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).
Agreed croc, my gut tells me this one is wrong.
I'm rejecting this motion as well.
Well I'd like to see you guys come up with a better proposal and some reasoning behind it.
I'd like to know why SoItBegins voted to approve his own mission, since he was so insistent that his discussionless proposal was intended to fail.
I'd like to know why prophile voted to reject a mission with him on it, when everyone else voted in favor.
I'd like to know what sort of proposal croc would make, if this one is so bad.
I'd like to know why Crow T. Robot was fine with the last crowd, but is against this one other than the obviousness of wanting to be on it.
I'd like to know why JacaByte- oh nevermind, he's ignoring me and won't answer me anyway.
Until these questions are answered, I will be waiting to vote. I'm am mainly concerned about SoItBegins at the moment, due to his vote last proposal, and darth_vader's inactivity. I'd rather swap in croc for darth_vader, unless he shows himself with a good explanation.
@mrxak, on 29 July 2012 - 06:09 PM, said in GTW 40:
Okay, the reason I don't like this proposal is because I don't trust you mrxak because of your banter back and forth with Jacabyte makes me think you might be one of the terrorist. I also don't trust retep here also because he basically used the group from round 1 again but with the addition of darth_Vader, that raises a red flag with me. But like I said in my previous post, it's mostly a gut reaction and I trust myself more than anyone else at this point. If you have evidence to support why I should trust you, I'll listen. But at this time, I am still rejecting this proposal.
Edit: This comes from mrxak's post on Friday evening.
Quote: "People get too hung up on the probabilities here, it seems. Probabilities are nice, to understand just how risky something is, but it all comes down to trust. I have greater reason to trust myself, SoItBegins, and retep998, than anyone else in the game, because none of us have sabotaged a mission yet, given an opportunity to do so. I would want to have all three of those people on a team together. Then, I'd add somebody reasonable, somebody like darth_vader. Maybe even croc. I would avoid prophile, who is apparently laying low. I would avoid JacaByte and Crow T. Robot who seem to have an issue, even now, with the way the first round was conducted.
darth_vader, mrxak, retep988, SoItBegins. Risky, sure, but the most likely of the bunch to be trustworthy so far. I would take a gamble on that group. If we're lucky, the game will end by round three, if we're unlucky, we'll have two extra rounds to figure things out."
Care to explain mrxak and retep.
This post has been edited by Crow T. Robot : 29 July 2012 - 07:38 PM
I'd like to know what sort of proposal croc would make, if this one is so bad lol XD.
I would make a proposal with
Myself, because I am innocent
All people that have not yet gone on a mission
definitely not retep or SoItBegins as they have both clearly attempted to get themselves on this team and it seems fairly suspicious to me
... not that it matters until it's my turn to pick a team. I've already outlined how i would pick the team in my previous post.
Edit: I also have never claimed the selection was "bad", simply that I predicted exactly what would happen when leadership passed to retep. Casting further suspicion on mrxak...
This post has been edited by croc : 29 July 2012 - 06:42 PM
I'm concerned about the lack of information which came out from the discussions on the last subcommittee and wished to forego the inevitable pointing of fingers at me when the mission is driven into the ground.
@croc, on 29 July 2012 - 06:40 PM, said in GTW 40:
Ahhahahaha! Wait, are you serious? I've made it explicitly clear in every GTW that I will do whatever it takes to get on the team, and I will always reject anything without me. If anything, me doing the opposite would be extremely suspicious.
@crow-t--robot, on 29 July 2012 - 06:19 PM, said in GTW 40:
retep998 apparently knows a good team suggestion when he sees one. I at least have the balls to put something out there for it to be discussed. I'm not afraid of having my strategy scrutinized, because it's a strategy designed to get a win for the good guys. I feel I made a good case, and somebody else apparently decided it was a good idea. What have you done all game except argue against the most logical course of action at every turn?
Again, what the heck is wrong with the first team, that you yourself voted for, and resulted in the only success of the game so far?
You do realize that the odds of there being a bad guy on your team proposal are identical to the odds of retep998's proposal? The only difference is that three of the people on retep998's proposal have a history of not sabotaging any missions, and yours is sufficiently vague enough that you can't be blamed for it later should a mission like that fail.
I like how the suspicion for retep998's actions is placed solely on me though, nice touch. :rolleyes:
@prophile, on 29 July 2012 - 08:37 PM, said in GTW 40:
A perfectly reasonable answer, thank you. Would you like to actually discuss the current selection or are you still just lying low here?
Still waiting to hear from SoItBegins and darth_vader before I vote.
That's simple. I figured it would fail, but it's bad form for a motion creator to vote against his own motion (for the same reason that it's bad form for a motion creator not to put himself on his own motion). Besides, there was always the possibility it might pass.
croc said:
3. definitely not retep or SoItBegins as they have both clearly attempted to get themselves on this team and it seems fairly suspicious to me...
I'm not entirely sure what you mean about me there— last proposal was mine, so I put the one person I really trust on it. As for retep...
retep998 said:
I've made it explicitly clear in every GTW that I will do whatever it takes to get on the team, and I will always reject anything without me.
Well, he's harder to read than I imagined.
As for my suspicions, I'm kinda curious about mrxak tearing up the place. JacaByte seems well opposed to him, so I'll go with his lead and REJECT the motion for now, but I do have to wonder about the intensity of the conflict... on both sides.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 29 July 2012 - 10:32 PM
@soitbegins, on 29 July 2012 - 10:24 PM, said in GTW 40:
Who ever said it was bad form to reject one's own mission? Mackilroy did it last game, and hardly anyone made much comment on it. I've seen it happen in many games. Sometimes it's useful as a trap to see who votes for a given proposal.
Considering I've played this game many times more than all of you, and introduced it to you all in fact, did you expect me to be the same sort of meek player you all have been in the last couple rounds that led to your double defeat? Perhaps more of you should be following my example, instead of attacking me for playing the game as it's played by successful innocents (in my experience).
If you can't handle a little aggression, perhaps this game is just too advanced for all of you, and we should go back to the traditional mafia popularity contest. That will be very sad, but if you're all going to treat me with suspicion over wanting to discuss things and strategize, and you know, maybe actually win, so be it. We can all just surrender now, and be like prophile hiding under a blanket with our hands over our mouths, or Crow T. Robot wanting to avoid all conflict because conflict is, apparently, inherently evil.
This game is about risk, about paranoia, and about strong opinions. Nut up or don't sign up.
@mrxak, on 30 July 2012 - 01:18 AM, said in GTW 40:
Well, I think we can all safely agree you're acting nuts! ^_^
From my perspective, having hosted this game a couple times, I can safely say that it is you people who are nuts.
Anyway, if my slang is a bit obscure, it means grow a pair.
@mrxak, on 29 July 2012 - 09:58 PM, said in GTW 40:
LOL You do realize that the odds of there being a bad guy on your team proposal are identical to the odds of retep998's proposal? LMAO The only difference is that three of the people on retep998's proposal have a history of not sabotaging any missions, and yours is sufficiently vague enough that you can't be blamed for it later should a mission like that fail haha xD
We'll see about that. I didn't pick a team because it's not my turn yet. None of you are calculating "odds" correctly. My goal is to get the rest of the names involved and see what happens. I don't think there's anything vague about that.
xD I like how the suspicion for retep998's actions is placed solely on me though, nice touch LOL. :rolleyes:
Not retep's actions, but because you added connotation where there was none. I never said anything negative about retep's selection, simply that I was rejecting it with my vote. You can take that smiley and shove it up your (wait for it)...
perhaps this game is just too advanced for all of you, and we should go back to the traditional mafia popularity contest xDDDDD
... douchey, raging bunghole.
OK, I GOTTA call Hollywood. :laugh:
All of my what.
I was just pointing it out that it could be viewed that you are providing suggestions to the other fellow terrorists on how to win. It just seems suspicions that after SIB's proposal failed, retep's proposal is exactly like how you suggested a day before. It might be reading between the lines too much but I thought it was something to bring up for the group.
The reason I am questioning these proposals is the first time we did this style of game, I picked three people in the first round who succeeded and then after that, we continued to use them over and over again because we felt they were innocent when in fact they were not. I want to be safe and not make that same mistake again. I know that last game, that was not the case but we must take all considerations into account. As to why I voted for the slate in Round 1 was like I said in a previous post, you stated in previous games that those who vote reject on proposal one when we have no evidence yet fall right away under suspect of being terrorist. I know myself to be innocent and did not want to get labeled right away as a terrorist and cause the innocents to loose a member for a person on a successful committee. Hope that clears it up some with you mrxak.
You know, we would have won last game just fine if we had payed attention to the fact that there had to be exactly one traitor on each of the two missions that failed. That is, if everybody besides Mack and the traitors were reading my posts. But noooooooooo
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 30 July 2012 - 09:22 AM
I will dispense a little further analysis later today. A deadline looms.
Don't let croc fool you, we're actually BFFs on ASW's IPB.
Where the heck is darth_vader?