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).
Here's hoping SoItBegins decides to have the mission succeed in a timely fashion.
Mission #1 (success) Said Al-Assad Succeed: 3 Fail: 0
Said has been found in Italy and narrowly taken alive. One mission has succeeded -- if two more missions are successful the good guys win.
SoItBegins, you may now submit four names (which may include your own name) in a motion to form a subcommittee to carry out the second mission. Should your motion fail, retep998 will have opportunity to submit four different names for consideration, and so on, until a motion passes. Should five motions fail in a row, the Security Council will be deadlocked, and the terrorists will detonate nuclear bombs in several world capitals.
Mission Profile #2 João Selim Sugahara No one has ever seen the face of João Selim Sugahara. The son of Arab/Japanese immigrants to the Brazilian state of São Paulo, as a young boy he was heavily scarred in a house fire and has worn a mask in public ever since. He has mastered the skill of entering hardened targets undetected, either stealing what they guard or destroying it, and then escaping without leaving a trace that he was ever there, except for his trademark: a black chess king. Sugahara is rumored to be holed up at a safehouse in a western African country, finishing up operations planning smuggle a nuke into a city from his home country. 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.
Once SoItBegins puts forth four names, Security Council members should begin sending me votes to approve or reject the proposed subcommittee, via personal message. As always, public or private discussion at any time is welcome between members. You may publicly offer support or condemnation for the proposed subcommittee (either truthful or not), but only your private vote will be counted when all votes are in. You may PM me a second time (or more) to change your official vote. Once I receive 8 votes, I will announce the results. If I do not receive all 8 votes in a timely manner, I may choose to end the vote early if there are enough votes for a majority either in favor or against the proposed subcommittee. Please vote quickly once a set of names are proposed.
As likely as it is that there was a bad guy in the last mission, merely hiding out to get a nice cover as an innocent, I think it's worthwhile, on the chance all three of us were good guys, to keep on going. SoItBegins, I recommend you keep as many of the people from the last mission as possible.
@mrxak: You high, man? You're playing the game at the exact opposite of the strategy you outlined when you were running it— that is, make proposals, plural, and see who votes for what. It's probably for the best to submit a mix of old and new names, or even mostly new ones, to see who votes.
Also:
CHANCE of a traitor being on previous mission: 3/8 * 100% + 5/8 * (11/21) = 70.8% Let's look farther afield.
Proposal
I propose a team consisting of the following:
SoItBegins retep998 prophile Crow T. Robot
It's not a complete mix, and there's still a decent chance there's a traitor in there, but let's see how it floats.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 27 July 2012 - 05:00 AM
I'm very suspicious of mrxak at this point. At this point I'm happy with a selection that does not include him, but I'll need more time to the about this before I submit my vote.
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 27 July 2012 - 10:22 AM
At the moment we don't have much information to run on. Anyway, because the current proposal contains me, and I have no reason to not trust the other people yet, I can only choose to approve this proposal.
@soitbegins, on 27 July 2012 - 05:00 AM, said in GTW 40:
One thing I strongly advised was actual discussion before a team proposal :rolleyes:
Well, there will certainly be more proposals made this round, I hope. Your selection is pretty horrible. I'll be rejecting it, and I certainly hope others follow suit.
I don't want anyone that was on the first team to choose the next team
Watch, I bet retap puts himself and Soltbiggins on his proposal
I think you mean SoItBaggins.
Everybody will try to put themselves on a proposal, that's only logical. Can you elaborate on why SIB's selection is so horrible?
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 27 July 2012 - 02:03 PM
You're SoItBuggin' me, you two.
@jacabyte, on 27 July 2012 - 02:03 PM, said in GTW 40:
Can you elaborate on why SIB's selection is so horrible?
SoItBegins and retep998, that's fine, I suggested that. The lack of me, frankly, just keeps me out of the spotlight when this next mission fails, so I'm fine with that. Just as long as I'm on the last two missions where we have to be perfect, we'll be good.
prophile, who has not posted once. Is he hiding? If something bad happens, will he be around to defend himself? He hasn't earned a spot on a team yet with his behavior.
Crow T. Robot who I believe only voted to approve the last mission because he knew he'd be caught as being evil if he didn't. If I hadn't threatened him, does anyone here honestly think he would have approved it? What does that say about him?
@mrxak, on 27 July 2012 - 02:16 PM, said in GTW 40:
The reason for the vote change was the clarification Jacabyte and darth_Vader gave concerning your first long-winded post. I saw that you were labeling us due to the order of voting and not due to any suspicions yet. Secondly because as you have stated in previous incarnations of this game, those who reject the proposal in round 1 usually are thought of as being the terrorist right away. I know my own innocence here and think that SIB's proposal does have some risk but will approve this slate.
Looking at SoItBegin's probabilities, they don't even especially make any mathematical sense. Am I the only one who noticed that?
Not that it matters. Probability only gets you so far, you need to establish trust with people.
You can (and would) make the same case for me if I was selected for the next proposal by SIB.
And no, his probabilities don't make sense, but that's not highly relevant at this point.
@jacabyte, on 27 July 2012 - 02:46 PM, said in GTW 40:
I don't think I could, nor would I. Your rejection would make you stupid, not evil, and you figured out that what I was saying made a lot of sense pretty quickly.
No, I said I figured out what you were trying to tell us, not that it made a lot of sense.
You're in the habit of voting for things that don't make sense?
Voting for the first proposition was a move that did not benefit either the traitors or the innocents. The traitors don't know who their cohorts are now, but then again neither do we. It was logical, but it could make the game harder for us to win now that we still don't know who's trustworthy and who isn't. One of the goals of this game is for the innocents to gain the trust of the other innocents, and we failed to do that.
Well three of us were on a successful mission. Doesn't count for much in the early game, but it counts for something. Last game, it counted for a lot.