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).
And I never asked to be put on any committees either until I realized that I had to be on this committee, unless I wanted to guarantee that I'm substituted with a terrorist. This fact hasn't struck you yet apparently.
Jacabyte, as I have previously stated about what happened in round one, it was a random pick because I had no clue who might be a terrorist or who might be an innocent. I just picked people who have done GTW before and someone who I did not know. Now they might be innocents or (like we have hypothesized) that one (or all) of them might have been terrorists and just voted yes to create the ruse that they are innocent, so that we think those three are "good" guys. I'm still not sure, who is good and who is evil but we have got to stop these fails or the bad guys will win.
I'm loving it.
@jacabyte, on 28 May 2012 - 09:07 PM, said in GTW 36:
And I never asked to be put on any committees either until I realized that I had to be on this committee, unless I wanted to guarantee that I'm substituted with someone innocent. This fact hasn't struck you yet apparently.
Fixed.
Here's the problem Crow, you're not considering how unlikely it is that you didn't pick 1 or more traitors to be on your detail.
At this point the only thing the innocent members can do is reject motions that they aren't on; if an innocent member is not on this detail that means that a terrorist is.
@mackilroy, on 28 May 2012 - 09:32 PM, said in GTW 36:
You know, going back and looking at previous GTW games, you only behave like this when you're a traitor...
@jacabyte, on 28 May 2012 - 09:37 PM, said in GTW 36:
Uh, I did say that they could all be innocents or that one or all were terrorists and voted yes on the first mission to make us think that they are "innocents." Scroll back to the top and read the post again, please.
This post has been edited by Crow T. Robot : 28 May 2012 - 09:43 PM
If that's the conclusion you reached you should go back and read again.
@crow-t--robot, on 28 May 2012 - 09:43 PM, said in GTW 36:
In which case you just copied what SIB and I have been saying since round 3.
Here is my motion.
retep998 mud212 prophile SoItBegins JacaByte
My advice is as follows: If this mission fails, take the same list, drop JacaByte, and add Mackilroy.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 28 May 2012 - 11:10 PM
Okay, there is now a motion put forth by Speaker SoItBegins.
He proposes that the fourth mission subcommittee be made up of the following members.
These members will be given classified information, enough to plan a mission to kill or capture Gérard Martin with their combined forces, but also enough to sabotage the mission, if two or more of these members are helping the terrorists.
If you approve of SoItBegins' motion, and wish these five members of the Security Council to form the fourth mission subcommittee, please send me a personal message with your vote to APPROVE.
If you reject SoItBegins' motion, and wish for the fourth mission subcommittee to be made up of a different set of Security Council members, please send me a personal message with your vote to REJECT.
Once all eight votes are in, I will reveal them, including who voted how. If the motion is APPROVED by a minimum of five members of the Security Council, the subcommittee will be formed. If the motion is REJECTED by a minimum of four members of the Security Council, the Speakership will pass to JacaByte, and he will have opportunity to put forth a new motion for the Security Council to vote on.
You may discuss SoItBegins' selection for as long as you'd like, but please vote quickly, as we are facing imminent destruction. I would also like to remind the Speaker that he, too, needs to vote to APPROVE or REJECT his own motion.
By the way, a question— if I had made my proposal in rhyme, would it be 'poetry in motion'? :laugh:
So, everybody sit tight. Crow T. Robot warned me yesterday, before we got to the second motion, that he would probably be out of touch today, so he probably won't be voting until late, maybe even tomorrow. There are six votes in, and his is one of the ones missing. When the seventh vote comes in, if it seems that Crow T. Robot's vote won't make any difference, I'll decide if i want to end it or not with the votes that are in. Even if we go to five subcommittee motions, we would not get to Crow T. Robot's Speakership again, so potentially we can resolve this turn without him. If this motion should fail, and he's put on a subcommittee, we can wait for him.
Does nobody have a phone number for him?
Mission #4 Subcommittee Motion by SoItBegins retep998 mud212 prophile SoItBegins JacaByte
Approve: prophile - May 29th, 12:17 AM SoItBegins - May 29th, 12:22 AM retep998 - May 29th, 12:25 AM JacaByte - May 29th, 12:51 AM mud212 - May 29th, 2:00 AM Crow T. Robot - May 29th, 8:05 AM croc - May 29th, 2:18 PM
Reject: Mackilroy - May 29th, 12:23 AM
Result: Approve 7, Reject 1 Motion Passes
The subcommittee consisting of retep998, mud212, prophile, SoItBegins, and JacaByte has been approved, and will now carry out the fourth mission. Those five people need to PM me as soon as possible, indicating whether they will help the mission SUCCEED or FAIL. A single vote of FAIL will cause the mission to be unsuccessful. When I have received all five PMs, I will inform you of the mission's result, and then it will be JacaByte's turn as Speaker to suggest the next subcommittee.
DEATH TO THE WEST.
Mission #4 Gérard Martin Succeed: 3 Fail: 2
Three of five missions have now failed. Gérard Martin got away when an avenue of escape was strangely left wide open, as forces sent by two members of the subcommittee suddenly withdrew just as the others engaged with Martin's bodyguards. Gérard Martin is now at large, and satellites are detecting the flashes of nuclear warheads going off around the world.
GAME OVER.
The traitors were mud212, croc, and prophile.
I will be posting a new debrief topic, for discussion on tactics and gameplay, more generally. You are free to discuss this specific game here, of course.
And you all doubted me. Tsk tsk.
Because you were being asinine about trying to prove your innocence, and then you went ape**** on me.
You know, Mack, for all your arguments, you were pointing the finger at the totally wrong people as well ;). You, JacaByte, and Crow T. Robot caused a huge distracting mess that allowed the three bad guys to go completely unnoticed.
Your behavior was crazier than mine ever was. So was prophile's for that matter, and you didn't suspect him once. Had I posted as little as he did you probably wouldn't have said a word to me.
In fact, all three traitors posted the least in this entire game, accounting for eight posts total compared to my (current) twenty and your current 19.