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).
So I'm a slightly eccentric delegate. It in no way means I'm a terrorist! Darwinian You have been removed from scrutiny but are acting highly aggressive and using the fact that people will think you are innocent as a scapegoat. We never figured his role out and since it was the first round and our mad scientist thought he would be crucial to the game. Well for someone who narrowly escaped death you seem to be holding your head high with your neck out. Aggressive people are more dangerous than eccentric people as they will attack people and get others to follow even blindly. Your reasons for me are shaky at best and you have listed other people who you think are more suspicious but you attack me, why? Because you know I'm an easy target and you could get others to follow along easily. The Bandwagoners don't scare me as they are only following you. If we take you out(again) it should be clearer who is who.
This post has been edited by EKHawkman : 22 May 2008 - 04:16 PM
@jacabyte, on May 21 2008, 11:35 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
Because you've garnered the most suspicion of the four. (Well, six.) I can see an innocent using a brief post to make a vote like they did. In fact, I myself did so last round.
Huh?
Quote
RJC Ultra fits the bill the best when it comes down to my strategy for finding the terrorists. His vote consisted of little more than two sentences. So did LNSU's. Under my logic, both are terrorists for certain, but there's still two more people to go over...
My guilt is more than "certain"?
Actually, if you read the events proceeding your vote change, you'll find that only LNSU came in after you posted, and his vote broke a tie between SIB and Darwinian that you caused.
Maybe I did cause the tie, I didn't bother counting the votes. But when this post came in and mrxak counted them up, I did realize it.
Before you changed your vote to nfreader, there were 4 votes for SIB and 5 for Darwinian. One of those votes for Darwinian was yours. You changed your vote to nfreader, giving SIB 4 and Xander 4. LNSU changed his vote from SIB to Darwinian, giving 3 votes to SIB and 5 to Darwinian.
Seriously? Damn it I don't know how I missed that. I think I just looked at mrxak's post and didn't notice lemonyscapegoat's. If you'll look at my post at the time, I did honestly believe that changing my vote was breaking the tie.
Also I think it's funny how you said:
I am innocent, of course. In fact, I feel safe in revealing my role because, in effect, I have no role. I'm just an ordinary delegate. I'm just as dedicated to find the terrorists as the rest of you are, but I have to use what I have available to find them. Bear with me.
Of course everyone's going to say they're innocent. Any GTW player with half a brain would instantly discard this paragraph so why would you even say it?
Edit: EKHawkman, it would seem that darwinian is going to die in a few rounds anyway (unless he's lying). Even if he is guilty a vote would probably be better spent somewhere else.
This post has been edited by Rickton : 21 May 2008 - 11:28 PM
EKHawkman , I believed you to be guilty last round, and I still believe you to be guilty.
Templar, you were quick to jump on to voting against me last round after 2 others ( one was a ghost ) voted for me. You claim I'm vote jumping for flimsy reasons yet I have not changed my vote once I cast it any round yet. How is this vote jumping?
Personally, I thought that all the flak being aimed at EKHawkman seemed strangely reminiscent of the flak Templar was taking for much of last game; but the fact that kickme was in the opposite camp for Round 2 is a cause for concern.
I've explained my reasons for voting LNSU in Round 1, he was being easily led around. In one previous game I can remember, mrxak let himself get led around by kickme; kickme turned out to be a traitor that game. Seeing that behavior again made me antsy, especially when LNSU didn't respond to a request to reconsider.
Further, at the time LNSU's vote, admittedly random, had pushed the balance against prophile; JacaByte and kickme were also on that ticket.
To jrsh92, keep in mind that egroeg voted kickme in Round 1.
Now that I'm looking at it armed with the knowledge that kickme was an enemy, JacaByte's quick response to defend kickme against prophile takes on a new dimension... why get involved in that?
On the other hand, JacaByte did eventually get off of prophile, in favor of Lynching darwinian.
Interesting JacaByte's current take on the ticket that killed darwinian, considering that he's the one who put the "Stuffing" into it.
I realize I'm under the microscope with several people (Templar, darwinian, etc), possibly enough to vote me out this round. But still, I'm going to have to insist that JacaByte get a little more scrutiny. (I believe that this is the first time he's been voted against this whole game, no?)
I am almost certain that Xander was lying. He wasn't the one with the power, Mrxak never said anything, The mad scientist never said anything about that. I would think he would've died by now and he is just using that as a way to keep from getting voted for. In 3 rounds he will still be alive and all the people he has aimed at will be dead and innocent. Thats not good, besides HE IS A ZOMBIE!!!!! I think its time he is released into the deep clutches of oblivion. Now Mrxak, How bout that snacktime?
Long story short is now also long story long. Go back and read what really happened at the end of the last round.
@jacabyte, on May 22 2008, 03:35 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
I am aware that there were other bandwagons and a terrorist could have easily slipped by on one of them, but the Darwinian bandwagon was the one that had least stuffing behind it, in my opinion, yet was the most believable. That's something every terrorist loves; an argument that provides a thick enough cloak for one of them to hide behind. Darwinian himself said that he behaves the same way when he's innocent as when he's a traitor.
There is one caveat to my logic that I didn't consider earlier; if Darwinian is, in fact, a terrorist, then none of the people who voted for him could be a terrorist. Why would a terrorist try to get one of his own killed by the council? This would turn the argument I just made on its head.
Please reread what I wrote. Hypochondriac brought me back from the dead. It was implied that my life would be limited, but that was not explicitly stated. I might die in a round, or live to the end of the game. I don't know. Neither Hypochondriac nor mrxak told me anything about that.
Also, there are two perfectly good reasons that a terrorist might try to get another terrorist killed (or, rather, vote against another terrorist on a day when they get killed). The first is that their vote comes in early. They vote for a terrorist to distance themselves from the terrorist, thinking that the terrorist won't die. Then, when the vote is pretty solid, they can't change their vote without it looking suspicious. So, they leave the vote and another terrorist dies. So, if I die, and it turns out that I am a terrorist (which I am not, but for the sake of argument), but you think that another terrorist voted for me, look at the first couple of votes.
Secondly, the terrorists might very easily sacrifice one of their number on the first day to remain beyond scrutiny. Imagine if I had died on the first day, and it turned out I was a terrorist. You all would probably pretty much assume that everyone that voted against me was innocent, no? Thus, if I were a terrorist, it might have made sense to kill me off early.
So, there are at least two reasons.
@templar98921, on May 22 2008, 03:41 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
That is very interesting.
Actually, think about it. Darwinian could have been lying about the 'i will die in a few rounds' thing. That leaves a gaping Darwinian-shaped hole in our theories.
I am not lying -- but you need to get your facts straight. I did not say that I will die in a few rounds. Only that I don't know how many rounds I have (n={1,2,3,...,infinity}).
Eugene Chin: You are currently on my list of bad guys. However, much of that list is dependent upon EKHawkman being a bad guy. If he is a bad guy, then things look bad for you. However, if you are innocent, you have nothing to lose by voting EKHawkman. If you vote EKHawkman and he is bad, then I will believe that you are innocent. If you don't vote EKHawkman, and he is bad, I will be more convinced that you are a bad guy. If you are innocent, you have nothing to lose by voting EKHawkman. And if EKHawkman turns out to be innocent, then I agree that JacaByte could use some scrutiny. Can it wait until the next round?
xander
First of all: Xander, my apologies. You certainly did not say that there was a round limit to your life, but most people seem to have taken that as fact. Also, saying 'i'm not lying' is futile. Really.
Having said that, I don't suspect you.
@manta, on May 22 2008, 12:27 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
:blink: I never said you were vote jumping. I said it was unreasonable to assume that posting without voting is useless. That kind of attitude just leads to confusing repeated vote changing, ruining the game and frustrating the host. Evidence is paramount, although gut feeling is important. And as I said, I was desperate for targets. I believe that EKHawkman is innocent.
Jacabyte , the moment I read your post you just jumped out at me as a probable terrorist. Why? Mainly because you said that there is no reason for an innocent to kill a terrorist. As darwinian has explained in more detail, this is completely untrue. Unlike darwinian, however, I don't think this was just a silly mistake on your part. It would be greatly beneficial for a terrorist to try to push into the collective minds of the players that a certain group of people-- for example those who vote for a terrorist-- are all innocent. If they could, by slipping it into a longer tactics related post, make people just assume that it's truth (because they're too busy actually thinking about the rest of the post), they would be very safe indeed. On the other hand, an innocent could potentially say that too but since it's unhelpful to make unrealistic assertions in this game if he is an innocent I honestly wouldn't mind seeing him die. The thing is, his posts are WAY too aggressive. He says that people voting for terrorists CAN NOT be terrorists. He says that Rickton and LNSU are ALMOST CERTAINLY terrorists... how can anybody be almost certain in this game? Maybe he's the IA. But if he is, he's doing a terrible job of being subtle about it. I think that between his aggressive assertions about how the game works and his aggressive attacks on other players, he isn't working for the good guys.
Round Three Votes: darth_vader - darwinian - EKHawkman egroeg - EKHawkman - darwinian Eugene Chin - JacaByte JacaByte - Rickton jrsh92 - JacaByte lemonyscapegoat - EKHawkman LNSU - Manta - EKHawkman Mispeled - lemonyscapegoat prophile - EKHawkman Rickton - RJC Ultra - Templar98921 -
Mispeled , once again your vote strikes me as being suspicious. In the first rounds, you were completely obsessed to kill nfreader for luking, but now, for one reason or another, you seem to leave all other lurkers alone and vote lemony, who didn't actually do anything wrong. I think you're acting way too aggressive and aren't voting like an honest innocent.
Unfortunately, we can't even look at kickme's behavior during the game to try and help, as he hadn't participated in the debates and voting much at all.
However, there are two players who have only posted twice (egroeg and lemonyscapegoat), and both of them are voting for EKHawkman. However, egroeg had previously voted for kickme "to slow the bandwagon" against prophile (who at the time had only 2 votes while kickme had 1 -- 2 after egroeg). Lemonyscapegoat had only voted for the darwinian "bandwagon" first round, and is now voting for EKHawkman.
JacaByte, however, voted for Lemonyscapegoat early on without reason just because he "looks suspicious," (this being in round 2 when lemony was not active), strange for someone who just wrote up a very long post about his voting reasons.
So this has really gotten me nowhere. Egroeg looks a bit suspicious, lemony is, I think, just not able to invest a lot of time in the game (if he were a terrorist he would probably have voted at least to avoid being called a lurker, not to mention voting for himself). JacaByte's behavior towards lemony is a bit odd as well. So I just don't know.
@rickton, on May 22 2008, 03:20 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
--==<snip>--==
And you are posting a lot without actually voting. It is like you are trying to alter the mood of the vote, without actually committing to anything. I say it is time you put up or shut up -- stop making empty accusations, and actually do something.
OK wow. That's just overly hostile right there. Besides, I've voted in previous rounds and all it's done is get me accused of bandwagoning. I'm trying to make a good decision about who to vote for before I actually do it.
Your argument that posting without voting is not doing anything is really fallacious as well. There's a lot more to this game than just voting, I'd argue that even though I haven't voted this round I've contributed a lot more than some players. I'm basically thinking out loud, but posting it in the hopes that some more experienced player will catch something I've missed.
But if you really need a vote for my paranoid musings to have any credibility, fine. JacaByte.
This post has been edited by Rickton : 22 May 2008 - 11:42 AM
I told you all that kickme was up to something with the excitement over the balloon animals!
I'm actually suprised no one has voted for me yet I've been acting pretty suspiciously to be honest. Anyway I doubt EKHawkman is a terrorist nor do I suspect Darwinian so they're safe from my vote I think I may have to vote lemonyscapegoat although only because kickme seemed to be lying low and lemony is doing the same (although under that logic I should suspect myself too).
darwinian is being absurd again. The more people post without voting, the more informed the votes are likely to be, and the more likely to successfully take out the terrorists the council is, as opposed to killing innocents due to impulse votes. Posting without voting is bad if it means the votes never happen, but accusing someone of posting too much without voting when they aren't just being stupid like EKHawkman but are actually thinking out loud, as it were, about what course of action to take, is silly. I'm sticking to my vote against Jacabyte because it seems like that might actually achieve something this round, whereas a vote for darwinian would be a wasted vote, but I'll be coming for you next round. First you come at me for discussing and considering acting on the idea that it's beneficial to kill someone each round, and while everyone else is actually doing something to break ties you continue to attack me. We vote for you, but another player brings you back to life. You seem deterred from voting for nonreasons for a few rounds, and now, again, you're accusing people of being terrorists because they're playing the game in a thoughtful manner. When you really look at it closely, you were voting for me for thinking about my options before acting. Now, you're going after Rickton for thinking about what he's doing before acting. Apparently you have succeeded in convincing people not to think, or they would have realized what you're ACTUALLY been saying the whole time and would have killed you off (again). It's your time to die. And please stay dead this time... as I said, I won't take action against you this round as it would be futile, but expect a vote from at least me and hopefully more of us next round. Through the whole game, your underlying message has been "don't think! Do!" in Rickton's case, or "don't think! Shut up!" in my case. I really don't understand how you've been getting away with that, but I am tired of seeing it and having to put up with it.
To save myself (maybe) I am going to vote Jacabyte But mark my words darwinian If I survive this round you are going down. The gloves are off people, its time to be serious.
@eugene-chin, on May 21 2008, 10:28 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
<snip>
@jrsh92, on May 22 2008, 04:44 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
I find it funny that both you guys found a reason to vote for me, even though I never did any of the things you two say I did. I hate it when people do that to me, by the way.
Eugene: I don't recall ever voting against Prophile, or defending Kickme, at least directly. Could you point out where I said these things? I'm very curious.
jrsh92: where did I say that there's no reason for an innocent to kill a terrorist? This is an absurd thing for anybody to say, and I'd appreciate it if you could point out where I said it. Maybe I could clarify it.
@rickton, on May 21 2008, 10:26 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
My vote for lemonyscapegoat last round? Don't tell me you didn't take note of it?
Under the logic that a person who voted for Darwinian using a brief post to do it with, those two are terrorists. However, everybody is a terrorist under this logic, including myself. We've all used a brief post to vote with before, I'm sure.
If you read the posts after that one and before this one you'll find that mrxak missed a few votes. Of course, they still were in a tie after mrxak corrected the vote count, but lemonyscapegoat made a vote immediately after mrxak did so, tipping the scales so SIB had 4 votes and Darwinian had 5.
I'm afraid your post time can't read your mind.
I've found that terrorists normally don't call themselves innocent unless they've already been nailed but insurmountable evidence. Besides, what harm does telling the truth do, unless you're the intelligence agent? Did you want me to lie and say that I was a terrorist?
I meant that there's no reason for a TERRORIST to vote for and/or kill a TERRORIST. I was having a brain fart at that point, I guess... but what I meant was not that there was no reason for an innocent to kill a terrorist. I meant that YOU had SAID that there was no reason for terrorists to kill each other.