Global Thermonuclear War, Game XVII

@buffalo-the-kid, on Jan 22 2008, 07:20 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game XVII:

Also, while he is alive and unknown, other players can attempt to convince people that they are the investigator to avoid lynching, although, they would then face the wrath of the terrorists. The terrorists usually don't want the I.A. around, because they could find them,and if you let him live too long and he accuses you, you might have to kill him before he convinces other that you are evil, which would draw suspicion to the person he accused.

That's right! You're so smart.

That's pretty much it. The one thing you don't want to do is try to make alliances with people (or, at least, more than one person at the very outside). I had alliances with about 5 people and was trying for a 6th in the first ever game I played in (XII (12)). I got killed at the end of the first round, by the terrorists.

I pulled off a repeat of the same tactic in the last game, game XVI (16), but that was because I was trying to get killed-- my special role stated that if I were to get killed by the bad guys, I would take one of them down with me. And I did!

This is a new concept to me... Other than this, every game I played was f2f... Not many enigmatic twists going on... Just pure propaganda... And death threats. Lots of death threats.

And Jakabyte, thank you.

This post has been edited by Buffalo the Kid : 22 January 2008 - 11:25 PM

@hypochondriac, on Jan 22 2008, 08:59 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game XVII:

I wonder why the terrorists killed manta. Given his history mrxak would have been the most dangerous. Either the terrorists are new and don't know that, they know and are keeping him alive so he looks suspicious, or he's a terrorist himself. I can't tell, might just use a random number generator to determine my vote

Why have you written off mrxak as so innocent? We don't know that he's not a terrorist, and if he is, it seems pretty clear that he would not be nuked. Also, his penchant for acting suspicious much of the time, even when he's not evil, could always work in their favor. Generally, a strategy used by many terrorists is to kill off someone as soon as everyone believes that they are innocent. That way more confusion is created. I don't really think the terrorists's decision to kill Manta tells us anything.

@hypochondriac, on Jan 22 2008, 09:59 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game XVII:

I wonder why the terrorists killed manta. Given his history mrxak would have been the most dangerous. Either the terrorists are new and don't know that, they know and are keeping him alive so he looks suspicious, or he's a terrorist himself. I can't tell, might just use a random number generator to determine my vote

I have four theories.

1. The terrorists believed me when I said I could not die, and decided not to waste their night action making a futile attempt on my life. Manta could very well have been random.
2. Jacabyte is the terrorist, and was attempting to eliminate the person who voted for him last round. As it was a minor vote, it might be overlooked.
3. Somebody wanted us to think Jacabyte is a terrorist. I think this is the least likely, actually. A better strategy would have been to kill Shlimazel to frame me, but it would still be pretty transparent.
4. You are the terrorist, and wanted to frame me with the argument you just made. Of course by not accusing me directly, you try to avoid being too obvious in your plan. You hope that somebody else will vote for me first, and then maybe a bandwagon will start, and all you have to do is somehow connect Manta's death with me being a terrorist.

I think #4 is most likely, don't you, Hypochondriac?

Quote

You are the terrorist, and wanted to frame me with the argument you just made. Of course by not accusing me directly, you try to avoid being too obvious in your plan. You hope that somebody else will vote for me first, and then maybe a bandwagon will start, and all you have to do is somehow connect Manta's death with me being a terrorist.

I'm the terrorist?

Is your name Hypochondriac?

No, but I never said it wasn't.

If I were the terrorist I would have killed you first mrxak. Most people know your the most dangerous opponent to the terrorists so you dieing would not look suspicious. Jacabyte had no reason to break the tie so that looks suspicious. The mistaken impression that he was included in the was corrected. Too many suspects not enough evidence. I'm abstaining for now.

This post has been edited by Hypochondriac : 23 January 2008 - 10:56 AM

I am suspicious of JacaByte. Statements made by him seem to imply, when taken together, that he is playing a sinister role in these events. Still, I won't vote for him unless I have more evidence so I will abstain.

By now it is time to reveal my brilliant, yet simple strategy to you all.

I started out with a random vote, and watched your votes and reactions!

...

Ingenious, right?

The only right would be Shlimazel , due to his closly observed voting pattern.

Huh? I voted once. Yeah, I made a pattern. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, why would JacaByte (if he were a terrorist) suggest you guys should vote in defense of me? Or that I'm innocent? I'd think he would instead try to convince everyone that I was the terrorist by supporting mrxak's argument.

Then again, Manta voted for JacaByte, and now Manta is dead. So either someone is trying to make it look like JacaByte is the terrorist (though this seems like a pretty flimsy ploy) or something even more sinister is going on, or JacaByte killed Manta and is now trying to use the seemingly obviously false nature of that ploy to hide his action. Sinister!

This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 23 January 2008 - 12:11 PM

@hypochondriac, on Jan 23 2008, 07:09 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game XVII:

If I were the terrorist I would have killed you first mrxak. Most people know your the most dangerous opponent to the terrorists so you dieing would not look suspicious. Jacabyte had no reason to break the tie so that looks suspicious. The mistaken impression that he was included in the was corrected. Too many suspects not enough evidence. I'm abstaining for now.

See Theory #1: I cannot be killed.

@mrxak, on Jan 23 2008, 12:28 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game XVII:

I have four theories.

1. The terrorists believed me when I said I could not die, and decided not to waste their night action making a futile attempt on my life. Manta could very well have been random.
2. Jacabyte is the terrorist, and was attempting to eliminate the person who voted for him last round. As it was a minor vote, it might be overlooked.
3. Somebody wanted us to think Jacabyte is a terrorist. I think this is the least likely, actually. A better strategy would have been to kill Shlimazel to frame me, but it would still be pretty transparent.
4. You are the terrorist, and wanted to frame me with the argument you just made. Of course by not accusing me directly, you try to avoid being too obvious in your plan. You hope that somebody else will vote for me first, and then maybe a bandwagon will start, and all you have to do is somehow connect Manta's death with me being a terrorist.

I think #4 is most likely, don't you, Hypochondriac?

I actually was thinking that same thing, but I didn't want to be the one to accuse until I had a bit more verification on mrxak's "can't die" statement. Since I held a similar role myself a few games ago, I believe him for now. I also agree that Hypochondriac seems to have reveled himself.

Hmm. Then maybe Hypochondriac killed Manta, knowing that JacaByte had said some suspicous things, intending to frame him for killing Manta.

I vote Hypochondriac.

Anyone else want to jump on the Bandwagon? Don't be shy. None of us know what the special roles are. if mrxak can't die why be so concerned about someone voting for you? For all you guys know I'm the one who can't be killed.

I'm still going to wait till tomorrow to cast my vote

In the first round I was convinced that Hypochondriac was the Intelligence Agent, and that he just wasn't able to hide that. If there's only one in this game, I must admit that he looks guilty by now.
I won't change my vote for this round.

I'm still trying to figure out how you think I made a pattern.

What makes me look so guilty? I was was just typing out my thoughts to see in anyone agreed with me. Is it better to just vote and not try to get others to side with you?

One problem with not trying to be obvious mrxak. In the first round I did come out and vote for you. Changed it later but never hid my suspicions about you.

This post has been edited by Hypochondriac : 23 January 2008 - 02:25 PM

@shlimazel, on Jan 23 2008, 08:21 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game XVII:

I'm still trying to figure out how you think I made a pattern.

I have to judge people by their posts and votes, and you look guilty. You were most likely beginning to follow a voting pattern with your first vote that terrorist followed the games before. Your second vote is also suspicious in my opinion.