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).
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 02:01 AM, said in GTW 40:
The way croc has been posting seems suspicious to me. I know this is not the sort of hard evidence that some unnamed individuals clamor for, but it's enough for me not to want him on my team. (Looking at this game and the previous GTW game I played with croc, there is simply no comparison)
Still here, still innocent. I can't really find very much energy to write posts about who I think is and isn't suspicious, especially since this format of the game leaves it totally up to what people say--since the traitors don't know each other, there's no way for them to know how to vote or make proposals, leaving the "evidence" based on these things completely useless and unfounded (especially since all missions have succeeded!). Basically, this game is a crapshoot, and more up to chance than it is up to logic at this point. I approve your proposal because I have a feeling (since that's all there is at this point) there will be more than one failure vote on the mission, and because we only need one out of the next three to succeed. If anything, it would actually provide some evidence to go on for my proposal (which is next).
@mrxak, on 08 August 2012 - 02:56 AM, said in GTW 40:
croc seems like croc to me LOL. I'm not really sure what you mean by this. But... that's not a good thing. croc needs to be a lot more active XD and serious XDDD
We are playing a ######ing forum game. I leave serious for things that require it in my life, not a game that I am attempting to enjoy in my ( extremely limited , you might not understand this) free time. mrxak is perpetually acting like an angry child that's had his stupidity pointed out to him--a child that then lashes out with novel-length forum posts. We don't do what he wants, he says that we're too stupid/immature for 'his' game. We do what he wants, he laughs and calls us sheep. You try to counter his flimsy overly-passionate arguments, he bursts out in a fit of nerd-rage and claims you can't read or don't understand. Seriously, I don't even try to read the green text anymore unless I'm mentioned by name. I don't blame prophile for leaving the game, and IC deserves a medal of honor for even attempting to deal with mrxak rationally.
We've already established quite a bit in this game, and a new player (LOLLL) would be wise to go along with what we've learned. xD
And by we you mean... ?
06:33 < InfiniteCustomer> Look, he thinks he's people
bahahah
@croc, on 08 August 2012 - 10:19 AM, said in GTW 40:
Here, here. We're playing a game. Not a real war with real consequences due to our outcomes. I agree with croc that we innocents are only one win away from closing this game out, so let's get it done to avoid causing more strife between us and try to enjoy the rest of this game.
I will be approving this proposal, not because I'm in it, but because I love how IC has taken the time to disassemble mrxak in front of the whole crowd. I also think that we may get some useful information from the outcome of this mission, instead of more finger pointing and moaning. I'm sick of the drama, I want actual facts now.
That's part of the game. If you don't have the energy to participate in the game, why did you sign up?
And, as explained, the bad guys all probably know who each other are by now.
So, for the record, you want this next mission to fail, rather than try to have it succeed so we can win the game right now?
Quote
Again, this is the game you signed up for. I'm sorry if I'm the only one who understands that and is playing accordingly. Perhaps you'd prefer a nice game of chess?
prophile left the game because Ambrosia is shutting down their IRC server, and apparently that's upset him greatly.
Oh good, you're now taking Techerakh's inability to follow conversation on IRC and trying to use it against me. When he said that, he apparently hadn't bothered to notice that "we" included retep998 who had just made the same argument I made, which Techerakh replied to with that line.
The we, in the case of the quoted post I made, refers to all of the players. Well, accept for you, I suppose, who I guess is now claiming you've learned nothing at all so far. Others have stated otherwise.
@crow-t--robot, on 08 August 2012 - 10:30 AM, said in GTW 40:
Yes, let's try to win the game, please, by actually putting forth four innocent names instead of two innocents and two sleeper agents, as croc is rooting for. I fail to see how anyone expects us to actually get four innocent names, without debating the matter first, of course. Again, if a little strife is so uncomfortable for you, why did you sign up for a game that is all about just that?
@jacabyte, on 08 August 2012 - 11:04 AM, said in GTW 40:
Oh dear, JacaByte is swinging once again away from me. Not surprising. Three people posted that I hwurt their fweelings, and JacaByte wants to be on the majority side again, rather than have productive conflict and a flawless 3-round victory. Oh well, some people prefer facts over winning, I guess. If this proposal passes, you'll all get what you deserve.
@mrxak, on 08 August 2012 - 12:37 PM, said in GTW 40:
Oh dear, JacaByte is swinging once again away from me.
No, I'm doing exactly what I said I would.
I will be approving this proposal, not because I'm in it, but because I love how IC has taken the time to disassemble mrxak in front of the whole crowd.
So, when you said you were going to vote for missions only that had you on it, and then say you aren't voting for that reason, you're doing what you said you would? Does a coincidence count as follow-through? Or are you just lying about why you're voting the way you are?
Well I'm not refusing the proposal because I'm not in it, that's for sure. In my opinion your verbiage has hurt the innocents more than it has helped, and part of me wants to see what will happen to a mission that doesn't have you on it.
mrxak's response to my most recent post is brimming with distortions and misrepresentations, and from some subsequent posts by a few other players, I don't know that I need to waste my time pointing them all out.
So I'm gonna follow Jaca's lead and adopt a mrxak policy. If ANYONE thinks ANY of the points or questions mrxak addressed to me merit a response, please identify them, on- or offline, and I will give them my full attention. Otherwise the interminable back and forth will just become a distraction.
I am sorry to see that people seem to think my proposal has traitors in it. I would encourage people not to vote for a traitor proposal just to get info — if we succeed another mission, we won't NEED any more info.
This post has been edited by Techerakh : 08 August 2012 - 01:16 PM
What's part of the game? You being an insufferable fruitcake?
This isn't true, makes no sense, and is impossible to prove
I want something to happen that isn't you talking up a bunch of s### that doesn't have any bearing on the situation in the game. All you've done is point fingers at random people and cite previous games (which makes no ######ing sense).
Wanh wanh I'm the only one who knows how to play my game wanh no one underdstands
Shut the ###### up already, go climb a wall of dicks.
UH OH MAD ALERT* You do it all the time. All the time. You repeatedly try (and miserably fail) to make your own opinions out to be the obvious popular one, somehow thinking that the more namby-pamby nerdbait wankeriffic assbitery you can spout, the more convincing it is. That's why it's so funny, and that's why it totally applies here 100%.
The we, in the case of the quoted post I made, refers to all of the players. Well, accept (sic) for you, I suppose, who I guess is now claiming you've learned nothing at all so far. Others have stated otherwise.
This is my response to this whole fiasco:
This post has been edited by retep998 : 08 August 2012 - 05:42 PM
............
My personal opinion is that JacaByte's probably safe, I don't know a bean about Darth Vader, I'm unsure about Tcherak, I'm tempted to err on the side of caution and reject, BUT I will hold off until the flame war dies down.
The only problem is if all the players from the second mission are innocent then there's guaranteed to be a traitor on this proposal. But at this point, it's hard to say if mrxak truly has the best interests of the innocents in mind. It's safe to treat him like a traitor, but that leaves the matter of darth_vader's and Techerakh's innocence.
@retep998, on 08 August 2012 - 04:53 PM, said in GTW 40:
thanks for this
@jacabyte, on 08 August 2012 - 07:23 PM, said in GTW 40:
Don't be too sure about everyone on the second mission. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there has been at least one "sleeper agent" so far this game, and 4 of the 5 people we've elected to missions were on that second team. The odds are slim. Also, the only people I'm adding to that second team are myself (innocent) and darth (the person aside from myself I'm most comfortable with; see my analysis posted previously). I think we've got a decent shot with this team.
After croc's hate-filled rant, I'm sure I'm the one who looks angry :p.
I really need to find my pair of cheap cardboard anaglyph 3D glasses that I got from... somewhere? NASA's used Curiosity's hazcams to make some 3D pictures of the landing site.
My public reasoning always has the best interests of the innocents in mind. That's how I blend in when I'm a bad guy, and how I win the game when I'm a good guy. You can disagree with my reasoning, but not my motives. If I do evil, it's going to show up in my actions behind the scenes, not my public arguments. Well, the only actions I've had behind the scenes were my two successful votes in the two successful missions.
The people I've pointed the finger at, I've pointed at for good reason. They have not been random selections, and I have not pointed the finger at everybody. I've consistently been leery of people who have refused to participate in the game, such as prophile, Crow T. Robot, and darth_vader. Techerakh is obviously behaving differently than prophile did, but he's inherited prophile's role and all the suspicion that comes along with it. I've been leery of JacaByte because of his suddenly shift in behavior towards me as soon as I was isolated form a team, but I'll admit I was as surprised as he claims to be that the second mission succeeded, that he did not try setting me up. I think croc is dangerous, but I'm leaning towards trusting him. The same is true of retep998. I think SoItBegins is as innocent as I am. Trying to characterize me as lashing out at everyone, and being angry or whatever is simply a falsehood, and an easily verifiable falsehood at that. Certainly you must admit your hate-filled rants are a bit more hot than my admittedly long and calm language, and that I've yet to announce I'm putting my hands over my eyes and not reading any more of your posts. But I've obviously made some people mad with some of my assertions and when people get mad they don't see as clearly, assume things about other people's motivations, assume other people are as mad as them, and generally ignore facts that don't fit their preconceptions.
People, yes people keep arguing for repeating last mission. It's apparently not going to happen. I guess we won't win this in the first round after all. But hey, at least we'll gain some information to maybe win it by round five.
You look like a cool guy.
Edit: Oh, and I'm accepting this. I like this new guy, Techerakh. Or is it InfiniteCustomer? I guess he's from the wide wonderful world of IRC, which I don't really frequent.
This post has been edited by darth_vader : 09 August 2012 - 12:33 AM
I'll stick my neck out on this one, ACCEPT, and hope that I'm right in my reasoning.
I hope that's the last vote, and we can get this over with.
@mrxak, on 09 August 2012 - 12:09 AM, said in GTW 40:
http://www.rainbowsy.../freestuff.html
@darth_vader, on 09 August 2012 - 12:30 AM, said in GTW 40:
I like this new guy, Techerakh. Or is it InfiniteCustomer?
You can call me Ray, or you can call me J…
Anyway, I don't know what the rules are on changing one's vote, but I am attempting to do so now. This proposal has received public support from, by my count, five of you, including at least one traitor. I hereby withdraw support for this proposal and encourage everyone to vote against it.
edit: As for who is/are the traitor(s) on this mission, I'm not really sure. My top suspect, I guess, would be SIB, despite everything. If not him, probably Jaca. I still feel pretty good about darth.
This post has been edited by Techerakh : 09 August 2012 - 06:33 AM
Mission #3 Subcommittee by Techerakh darth_vader JacaByte Techerakh SoItBegins
Approve Crow T. Robot -- 6:10 croc -- 10:24 JacaByte -- 11:05 darth_vader -- 12:31 SoItBegins -- 12:32
Reject retep998 -- 2:07 mrxak -- 2:16 InfiniteCustomer -- 6:20
Result: Five approvals, three rejections. The motion passes.
The committee proposal consisting of darth_vader, JacaByte, Techerakh and SoItBegins has been approved and will now carry out the third mission. Those four people need to PM me as soon as possible, indicating whether they will help the mission SUCCEED or FAIL. When I have received all four PMs I will inform you of the mission's result, and then it will be croc's turn to propose a committee.
Obviously the bad guys will feel compelled to fail this thing. They don't really have a choice. My guess is two fail votes, Techerakh and darth_vader. One of them won't vote succeed, because if they do, there's a risk the other cohort will vote succeed, and then they'd lose the game. They'll both vote fail.