GTW 40

arr

The game is the Resistance, as in Game 36 and Game 39. Most of you should be pretty familiar with it by now. If you’re not, I suggest reading through the previous two games styled in this manner, as well as the debrief topic for Game 36.

(Yes, I borrowed this from mrxak. So sue me)

The UN Security Council will take turns submitting names of Security Council members to receive classified information pooled from the world's intelligence services, in order to plan and carry out operations to kill or capture terrorist cells. Three such operations will be enough to stop the terrorist plot, but there is only time for at most five operations total before the terrorists detonate their bombs. Should the terrorists escape justice in three operations, due to sabotage by the traitors on the Security Council, the terrorists will surely succeed.

Phase One ("Team Building Phase") of each turn will consist of subcommittee membership selection. In a rotating fashion, the order of which has been determined randomly, each of you will take turns putting forth names. If the names are approved by a majority vote of four, the mission will go on to Phase Two. If the names are rejected by four members, the next person on the list will then propose a new set of names. Five rejections in a row, and the Security Council is deadlocked and the terrorists and their agents on the Security Council automatically win the game. Phase One can therefore have as many as five votes before the game progresses.

Phase Two ("Mission Phase") of each turn will consist of solely the members selected for the operation. Each will decide if they wish the mission to succeed or fail. A single vote for failure on any of the five operations will cause the operation to fail. A operation will only succeed if the members of the chosen subcommittee unanimously decide it should succeed. Obviously innocent members of the team ought to always vote to succeed a mission, but sleeper agents have the option to either cause it to fail and earn a point for the terrorists, or have it succeed to keep their cover.

All voting will be done privately, via PM to me. I suggest using the same PM thread that you got your role PM from, just to keep things nice and simple, as you can keep replying to that instead of sending me dozens of new PM threads. Phase One votes will be revealed all at once, when all votes are in, indicating how people chose to vote. Phase Two votes will always be revealed in quantity, but not who voted how. If you want to publicly declare their approval or rejection for a given set of names in Phase One, you are encouraged to do so, but these statements will not count as your vote.

Here are the eight players, in the order they will put forth names for consideration on operation teams.

  • mrxak
  • SoItBegins
  • retep998
  • JacaByte
  • darth_vader
  • prophile
  • croc
  • Crow T. Robot

mrxak will be the first to suggest names for the first operation team, then after his suggestions are approved (and the mission carried out) or rejected, it will be SoItBegins's turn. Things will continue as such, and loop back around to mrxak again after Crow T. Robot has had a turn.

The sleeper agents don’t know who the other two are. As mrxak did in the last game, I will let them know, via PM, if the currently (and publicly) proposed names contains their cohort. Eventually, through process of elimination, it may be possible for the three sleeper agents to discover each other's identities, but it's my hope that they will use the information I give them to coordinate name selection, and not their mission outcome votes (to ensure only vote fail vote is ever made at a time). Even if sleeper agents discover the identity of their cohort beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are not allowed to communicate. Similarly, I encourage the sleeper agents to ignore any such contact, as it stands to reason an innocent member might attempt to trick them with a false claim of being their cohort, in order to influence their mission outcome votes.

mrxak mentioned this in relation to the previous game: don’t just suggest operation teams until everyone agrees -- debate what names should be on teams before each proposer even brings one up. Don’t reject committees out of hand either. Keeping track of who votes/suggests what would also be a good idea, though it’s entirely up to you to do so.

Ultimately it is up to the diplomats to gather as much data as possible, and take control over the operation selection process to exclude sleeper agents. It is up to the sleeper agents to give the innocents bad data to confuse them, and get a sleeper agent on as many operations as possible.

There are five innocents and three sleeper agents. There are five operations, and each side is attempting to win three of them. A single failure vote on any operation (with the exception of the fourth operation, which requires two votes to fail), and the sleeper agents win that operation. No failures, and the innocents win that operation. The operation sizes, are as follows. 3, 4, 4, 5, 5.

The game will last as long as it lasts. We'll only really know how long each round will last, based on how many votes it takes to get into Phase Two of each round.

mrxak, you are up first, please propose two names to go on the first operation. Everyone, expect a role PM shortly.

**Mission Profile #1
**Said Al-Assad
Said Al-Assad is new to the world of international terrorism, but he’s already made a name for himself with car bombings in Syria, bus hijackings in Egypt, and the scuttling of a pair of ships in the Suez Canal, blocking it for weeks while NATO military forces pursued him. He is believed to be hiding in a major city somewhere by the Mediterranean, awaiting orders to unleash atomic devastation on an unknown Western target. His capture or killing is paramount. The mission subcommittee assigned to him will be given intelligence to plan and carry out an operation to neutralize him.

I vote for Mackilroy , he's obviously a traitor.

I'm going to go against previous statements I've made, and propose a set of names immediately, without discussion, and furthermore request that you immediately approve of my proposal, even though this is the first one.

The first round, that is this one, is a random selection process. There is nothing to discuss, and one good random selection is as good as another. Four of you, that is the next four down the list after me, have reason to want to skip my first random proposal, in order to have their own random proposal. For the rest of you, each of our proposals are indistinguishable. For all of you, I will suggest that the more proposals that are rejected in this first round, the more opportunities for the bad guys to identify their cohorts.

Thus, if you are a good guy, you must vote to approve my first proposal in the first round, or you are helping the bad guys win. Any vote of rejection from any of prophile, croc, or Crow T. Robot, I will take as a hostile action, a sleeper agent revealing himself to be a bad guy. Any vote of rejection from either of JacaByte or darth_vader, I shall take as a stupid action, a good guy making a mistake, or a sleeper agent pretending to be a good guy making a mistake. Any vote of rejection from either of SoItBegins or retep998, I shall take as an impatient action, a good guy wanting to propose the first names, making a calculated risk to achieve this at the possible expense of bad guys gaining information.

In order to maximize the possibility of a speedy and unanimous approval of my proposal, I shall take with me on the first mission the two I believe who are most likely to reject this mission if they are not on it. This is still a random selection, as good or bad as anyone else's, the only difference is the randomness of it has been determined by Mackilroy's random list order.

The first proposal for the first mission is, in alphabetical order:
mrxak
retep998
SoItBegins

Naturally I am voting in approval on this proposal. Please PM your approval vote, as I will shortly, to Mackilroy as soon as possible.

Why so serious mrxak?

This is the only round in which we have to choose 3 players.

This is also the first round, and having a sleeper agent on the first mission could cost us the game.

Therefore, I want to see more contention for placement on the first mission, and will be rejecting this proposal. I want to see what everybody else does. Your attempt to ram your proposal through us as quickly as possible makes me suspicious of you, especially since you singled out groups of us arbitrarily. It also won't help us figure out who the traitor is if this mission fails, or if any future missions with members from this mission fail. Are you trying to bully us into passing your proposals quickly or are you trying to pressure traitors? This is a rather poor way to either IMO.

I agree with Jacabyte, we just started the game and already mrxak your listing people of who you trust and don't trust already. We have no evidence yet to determine who is guilty and who isn't.

Edit due to clarification by Jacabyte.

This post has been edited by Crow T. Robot : 25 July 2012 - 02:01 PM

@jacabyte, on 25 July 2012 - 12:41 PM, said in GTW 40:

Why so serious mrxak?

This is the only round in which we have to choose 3 players.

This is also the first round, and having a sleeper agent on the first mission could cost us the game.

Therefore, I want to see more contention for placement on the first mission, and will be rejecting this proposal. I want to see what everybody else does. Your attempt to ram your proposal through us as quickly as possible makes me suspicious of you, especially since you singled out groups of us arbitrarily. It also won't help us figure out who the traitor is if this mission fails, or if any future missions with members from this mission fail. Are you trying to bully us into passing your proposals quickly or are you trying to pressure traitors? This is a rather poor way to either IMO.

As I clearly outlined, there is no reason to reject the first proposal unless you are a bad guy, or will soon have the power to come up with a set of names yourself. It just so happens that I am first, but I would be making the same argument regardless of who the first proposer was. There's nothing arbitrary about the groups I singled out. Only four of you can propose names this round before we lose the entire game, if we keep rejecting, so any statistical advantages that might be had by being the mission one proposer are out of reach by three people. They should therefore approve of any and all proposals in the first round. To reject a proposal implies other motivations. There are no other motivations in this first round, except to see as many proposals as possible, to narrow down the list of cohorts and determine exactly who they are. Thus, if those three people vote to reject my proposal, they are motivated by terrorist goals. As for the remaining four, it was again, not arbitrary. I determined that five proposals for the first round would assuredly give the bad guys precise identification of perhaps two of their cohorts. In three proposals, this was far less likely, perhaps just one name might be identified exactly. The risk of giving the bad guys complete understanding of the game in the very first round, to me, seems unacceptable. Thus, two of you would be throwing the game early to do so, a move I can only describe as stupid or motivated by evil. The other two of you might be throwing the game, or at least unbalancing it. Perhaps that is a risk those two people are willing to take. I made my selection specifically to avoid them feeling the need to take that risk.

What exactly kind of information do you think it will get you to reject this first vote, since the sleeper agents don't yet know who the other sleeper agents are?

If your real concern is that I'll be arguing for swift discussionless rubberstamp votes in subsequent rounds, you have nothing to be concerned about. The circumstances of the first round are unique.

@crow-t--robot, on 25 July 2012 - 12:45 PM, said in GTW 40:

I agree with Jacabyte, we just started the game and already mrxak your listing people of who you trust and don't trust already. We have no evidence yet to determine who is guilty and who isn't. I also am rejecting this proposal.

I have done no such thing. I neither trust nor distrust anyone. However, I have outlined categories of people, and expected sets of behavior for people in those categories if they desire to win for the good guys. Deviation from that expected behavior, will clearly mark you as motivated by evil.

For example, if you do indeed reject this proposal as you threaten, you will be sending me a clear sign that you are a sleeper agent, for the reasons outlined above. If you vote to approve it, you will give me no data either way. If you aren't actually evil, please do not cloud the data by voting to reject.

Well then, because the first round includes me, and that is definitely the safest option because I am never ever the traitor ever, I do hereby approve mrxak's proposal.

Bah, we didn't understand mrxak's post because of how needlessly long it is.

All mrxak needed to say is "The first proposal will be just as good as the second and third." and "The more proposals we make the more likely the traitors are of figuring out who their cohorts are." That's it. Two simple sentences, and we would have gotten what you were trying to tell us immediately.

In the future, I suggest that mrxak boil his posts down so they are as short as possible.

In the future, I suggest that people get used to reading my ponderous posts, and then do exactly what I tell them to do without question.

I should point out that while your boiled down version accomplishes the latter, it does not accomplish the educational process I am attempting to create here.

@mrxak, on 25 July 2012 - 02:20 PM, said in GTW 40:

(color=#007F00)In the future, I suggest that people get used reading my ponderous posts, and then do exactly what I tell them to do without question.

A succinct distillation of everything mrxak wants from life.

Though he may be a windbag, I think mrxak is right. There's really no solid reason to favor any first-round proposal over another. On the other hand, people have already been reacting in diverse ways, and that might give us some information. There are a few ways this could work out. Is mrxak a traitor who got lucky and wants to put himself in the first round so he can sabotage it? I don't think so. It would have been unwise to draw attention to himself in this way if that was his plan. So I really have no reason to distrust mrxak especially, and I distrust everyone else just as much. That said, I'm still curious as to why prophile, croc, or Crow T. Robot would get marked as evil immediately for rejecting this proposal, while Jacabyte or myself would merely be thought of as stupid.

@darth_vader, on 25 July 2012 - 04:43 PM, said in GTW 40:

That said, I'm still curious as to why prophile, croc, or Crow T. Robot would get marked as evil immediately for rejecting this proposal, while Jacabyte or myself would merely be thought of as stupid.

Perhaps because I have greater faith in the innocent people of this game to act in their own best interests than I ought to. It's pretty clear that there's nothing but downside for those three to vote to reject, if those three people are innocent. I would hope everyone could see that clearly. There is a legitimate reason for you or JacaByte to want to reject proposals until you get your turn to propose, as innocents, but the trade off is rather high. If you noticed, I did include the possibility that you both could also be evil.

As for the whole proposer-putting-his-own-name-on-the-team thing, it's not required, but it's pretty much expected. It would be crazy for any person not to put somebody on the team that they knew the role of, 100%.

Is SoItBegins still having computer trouble? I've heard there are 7 votes in now.

I do hereby yawn in order to express my boredom due to the lack of progress with the voting.
Yawns

So far SIB, prophile and croc haven't posted, suggesting their absence.

croc has been active on IRC, and Mackilroy told us there that it was SoItBegins we were waiting on.

Man, I wish this was more of a mafia style game, where we could vote out people. Then I'd totally vote out SoltBegins just so we don't get slowed down by him.

SoItBegins, please vote by 8 PM PST tonight or I'm marking you down as an abstention.

You know when I was hosting, we never had this problem 😛

Sorry! I overslept. REJECT , because we shouldn't jump blindly into the first thing.

EDIT: Mrxak retrothinks I'm a bad guy now? :blink: OK, fine, ACCEPT.

SECOND EDIT: An 'impatient action'... oh I get it. :huh:

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 26 July 2012 - 08:37 PM

Mission #1 Subcommittee by mrxak
mrxak
retep998
SoItBegins

Approve
mrxak -- 11:31
croc -- 11:37
retep998 -- 12:07
JacaByte -- 12:59
Crow T. Robot -- 13:00
prophile -- 15:40
darth_vader -- 15:48
SoItBegins -- 17:36

Result:
Unanimous approval, motion passes.

The subcommittee consisting of mrxak, retep998 and SoItBegins has been approved and will now carry out the first mission. Those three people need to PM me as soon as possible, indicating whether they will help the mission SUCCEED or FAIL. When I have received all three PMs I will inform you of the mission's result, and then it will be SoItBegins' turn to propose a committee.

Log in to reply