and this one person is using his charisma and reasoning skill, both of which are considerable, to steer people in the direction he wants them to go. His aggression has only helped the terrorists, which brings me to the second of his extraordinary claims.
mrxak has also claimed that his tactics are the only one that can win this game. I refer you to the statement above, wherein I describe how no terrorists have been found. mrxak is playing in a style of going after those who lurk, and while it's tempting to believe that such "clearing the deadwood" is somehow helpful, previous games in which I myself have tried this tactic shows that it's really no better than random guessing. mrxak knows this of course. In previous games he has indeed displayed much aggression when going after someone he is sure is evil. He's not the only one to do that of course. I'm doing it right now. In this game, he has been generally very aggressive, even when he doesn't have any evidence at all. This is the key difference that everyone is missing when they continue to claim that he is playing the same way he always does. This behavior can only mean that he doesn't care who he targets, which can only mean that he is a terrorist targeting innocents.
The third extraordinary statement is that jrsh92's death was a frameup. jrsh accused mrxak using a similar line of reasoning to my own last round. He was the second to vote for mrxak, after Shlimazael did. mrxak immediately labeled that a bandwagon despite the fact that both Shlim and jrsh gave reasons for their votes (in the same round he was the third vote against egroeg who had nothing but flimsy evidence against him, all predicated on one person voting for him and then dying. Hardly a pattern, unlike what I will demonstrate below. mrxak gave his usual tired reason of voting for lurkers).
Along with lurkers, mindless bandwagoners are people who mrxak likes to go after, and this sudden abandonment of principles in jrsh's accusation raised my suspicions. In the ensuing argument with me, Shlim, and mrxak, jrsh didn't show up much. At the end of the round he was killed and mrxak claimed frameup. However, it works out just a bit too well for him if he is a terrorist to have jrsh92 dead. jrsh had voted for mrxak and had evidently thought it through. Therefore he was dangerous to mrxak if mrxak is a terrorist. However, he wasn't one of the big public accusers of mrxak (that would be me and Shlim) so killing him didn't arouse too much suspicion. He was basically the perfect candidate for a terrorist mrxak nightkill: someone dangerous enough to warrant killing, someone who had made a vote against mrxak so it could be called a frameup, someone who hadn't made too much of a spectacle so as to cast too much suspicion on mrxak himself. The perfect candidate. Prophile will probably tell me that I'm reading into a wolf kill, but my real purpose here is to show that mrxak wasn't framed at all by jrsh92's death. If someone wanted to frame him, me, or Shlim would have made much better candidates for killing. But as I stated above, jrsh92's initial accusation and then silence kept mrxak from being immediately cast under suspicion while also eliminating a threat and claiming a frameup.
Finally, look at who voted for mrxak last round. Me, Shlim, jrsh92, and egroeg. Egroeg was lynched that round, jrsh92 was nightkilled, it looks like I might be lynched this round, and you all know mrxak has done his part to swing the vote around towards me, and mrxak continues to be aggressive towards Shlim... all the while impugning other people for voting in self-defense. (I will however take this opportunity to say that while I believe LNSU to be innocent, he has acted disgustingly mercenary.) It's clear, of course, that this isn't self-defense, it is offense. If mrxak gets me lynched at the end of this round, three of the four people who voted for him last round will be dead. He probably won't nightkill Shlim since that would be too obvious, but will probably take the opportunity to vote against him whenever it presents itself, for example as soon as Shlim starts lurking again.
Addendum and postscript: mrxak tends to use his aforementioned charisma and reasoning skills to become the leader of groups that he is in. Based on past experience, if he is a terrorist, he is undoubtedly the ringleader and is calling all the shots. Killing him will be a major blow to the enemy, and, as his supposedly game-winning tactics have failed to uncover any terrorists, no loss to the innocents.
If this fails to convince you, there isn't much more I can say. That is all I know and much of what I have speculated. If I die this round and am proven innocent, please kill mrxak next round for me.
dv
I've been brooding over this for a while, as I would hate to see him go if he were innocent, but I do get the same feelings as darth about mrxak.
I just realized that in my entire long rant I forgot to bold mrxak's name once. So here it is: I vote for mrxak.
Please darth_vader , enough of your petty lies. It's been obvious from the start that you're a Cylon, stop trying to win a sympathy vote.
Again, I put it to you:
Scenario 1: 6 rounds in, 3-4 bad guys, 3-4 afkers, 1-2 players Scenario 2: 6 rounds in, 3-4 bad guys, 0 afkers, 4-6 players
Which is better? Which scenario has the best chance of the innocents winning as evidence is in greater quantity?
Bad guys routinely lurk, especially when the players are occupied with killing each other, too busy to notice who's not voting or who's not saying anything. If I was a rogue member, and I saw, as an example, darth_vader and Shlimazel making huge posts and arguing with one another, it would be mere child's play to simply vote at the very end of a round or not at all, and never attract any attention at all.
Have we had bad luck finding the lurking rogue members? Certainly. Perhaps it would have been best to go after late-voters like 1Eevee1, Eugene Chin, or nfreader, instead of non-voters. A slight change in tactics, but the same strategy, might have been better. I can't go back in time and change things, but I can continue to use the strategy, because Scenario 2 is much better than Scenario 1.
I might also point out, my strategy has been derailed on several occasions by the necessity of self-preservation, preemptive in some cases. lemonyscapegoat has been on my target list for some time, but I have been unable to get him out. Perhaps I am not "controlling the game" as well as you think I am. This round, I am voting for the person who continues to try to derail me. Perhaps, when darth_vader is gone, I can go back to killing off afkers and lurkers, who will doom us when the time comes. I am hoping darth_vader is a rogue member, and with his death we can easily determine who his allies were. This is the advantage of Scenario 2, once we actually do know something, people are active enough to act on it.
I have been accused of voting out innocents. Well, this happens. I've been an innocent myself voted out early in a game by other innocent people. I remind the random-vote crowd of the first round that we don't know a whole lot in the first few rounds of the game. And if we didn't get rid of people, we never would. By eliminating people, as we must, we gain insight into how people are voting, we clear names or uncover bad guys, and most importantly we narrow the field. My philosophy is this: The field will be narrowed no matter what, so it is best to keep only the best, most helpful players. Consider it an evolution of sorts. Our votes are a selective force. We can use it randomly, as SoItBegins wanted to do, and therefore accomplish nothing. We can use it not at all, as our lurkers seem to be doing, and therefore accomplish nothing. We can use it get rid of poor strategies and unhelpful players, as I have been trying to do, and therefore end up at the end of the game with the people best equipped to solve the puzzle. I understand that this type of "game eugenics" may rub some people the wrong way, but I've seen it work to great effect in previous games, and I stand by it in this game now.
I and others have stated in previous games, regardless of my role, what I say in these game topics is in the best interests of the innocents as I see it. If you don't think my strategy is in the best interests of the innocents, then argue with me, I enjoy a good debate, but if you disagree with my strategy, don't assume I'm a bad guy for advocating it.