EVFarkcan (retracted) seems like he's got somethin' against 1Eevee1, and I don't like the looks of 'im. I don't trust the guy, not one bit.
Edit: Misspelled a name
Edit2: Vote changed

This post has been edited by jrsh92 : 21 April 2008 - 09:43 AM

One can observe and participate at the same time. In fact, it is often instructional to participate. By voting, and listing my reasons, I got a reaction from you, and you weren't even the target of most of that post. I didn't even vote for you. I wonder if I struck a nerve, and you are trying to get back at me?

There are two things that the bad guys in a game like this want. The first is not to be noticed, the second is to control how the other players are thinking about the game. By abstaining, the bad guys can observe the other players without actually having to come down on anyone. That means that, when it turns out that innocent people have been taken out of the game, the bad guy can always say, "Hey, I didn't vote for him! I must be innocent!" Abstaining is a way of not taking responsibility for the actions of others. Thus, it is a way of controlling how others think about the game.

As to not being noticed, the people that jump onto the bandwagon third or fourth are generally hoping to get lost in the crowd. The bad guys don't care who gets taken out during the day, as long as it is not another bad guy. Thus, it makes sense to vote for someone who already has a few votes, thus guaranteeing that they are taken out, and never raising suspicion.

These are general comments that are true of almost every version of this game that I have ever played. I was merely trying to point them out. During the last round, I voted for someone who I thought was suspicious because he jumped on a bandwagon fairly late -- according to first day logic, that is the smart thing to do. That kind of behaviour is still suspicious to me, and I am going to wait to see how Lt._Anonymous votes today before casting my vote. On the other hand, you are acting really defensive -- I didn't even vote for you, and you are coming after me.

xander

Vote changed to Templar98921. After more careful examination of his and darwinians statements I have to agree that his arguments against the fairest methods darwinian can use at this point in the game seem suspicious. At the moment, the only reason someone in this game could be unhappy about a vote for someone else is that they are a cop and that the other person is also a cop. Nobody else knows anything about anyone else now, and being united as police officers is the only explanation for defending another player in the game.

@templar98921, on Apr 21 2008, 04:50 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game 22:

Red: True.

Green: If Red is true, how are you supposed to just 'observe' without abstaining.

Blue: Bandwagoning, although frowned upon, is a understandable tactic on the first day, where options are limited. You really have three choices unless someone really slips up. You can:
Bandwagon, either start one or follow.
Pick someone random which usally starts a bandwagon or creates general derision.
or
Abstain or not vote.

Therefore, you reasons under closer analasis are just as bad as EKHawkmans, and he doesn't hide it.

Suspects:
LNSU for voting late, possibly on purpose.
Darwinian for hiding silly reasons behind retoric.

I was busy with preparing for Pesach. I had no time to check in. But I don't really care.

Anyways, I'll wait until later (again) before voting. But this time I'll get my vote in.

SoItBegins swept back into the room, looking glum. "We got the wrong guy," he said. "JacaByte wasn't a cop at all."

There was a short pause, as this sank in. Then, SoItBegins spoke again.

"On a lighter note," he said, "it turns out kickme's got the phone number of a really good lawyer. He should be back here soon, so don't give up hope."

Then, SoItBegins left the room again, leaving the inner circle to argue and debate.

So we killed off an innocent, but the "nightkill" arrest failed and kickme's still alive?

Yes.

@jrsh92, on Apr 21 2008, 09:42 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game 22:

Vote changed to Templar98921. After more careful examination of his and darwinians statements I have to agree that his arguments against the fairest methods darwinian can use at this point in the game seem suspicious. At the moment, the only reason someone in this game could be unhappy about a vote for someone else is that they are a cop and that the other person is also a cop. Nobody else knows anything about anyone else now, and being united as police officers is the only explanation for defending another player in the game.

Like I said earlier. Trust no one. If I was a cop I wouldn't have gone after the same person again and been so blunt about it. I'm just going after him cause the others aren't very suspicious. Next round should truly tell me whats what and who is who.

Also SIB you are insane with your crazy game. Congrats Kickme and can I have that number of your lawyer.

This post has been edited by EKHawkman : 21 April 2008 - 04:13 PM

Quote

Also SIB you are insane with your crazy game.

Thank you! And you haven't even scratched the surface...

@soitbegins, on Apr 21 2008, 03:45 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War, Game 22:

Thank you! And you haven't even scratched the surface...

I'd like to support that statement, even though I'm sitting on the bottom of a lake in a "concrete suit..."

Well you can sleep soundly at night knowing it wasn't me. I don't even know how to make concrete, plus I didn't vote for you. If I die can I die in a nuclear way so the game still has some weapon of mass destruction in it.

Quote

I'd like to support that statement, even though I'm sitting on the bottom of a lake in a "concrete suit..."

1: It was a concrete overcoat. What do you take me for, anyway?

2: Stop talking, you're dead!

Ookay, boss.

If you're dead, he isn't your boss.

says you.

LNSU has only made a single post, and it wasn't a vote. Trying to lay low?

Retracted xander is possibly too crafty for his own good. If he is a threat to the group, he's a very large one, and he deserves more scrutiny.

This post has been edited by GutlessWonder : 22 April 2008 - 07:40 AM

Wow... slaughter a few sacred cows and everyone is after you. I'm just trying to do what is best for us. If that brings about scrutiny, I'm sorry. I will stop making suggestions. Since it looks like I am going to be fighting for my life, I will vote Templar98921 (retracted) in self defence.

Templar98921: if you had been paying attention to what I wrote yesterday, you would note that I was suggesting that abstaining was a bad strategy. However, I do recognize that it has become tradition around here. So, I didn't fault you much for it. I don't really suspect you -- I still think that Lt._Anonymous is suspicious for jumping on the 1Eevee1 bandwagon yesterday, and lemonyscapegoat and 1Eevee1 strike me as suspicious for jumping on the JacaByte bandwagon. If you would be willing to move your vote to any of those players, I would be happy to remove my vote from you and change it to one of these.

xander

retracted Egroeg

He hasn't checked in yet, and can be suspected for the same reasons darth_vader suspects me. By not posting and appearing idle, he raises his chances of getting "copped". After all, he hasn't tried to figure out anything yet.

I'm new to this game (not just GTW, Mafia itself, I've only played a 2 or 3 times before). Gimme a break.

Edit2: spelling/grammar

This post has been edited by LNSU : 22 April 2008 - 04:37 PM

I don't think you can blame eevee for jumping on that bandwagon Darwinian. He was the target of one and if he can get votes to a different person then why shouldn't he. He was just trying to save his hide.