GutlessWonder for voting without explanation. Not that I haven't done that before, but oh well.

I will abstain. There's no obvious targets here.

This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 04 June 2008 - 01:36 PM

@jacabyte, on Jun 4 2008, 10:03 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:

Anyway, I don't think I will join mrxak in his vote against lemonyscapegoat for the time being. He may be just experiencing a bad internet connection or got ran over by a bus. We won't know for sure until he posts. I, for one, am going to wait for him to post before I make my decision.

Even rogue member states can have bad internet connections or be run over by a bus.

@lnsu, on Jun 4 2008, 01:09 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:

GutlessWonder for voting without explanation. Not that I haven't done that before, but oh well.

He gave an explanation, he believes JacaByte might not have been framed, and had in fact gotten rid of EKHawkman. If you had been reading everyone else's posts, you would know this. I think your vote is lacking merit.

@shlimazel, on Jun 4 2008, 01:35 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:

I will abstain. There's no obvious targets here.

Why do you always abstain as the seventh vote each round? Are you going to wait for another vote and start another bandwagon again?

Excuse me? Seventh vote each round? That's stupid. I abstain until I have a good target. I found a good target in you last turn, so I voted for you. I can't decide who is a good target this turn, so I abstain. If I find a good target, I'll vote.

Also, just to avoid suspicion, please note that I will be absent on Thursday and Friday. I will be back on Saturday.

This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 04 June 2008 - 02:47 PM

Last round, the seventh vote was you abstaining. This round it's the same thing. I'm just noticing the start of a pattern.

Ok, a little thought goes a long ways here.

1. EKHawkman's been killed.

2. Find people who are related to EKHawkman in some way.

3. EK voted for 1Eevee1. I doubt 1Eevee1's a terrorist, though, because he's the obvious choice (and you know where that gets you.)

4. No one voted for EKHawkman.

5. One other person voted for 1Eevee1: GutlessWonder. Hmmm...

Oh my gosh.

Here's what I think could be going on:

Bad Guy 1, whose name I won't reveal at this time, votes for someone, trying to be as early as possible to disarray suspicion. If anyone else votes for the same person, he'll kill them, and thus be an 'unlikely' target.

This has backfired.

As of current, there is only one person who fits this.

And now, you who I believe to be Bad Guy 1, I vote against you; I cast you out, summon the forces of nature to destroy you...

GutlessWonder.

P.S: If it turns out you're innocent I'll apologize later.

See? Why can't you do that every round?

I'm going to have to second prophile's sentiment, at least for the moment.
One night-kill isn't enough to draw the conclusion you did.

I see that lemonyscapegoat and egroeg still have yet to put in an appearance.

Thus: egroeg

lemonyscapegoat: (2)
mrxak
Mispeled

GutlessWonder: (2)
LNSU
SoItBegins

egroeg: (2)
RJC Ultra
Eugene Chin

nfreader: (1)
jrsh92

JacaByte: (1)
GutlessWonder

No Vote: (10)
1Eevee1
darth_vader
egroeg
JacaByte
lemonyscapegoat
Mackilroy
nfreader
prophile
Shlimazel
Templar98921

I vote SoItBegins (retracted) because there are no obvious wolves at this point and he's just as dangerous to us if he's innocent as if he's guilty.

This post has been edited by prophile : 05 June 2008 - 03:38 AM

@prophile, on Jun 4 2008, 04:30 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:

I vote SoItBegins because there are no obvious wolves at this point and he's just as dangerous to us if he's innocent as if he's guilty.

First you vote for me for being silly, now you vote for me for being serious. Pick one and stick to it.

@soitbegins, on Jun 4 2008, 08:01 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:

First you vote for me for being silly, now you vote for me for being serious. Pick one and stick to it.

But you aren't being serious.

You've jumped to a conclusion based on a single Night-Kill, while discounting previous discussion that it's a frame-up, or that it's a random kill, or any alternate explanations.

In your reasoning, you begin with the phrase "A little thought goes a long ways."

Well, what if someone wanted to frame GutlessWonder? Would killing EKHawkman do that?

Well, what about the fact that EKHawkman had voted 1Eevee1? Yet you dismissed that as too obvious.

Well, what about the fact that EKHawkman had previously voted against JacaByte? You haven't even mentioned that.

Well, what about the fact that there are at least three traitors this game? Does only GutlessWonder get his ass covered, while the rest are left hanging?

"A little thought" indeed.

Considering the fact that you've had a slew of games where you were eliminated early, plus your tendency to vote random in first rounds, then lazily stick to whatever your randomizer-of-the-day spits out, I think it's been a while since you've had a chance to exercise your ability to reason.

I didn't buy mrxak's reasoning because it would wind up scripting the behaviors of two players in their first rounds.

But if depending on a randomizer, even if only in opening rounds, results in a general laziness in your application of reason, that has ramifications throughout the entirety of every single game you play in.

prophile tried to warn you off of this behavior before voting against you.

If you're still willing to listen to me at this point, let me recommend this:
You've tried "A little thought."
Now how about you try "A little more thought."?

How about it?

I'm going to jump on the GutlessWonder ticket because I want to break up the three way tie, because I think it's beneficial to vote in self defense, and because the post in which he voted for me consisted of three words. If it had been longer I would have ignored it, but it looks just like something a terrorist would do. A poor terrorist, at least; terrorists should wear a business suit and a tie instead of suicidal bomb jacket.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 04 June 2008 - 10:06 PM

If they're not going to play, they might as well be dead. egroeg.

Unless I'm mistaken, the current tally looks like this:

GutlessWonder: (3)
LNSU
SoItBegins
JacaByte

egroeg: (3)
RJC Ultra
Eugene Chin
Mackilroy

lemonyscapegoat: (2)
mrxak
Mispeled

nfreader: (1)
jrsh92

JacaByte: (1)
GutlessWonder

SoItBegins: (1)
prophile

No Vote: (7)
1Eevee1
darth_vader
egroeg
lemonyscapegoat
nfreader
Shlimazel
Templar98921

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 04 June 2008 - 10:23 PM

Mackilroy didn't jump on the biggest bandwagon, but the second biggest. It seems that the evil players have wised up to our watching of bandwagons so I don't expect them to all jump on the biggest one anymore. Mack also didn't have much of a reason for voting for egroeg. Many people haven't voted this round and yet he didn't even mention them in his post. He just picked someone with two votes already against him. I suspect if he is evil he didn't bote with mrxak because mrxak has been playing very aggressively even by his standards and drawing attention to himself.

@eugene-chin, on Jun 4 2008, 07:16 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:

Well, what if someone wanted to frame GutlessWonder? Would killing EKHawkman do that?

Possible but not likely. In that case, killing 1Eevee1 might do that better (because people would think that no one would kill someone they had already voted for, ergo, it must have been him.) The EKHawkman thing is a little wacky, true, but I'm going on it because it's REALLY not obvious.

Quote

Well, what about the fact that EKHawkman had voted 1Eevee1? Yet you dismissed that as too obvious.

Most terrorists are smarter than to kill someone who voted directly for them the last round. If 1E was a terrorist, he wouldn't do that. If I was, I wouldn't do it either.

Quote

Well, what about the fact that EKHawkman had previously voted against JacaByte? You haven't even mentioned that.

Uhhh... he did? :blink:

Quote

Well, what about the fact that there are at least three traitors this game? Does only GutlessWonder get his ass covered, while the rest are left hanging?

Maybe the others don't have any connection at all with our murdered man.

Quote

Considering the fact that you've had a slew of games where you were eliminated early, plus your tendency to vote random in first rounds, then lazily stick to whatever your randomizer-of-the-day spits out, I think it's been a while since you've had a chance to exercise your ability to reason.

Uncle! Uncle! You got me.

If only people would stop killing me... :rolleyes:

Finally:

Quote

If you're still willing to listen to me at this point, let me recommend this:
You've tried "A little thought."
Now how about you try "A little more thought."?

How about it?

Thank you. I will.

Edit: Just clarified one of my ideas a bit.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 05 June 2008 - 11:42 AM

@soitbegins, on Jun 5 2008, 03:07 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:

Uhhh... he did? :blink:

Yeah, he did.

@soitbegins, on Jun 5 2008, 03:07 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:

Finally:
Thank you. I will.

Alright! Thanks.

Nup. I don't like this at all. Someone's being tricky.

I don't think the vote for egoreg is helpful, and he's a open target, lurking/not being here. That would make it difficult to be a terrorist...

So, the one that started that particular bandwagon this round gets my vote:

RJC Ultra

I would like to remind the delegate from Templarsville that we've had a number of games where terrorists went MIA for a period due to life and such. People don't disappear only if they're innocent. And in any case, such people aren't really helping us find the bad guys.