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).
@mackilroy, on 28 May 2012 - 05:47 PM, said in GTW 36:
If you feel it best then leave me out, but I'm definitely more trustworthy than JB, having been on a successful mission. He's been on none.
Other way around, Mack. You have a set chance of being a traitor. JB is an unknown quantity. I'd pick him, just to see what happens.
EDIT: I'll vote yes on this mission, but I'm kinda wondering about Mackilroy's addition...
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 28 May 2012 - 05:49 PM
So, all of a sudden I'm hearing about images or video or something that purports to show proof that somebody is innocent or guilty or whatever, being messaged about between various people.
Either this is fake evidence people have made, in which case you should really be asking why they're doing so, or it's real, in which case they're violating both the spirit of the game, and the accepted rules we've been following since the beginning of GTW.
On the one hand, I'm glad that people are getting so into it that they'd do this sort of thing, fake or real, but on the other, it just ruins everyone's fun and that's way not cool.
So, let's cut it out, play the game fair, and have fun. Remember, it's just a game.
So has the voting for croc's subcommittee begun yet?
@soitbegins, on 28 May 2012 - 05:48 PM, said in GTW 36:
True, but the person with the highest chance of being a traitor is retep. Compared to him the rest of us aren't even on the charts.
Okay, there is now a motion put forth by Speaker croc.
He proposes that the fourth mission subcommittee be made up of the following members.
Crow T. Robot JacaByte prophile Mackilroy croc
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 croc's 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 croc's 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 SoItBegins, and he will have opportunity to put forth a new motion for the Security Council to vote on.
You may discuss croc's 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.
@mackilroy, on 28 May 2012 - 06:12 PM, said in GTW 36:
Let's see.
Chance of first subcommittee having 3 traitors (1/56) * chance of retep being a traitor (0) = 0 Chance of first subcommittee having 2 traitors (15/56) * chance of retep being a traitor (1/5) = 3/56, though if he WAS a traitor he wouldn't add himself to a committee that already had traitors on it. Chance of first subcommittee having 1 traitor (30/56) * chance of retep being a traitor (4/10) = 12/56 Chance of first subcommittee having 0 traitors (10/56) * chance of retep being a traitor (100%) = 10/56
Chance of retep being a traitor = 25/56, or just under 45%. It's possible. Might not want to do him on future missions.
EDIT: I just realized that Croc's proposed committee has all 3 members from the first round. (headslap) We're taking too much of a risk if we vote ACCEPT on this. Changing my vote to REJECT.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 28 May 2012 - 07:37 PM
I'm highly suspicious of Mack here. Another REJECT from me.
Considering that in the first round the mission was successful, that's not a risk.
@mackilroy, on 28 May 2012 - 07:48 PM, said in GTW 36:
17.9% chance the first round contains no traitors, folks!
Mission #4 Subcommittee Motion by croc Crow T. Robot JacaByte prophile Mackilroy croc
Approve: Crow T. Robot - May 28th, 7:28 PM JacaByte - May 28th, 7:31 PM croc - May 28th, 7:35 PM Mackilroy - May 28th, 8:24 PM
Reject: retep998 - May 28th, 6:40 PM SoItBegins - May 28th, 8:37 PM prophile - May 28th, 8:42 PM mud212 - May 28th, 8:50 PM
Result: Approve 4, Reject 4 Motion Fails
The subcommittee consisting of Crow T. Robot, JacaByte, prophile, Mackilroy, and croc has been rejected. SoItBegins is the new Speaker, and may choose another five players to form the subcommittee. After five subcommittee rejection votes, the terrorists win.
Point of clarification: must those rejections be consecutive, or are they cumulative?
Well, both, technically, but it's per-round. So let's say consecutive to make it easier to understand.
So basically, we need to make a decision; we need to choose all 5 of the members who are innocent, which means we need to decide which of Mack, croc, prophile and retep are traitors, as we have established that at least one of them is a traitor. And then we will need to pick one or more of Mack, croc, prophile and retep to be on the next detail.
Had I been online when SoItBegins pointed out that all three of the original detail was on the next detail I would have changed my vote to reject. I'm truly sorry for not having my head in the game folks, I'm being a terrible diplomat.
But the clincher to that? Had I changed my vote to reject we would have had some magic numbers here; 5 members voting reject and 3 voting approve. And who would have voted to approve the mission? Crow T. Robot, croc and Mackilroy.
I submit to the council that these three are your traitors. It's entirely logical for the traitors to approve a motion that would put all three of its members on a detail. Therefore, SoItBegins, I urge you to put forward the following detail; myself, retep998, yourself, prophile, and mud212, all the people who voted to reject the motion plus myself, the ding bell who should have voted reject to prevent any more confusion.
You've established nothing. You're jumping to false conclusions based on emotion and wild speculation. Not only that, but if all of us were traitors, why would we vote SUCCEED for any committee action when one could just as easily vote no and the other two yes?
JacaByte, I think you're a traitor. You outed yourself earlier, and you're going after me to make sure you can get onto a committee and vote FAIL.
Not only that, but your hypothetical vote change could just as easily apply to me as yourself.
But Jacabyte, we still run the risk that retep998, mud212, or prophile could have been the traitors as well even if they voted against croc's proposal because that might have kept the traitors out of the subcommittee that round or leave them too few to kill the vote (Round 4, 5 member subcommittee, 2 fail votes kills the mission). I say vote for SoItBegins, myself, croc, mackilroy, and mud212 and see if that proves anything.
This post has been edited by Crow T. Robot : 28 May 2012 - 08:46 PM
@mackilroy, on 28 May 2012 - 08:42 PM, said in GTW 36:
Because you didn't know that the motion was about to fail, look at the times those votes were turned into mrxak, they were all clustered between 8:30 and 9:00 PM, while our votes were clustered around 7:30 PM. And retep never posted here to indicate his position on this motion.
There is no way I can convince you I'm innocent at this point, I screwed up, I cast a vote to approve without thinking about how it would reflect on my role. But you've made mistakes like mine too SIB, I hope you can see through my mistake this once.
Wait… are you talking to me or SoItBegins? Or both?
Though if we look at timing, you, croc and Crow T. Robot all voted at nearly the same time, as if you'd just finished discussing your tactics.
Also, I'm not referring to voting for who's going to be on the committee, I'm referring to when the committee votes SUCCEED or FAIL.
Eh, I guess the first paragraph is for you and the second is for SIB.
Mack, if you're innocent you're being extremely disruptive at this point. I have never been on a detail, but you've been on two where there was a vote to fail the mission. This is much more suspicious than the time I chose to submit a PM to mrxak. At this point I suspect that Crow T. Robot is a traitor, and put both his fellow traitors on the detail, with the plan being to let the first mission succeed so it would be much likely that they'd be selected for future missions, which they were. And those future missions? They have all failed. This is the most likely scenario to explain our poor luck with IMO.
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 28 May 2012 - 09:03 PM
I really don't care who you guys choose for the subcommittee, but basically, as long as I'm not on the subcommittee, I'm going to reject the motion, unless its the final motion in which case I'll be forced to accept so we don't get nuked.
EDIT: If I were to pick a subcommittee, it would have me, soltbegins, and jacabyte forsure.
This post has been edited by retep998 : 28 May 2012 - 09:09 PM
You started the disruption, I'm simply defending myself. And I've never asked to be put on any of the committees -- if we choose a group that doesn't include me, and the mission succeeds, that's fine. If we choose a group that includes me and the mission succeeds, I'm happier.