I think the current mission proposal looks alright. I'm not quite sure why people think mrxak is a traitor. I'm not saying I think he's innocent, just that there haven't been any stated reasons to suspect him except that he's been posting a lot.

@darth_vader, on 01 August 2012 - 03:31 PM, said in GTW 40:

I think the current mission proposal looks alright. I'm not quite sure why people think mrxak is a traitor. I'm not saying I think he's innocent, just that there haven't been any stated reasons to suspect him except that he's been posting a lot.

Thank you, though no doubt somebody will try to use your post to say that you're a sleeper agent trying to defend me because I'm a sleeper agent.

The only way you could be innocent in the event that this mission fails is if either croc, SoItBegins or both are traitors.

@jacabyte, on 01 August 2012 - 04:01 PM, said in GTW 40:

The only way you could be innocent in the event that this mission fails is if either croc, SoItBegins or both are traitors.

The mission hasn't failed (yet). If it does, then I will certainly look upon mrxak with more suspicion.

Edit: or, wait, are you directing that towards me?

This post has been edited by darth_vader : 01 August 2012 - 04:05 PM

I'm going to reject this mission, because I still don't particularly trust JacaByte, and it's pretty obvious he's setting me up for the blame when he fails this next mission. I have no problems with croc or SoItBegins, currently.

For those suspecting retep998 because he used the names I suggested, let's all suspect JacaByte for using the names I suggested ;).

I won't fail this mission, that much you can count on.

I don't have any problems with croc or SoItBegins either, which is why I decided to put you on the mission as well. If it succeeds, joy, we're home free. If not, it'll help us determine who the traitor was.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 01 August 2012 - 04:20 PM

@jacabyte, on 01 August 2012 - 04:14 PM, said in GTW 40:

I won't fail this mission, that much you can count on.

I'm sure we'll all just have to take your word on it :rolleyes:.

Anyway, it's a nice idea, us being home free with a team we can ride into the next round. I'd still prefer it was retep998 instead of you, though.

I'm waiting on two more votes.

(playing an awesome nuclear keyboard solo)

@soitbegins, on 02 August 2012 - 12:26 AM, said in GTW 40:

(it's awesome playing solo with nuclear bombs)

Clearly SoItBegins is the terrorist.

@mrxak, on 02 August 2012 - 01:00 AM, said in GTW 40:

Clearly SoItBegins is the terrorist.

OBJECTION! mrxak frames me with a fake decoding!

(seriously, who's left to vote?)

If I had to guess, I'd say prophile and croc.

@mrxak, on 02 August 2012 - 04:16 AM, said in GTW 40:

If I had to guess, I'd say prophile and croc.

I voted yesterday.

Yesterday isn't even an option, it's approve or reject.

Mission #2 Subcommittee by JacaByte
croc
JacaByte
mrxak
SoItBegins

Approve
croc -- 11:08
JacaByte -- 11:20
SoItBegins -- 12:14
Crow T. Robot -- 13:18
prophile -- 11:46
darth_vader 12:25

Reject
retep998 -- 11:08
mrxak -- 15:06

Result: Six approvals, two rejections. The motion passes.

The committee proposal consisting of croc, JacaByte, mrxak, and SoItBegins has been approved and will now carry out the second 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 darth_vader's turn to propose a committee.

Mission #2 (success)
João Selim Sugahara
Succeed: 4
Fail: 0

Sugahara has been killed by the French 1er Régiment de Parachutistes d'Infanterie de Marine in Nigeria. Plans were found on his personal laptop for a terrorist attack on the city of Guarulhos. Two missions have succeeded -- the good guys need one more to win.

darth_vader, 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, prophile will have the 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 #3
John Brown
“John Brown” is only a codename for the leader of one of America’s homegrown terror groups. Taking his cue from the real John Brown, the man strikes primarily at government targets, hitting facilities up and down the coasts and then slipping away to an undetermined location. He is believed to be somewhere in the American Southwest, though Canada’s CSIS has passed along to the Department of Homeland Security a tip indicating that he was spotted in western Canada. John Brown’s organization is formed in a similar manner as the French Resistance of the Second World War, consisting of perhaps a dozen in his inner circle, with hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of sympathizers, hangers-on, and others who he uses to accomplish his goals. Current intelligence briefings indicate that his skills might be used to get a backpack nuke into either Washington, DC or Ottawa -- or, failing that, a major city such as Toronto, Seattle or Miami. The FBI reportedly has an agent in deep cover as a part of his inner circle, but they lost contact with him two weeks ago; cause unknown. 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 darth_vader 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.

....wait, that succeeded?

Huh. I may need to reconsider.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 02 August 2012 - 03:31 PM

Oh wow, that actually succeeded? O_O
So, with 5 innocents and 3 traitors, considering this mission succeeded, lets look at the odds
1. Mission two was entirely innocent. This means that darth vader, crow, and prophile must be traitors, because I'm obviously not. If this was a random decision, the odds of this being true are about 1/35, which is pretty low.
2. Mission two had sleeper agents on it who chose not to act so that they can go by with less suspicion. The odds of this are extremely likely, but not guaranteed.

So, guys, we may have gotten another successful mission, but we still don't have any data as to who IS a traitor, only circumstantial evidence about who isn't, which, given the probabilities, is very circumstantial indeed.
These next 3 missions may prove very hard indeed, but they will force the hands of the traitors, they cannot afford to let the innocents win one more mission, so watch the votes carefully.

My gut feelings paid off! Told you I was innocent.

So... My understanding is we only need to run one more successful mission to win the game. If it's that easy, we should just run the same names and win the game. But there's a problem; one or more of the traitors voted "Approve" on my proposal, which is a really strange thing for a traitor to do with a proposal that has an entirely innocent make up. This could either mean that the traitors are trying to blend into the innocents via their vote record, or there was a sleeper agent on the last mission.

So we may wish to replace one of the people who was on the last mission with somebody we suspect is innocent, for the purposes of experimentation. We'll also be avoiding a situation in which we run the same mission again and a sleeper agent that we previously thought was innocent derails it. Thoughts?

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 02 August 2012 - 04:08 PM

@jacabyte, on 02 August 2012 - 04:07 PM, said in GTW 40:

So we may wish to replace one of the people who was on the last mission with somebody we suspect is innocent, for the purposes of experimentation.

Pick me, pick me, pick me