@eugene-chin, on May 15 2008, 12:00 PM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

LNSU had a huge windfall investigating Hypochondriac first.

After Hypo was voted out, LNSU PM'ed everyone who had voted Hypo, told us he was an I.A. on the assumption that Dictators would not vote out one of their own so early, and formed a voting-bloc.

Templar was, of course, part of that bloc, hence why so much effort went into protecting him from Lynching in Round 3.

Learning JacaByte's role in the next round caused us all to pile onto him, probably revealing the fact we were collaborating, as it was the same set of people voting.

(EDIT) Hey, can I ask: What was the motivation for killing kickme in Round 1?

no reason we had to kill someone. I figured killing the SG would make sense so we could would have a chance of getting a the breaker power.The way manta and lnsu came after me made me want to kill one of them in the second round but we had agreed to kill mrxak.

Ooh, darn. That game could have gone better for me+Hypo+Jaca. I guess we should have killed LNSU earlier.

EDIT: Who was the 'Rouge Representative', if I may ask?

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 15 May 2008 - 12:10 PM

I was expecting to be dead after the second round with my blatant arguments against hypo.
Prophile was used to buy time while I investigated Jaca, and Templar's innocence proved SIB.

@soitbegins, on May 15 2008, 01:00 PM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

Ooh, darn. That game could have gone better for me+Hypo+Jaca. I guess we should have killed LNSU earlier.

EDIT: Who was the 'Rouge Representative', if I may ask?

Rouge?

Or Rogue?

Why did you pick mrxak over LNSU? Was it for the reasons we were guessing at, or for something else?

mrxak was voting against templar. We were trying to frame Templar.

'nuff said.

EDIT: To all who were wondering about the skipped round, I was going to sacrifice myself, thus convincing everyone else that I was innocent. Of course, considering what happened the next round, it probably wouldn't have turned out so well.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 15 May 2008 - 02:01 PM

@eugene-chin, on May 15 2008, 11:00 AM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

LNSU had a huge windfall investigating Hypochondriac first.

After Hypo was voted out, LNSU PM'ed everyone who had voted Hypo, told us he was an I.A. on the assumption that Dictators would not vote out one of their own so early, and formed a voting-bloc.

Templar was, of course, part of that bloc, hence why so much effort went into protecting him from Lynching in Round 3.

Learning JacaByte's role in the next round caused us all to pile onto him. The two of these events probably revealed the fact we were collaborating, as it was the same set of people voting.

(EDIT) Hey, can I ask: What was the motivation for killing kickme in Round 1?

When I was contacted by LNSU the second round, frankly I didn't trust him. As the person protected by my body guards was not made public knowledge, I knew the only people who knew my role were the traitors and myself. So I actually did a little test using Mackilroy, which caused Eugene Chin to freak out. I was fairly confident at that point that JacaByte and SoItBegins were traitors, and Eugene Chin was innocent but I had to be sure I could trust LNSU before I joined the little group of those people.

I have to say though, while it seemed to work this time, the innocents made a lot of assumptions that clearly would not work in every scenario. A little better strategy by the traitors would have kept more of the them alive longer.

@soitbegins, on May 15 2008, 01:20 PM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

mrxak was voting against templar. We were trying to frame Templar.

'nuff said.

EDIT: To all who were wondering about the skipped round, I was going to sacrifice myself, thus convincing everyone else that I was innocent. Of course, considering what happened the next round, it probably wouldn't have turned out so well.

As I suspected. I hope you realize now of course why I said you knew why I was voting for you after that.

You may or may not remember the game in which I voted off my fellow dictator right at the start, leading to my unquestioned innocence in everyone's mind as I offed the rest of them one-by-one. I should tell you though, had you died, we'd still have gotten JacaByte next, and only then would we have started targeting innocents, so the result would have been the same.

I believe it's my turn to host, so I'll start a sign-up topic immediately.

I was fully prepared to run interference for LNSU and pretend publicly I was IA if the game had gone on much longer. Seems that my little trap worked better than expected. Now I just have to figure out the next new way to find the terrorists for next game.

SIB, you pried too hard for intel on our group with your PMs to me thus the vague replies that didn't give out any info. This was the real tip off to me that you were a terrorist.

@manta, on May 15 2008, 03:32 PM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

SIB, you pried too hard for intel on our group with your PMs to me thus the vague replies that didn't give out any info. This was the real tip off to me that you were a terrorist.

Okay, now I'm curious.

What did he ask you, and how did you respond?

First he asked if I really thought that Hypo was a terrorist. I responded with a logical argument for Hypo being a terrorist while not mentioning I was at the same time talking to LNSU about his investigation of Hypo.

Then SIB asked if I believed he was "on the mark about Templar" to which I responded with a general I'm not so sure but vote for who you think is a terrorist.

I knew by this time that SIB was trying to see if I was IA and I didn't trust him.

I don't think that game could have gone better the way it was played. LNSU could have contacted a terrorist easily, and we'd all be screwed. Manta could have given real info to SIB, and we'd all been screwed. On the whole I'd say we won this game because some absurdly risky tactics worked out well.

@soitbegins, on May 15 2008, 05:00 PM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

Ooh, darn. That game could have gone better for me+Hypo+Jaca. I guess we should have killed LNSU earlier.

EDIT: Who was the 'Rouge Representative', if I may ask?

There wasn't one. Read the first post again. I originally wanted a rogue agent, but there weren't enough players, and it would have unbalanced things.

Also, as a note to you specifically: the traitors were terribly crippled from the beginning by a combination of mediocre playing, and a really lucky (or perceptive) IA. I would have you note that, rather than creating a super powerful role to give the traitors a fighting chance ( a la resurrection in the last game), I allowed things to play out. From my perspective, it was a rather uninteresting game -- the traitors were basically dead by the end of the first day, but I didn't step in to balance things out. Sometimes, you create rules that don't work, and sometimes a game goes badly. If that happens, finish the game, and see how things play out, rather than changing the rules midstream.

By the way, I rather like the mechanic of the secretary general, and will certainly be using it again. Are there any comments on that role?

xander

It was an interesting role. but a good target for the bad guys. The original plan was to kill the SG everyother round and then stop to see if the new sg would get killed.

Err yeah. Was it ever even used?

@hypochondriac, on May 15 2008, 05:33 PM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

It was an interesting role. but a good target for the bad guys. The original plan was to kill the SG everyother round and then stop to see if the new sg would get killed.

Y'know, I thought I'd dodged a bullet there.

@ekhawkman, on May 15 2008, 05:37 PM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

Err yeah. Was it ever even used?

No, the Sec.Gen role was never explicitly used, but there were several points at which the possibility deterred people from trying to force a tie.

But, does that not further the power of a role whose function is as a tie-breaker?

I think I just played the worst game of GTW I have ever played. To be fair I've been quite busy these last two weeks. I'm not anticipating much better performance the next game either. Finals will be right around the time of the last round, assuming the game lasts as long as this one did.

This post has been edited by darth_vader : 15 May 2008 - 06:31 PM

@eugene-chin, on May 15 2008, 05:33 PM, said in xander's Global Thermonuclear War:

Y'know, I thought I'd dodged a bullet there.

When you weren't killed the second round, I knew you had to be innocent. It was a classic frame-up.

On the other hand, it could just as easily have been because one of the terrorists had become the SG and didn't want to kill one of their own. That classic frame-up explains how he could have been innocent and survived, but it doesn't prove that he was innocent. It had the same effect as if a terrorist had been the new SG.

Actually, xander wouldn't let us kill one of our own, remember? Imagine how that would have turned out; SIB would have been dead and RL would have drug me out by the hair about 2 days ago.

You were next on the kill list anyway.