GTW 40


I love how on mrxak's scale of "how good you are at this game", which in itself is complete nonsense, mrxak is at the top by a margin of over 30%

I ######ing told you guys to ignore the green s###

This game is about establishing trust. If you can come up with a better mathematical method of determining that, besides counting how many times people voted to have you on a team, I'd love to hear it.

The fact is, I established objective trust better than anyone, because people kept voting me into teams. This was not a good thing, considering my role.

If people kept voting in favor of teams with my name on it when they didn't trust me, then the model of course falls apart. But why the bloody heck would you do that then?

And hey, let's put it this way. I won. Yeah, I think I'm pretty good at this game since my fail vote won the game for my team.

@retep998, on 19 August 2012 - 09:06 PM, said in GTW 40:

Thus my proposal is...

Crow. T. Robot

@mrxak, on 22 August 2012 - 02:29 PM, said in GTW 40:

Not revealing until later is kind of mean. I'm not mean though, I'll tell you. The good guys were:
Crow T. Robot


So yeah. I was one of the bad guys. Now then:

@mrxak, on 22 August 2012 - 02:29 PM, said in GTW 40:

While you're there, try to take a notice of how many times I gave public advice or instructions to my cohorts, in plain sight, always under the guise of educating you innocents and making predictions about the future. I'm very curious to hear from SoItBegins and darth_vader just how many of those messages to them were understood loud and clear. Either way, they both performed magnificently.

One thing that drastically helped is mrxak's overreactions in the first few rounds. It made it quite easy for me to point the finger at him— I've come to notice, by the way, that usually if someone accuses someone else it's a natural assumption to think that at least one party is innocent.

Later, when I was discovered, all I had to do was ham it up, keep the spotlight on me, and let mrxak tag-team ME to help draw attention away from him.


I can speak, at least for myself, that there was no coordination of votes among myself and the other sleeper agents. Assuming there was no communication between SoItBegins and darth_vader as well, this marks the first truly "clean" game of The Resistance we've played. Things were certainly difficult for the bad guys, and mistakes could have been easily made at several occasions. The two fail votes on the third mission is arguably one of those mistakes, though at the time I was hoping for, and doing my best to publicly encourage, that exact result.

That post I made about game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma? That was a hint that one of us needed to vote SUCCEED.

Also, yep, my game was squeaky-clean. No communication at all.


Anyway, I look forward to being accused of aggression and long posts as proof that I'm evil in the next several games because of this :rolleyes:. Thanks Mackilroy.


Also, I've been reading back through mrxak's posts, and this little gem, at the very beginning, came back to hit me:

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

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.

Eh what?
I think that was kind of a giveaway.

My opinions are as follows: It was a good game, but the traitors kinda got lucky by getting the jump in the first round (and the second round). Things might have been more complicated if an actual team of innocents had the first few missions, though we could have done something to muddy the water.

I was definitely learning how to play this game as I played it this time, and I was also pretty busy for much of the time I was playing, which prevented me from participating as much. Basically I think I could have done a much better job, even though we won. After everyone started suspecting me, I just kept my head down, though I wasn't really trying to become less suspicious. I was mostly hoping that people would keep suspecting me and that would take the heat off mrxak or SIB. I was amazed that mrxak managed to get people to accept his "choice" between me and SIB though. I've also played this game in person several times since this game started with groups of 6 to 8 people, and I think I enjoy it more in person (unlike Mafia, which is totally pointless in person.) I think this game plus those others has given me a much better basic grasp of the game, and I'm actually impressed with how well balanced it is. In the games I played in person, the innocents always had enough information to figure out who the traitors were by the 5th mission. Spies succeeded by spreading tons of bullcrap, basically. Even when spies slipped up and made a move that revealed themselves, they were often able to recover by BSing enough that people got confused. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next game.

Sign-up topic, for those who haven't seen it yet.

Congrats to mafia. Rule clarification regarding private-communication ban among mafia:

Is what is banned:
(a) All private communication between players?
(b) All private communication involving at least one mafia?
© All private communication between mafia?
(d) All private communication between two people who are mafia and suspect their interlocutor also to be mafia?
(e) All private communication by mafia intended to instruct other mafia how to act?
(f) Other

The impetus for this question is that I was engaged in private communication by another player (a civ, as it happens). I wanted to confirm whether (i) this was in accordance with the rules and (ii) I could have used the fact of the communication to infer anything.

This post has been edited by Techerakh : 23 August 2012 - 09:30 AM

Basically (e).

The idea is that this is played in person around a table, ordinarily. There's no night phase where bad guys can point at people they want to kill off like mafia and nonverbally argue about it without anyone else knowing. Everything happens with eyes open. There's no talking privately because there's no way to do that.

So, moving this to a forum, there's obviously stuff like the PM system, or other communication. That's not allowed to keep things fair. When the bad guys can coordinate, there's only ever one fail vote on missions, even when there's more than one bad guy. There's no possibility of two bad guys voting succeed when they think their cohort will vote fail, either. It throws off the balance. The goal of the rule is to prevent any coordination over votes, proposals, or fail votes by the bad guys, so the bad guys can't play a perfect game. If they want to talk about things other than that, it's not really a big deal, but it's probably best to ban all communication to prevent any temptation to hint around privately.

Communication between good guys is less disruptive, I think, to the balance of the game. But it really depends on the nature of that communication. There's probably ways in which it could be used to give the good guys an unfair advantage, but there's nothing at all preventing bad guys from posing as good guys in these sorts of communications, and so personally, I wouldn't trust any PM from anyone. I think ultimately, to keep everything above board, it's best rule out private communication between anyone. This, however, was not explicitly outlawed by the rules of this particular game. And I'm sure there will always be people wanting to talk about the game on IRC, or trying to influence each other in ways outside their posts on the forum topic. I think as long as it doesn't rise to the level of coordination on votes, proposals, or fail votes, it's not terribly bad.

@techerakh, on 22 August 2012 - 08:01 PM, said in GTW 40:

obviously i'm not playing but...
i attempted to post a message saying that mrxak was a terrorist, but it was either glitched out or deleted. i recognized this early in your game.


You weren't playing, so I made your post invisible. Along with everyone else who posted but wasn't actually playing.

View PostTecherakh, on 23 August 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:


As mrxak said, basically e. You're welcome to PM other people as an innocent, but there's no guarantee that a traitor wouldn't use that to his advantage to dupe you. When I host games I don't mind if you're discussing the game (as we did on IRC, and also via IM programs), but you should be careful believing everything you read...

sweet, it's like Ghost.
i'm patrick swayze and mack is whoopy.

edit: damn, i guess i was resurrected.

This post has been edited by daowei : 23 August 2012 - 08:26 PM

In response to daowei, I also "recognized" that mrxak was guilty very early on in the game (first page, before I was even playing). But then later other people were also suspicious and I moved on. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. (This also applies to the walls of analysis posted by the mafia above.) But, daowei, if you're so good, maybe you should play next time. The civs always need all the help they can get.

The problem is you and daowei think I'm suspicious because of things that aren't suspicious, if you had been playing with us since the very beginning of GTW (and, unlike JacaByte, actually remember past games). I get accused of the same old things every single game. I actually went back and looked at a whole lot of old topics in the last month. If I'm not offed immediately, or the game ends too quickly, I'm always seen as "too aggressive" and "oh noes mrxak must be evil" because of it.

Which is why it sucks when I actually am evil, because people refer back to those handful of games forever as proof that I'm evil when I do the exact same fucking things as an innocent in the next few games. The only way I can convince you people I'm not evil is by not posting. Well, I'm not going to do that, and if I did, it would be because I'm specifically manipulating you.

Log in to reply