mrxak, it might be better if you formatted your post with people's names and a listing of who voted for them, not who they voted for. Makes it easier to see how many votes people have.

@jrsh92, on May 16 2008, 08:23 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

I'd like to bring the people that other people aren't looking at into the spotlight.

After just a few hours of the game, I'd be more concerned about people that I've seen reading the thread but not posting. nfreader is the only person I've seen so far doing that, as I mentioned earlier, so I'll go ahead and vote for him.

People like lemonyscapegoat who (as far as I know) just haven't looked at the thread yet aren't anything to be worried about.

@darth_vader, on May 16 2008, 11:31 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

mrxak, it might be better if you formatted your post with people's names and a listing of who voted for them, not who they voted for. Makes it easier to see how many votes people have.

Here ya' go.

prophile: (3)
kickme
JacaByte
LNSU

kickme: (2)
prophile
egroeg

LNSU: (2)
darwinian
Eugene Chin

SoItBegins: (2)
darth_vader
Mackilroy

Hypochondriac: (1)
Manta

EKHawkman: (1)
SoItBegins

Manta: (1)
Hypochondriac

lemonyscapegoat: (1)
jrsh92

nfreader: (1)
Mispeled

Yet To Vote: (6)
EKHawkman
lemonyscapegoat
nfreader
Rickton
RJC Ultra
Templar98921

LNSU
Previous vote for EKHawkman is Retracted.

(EDIT) Blargh! i iz nut payign attensioun. LNSU didn't vote kickme, he voted prophile.
Still, he seems too easily led by SIB to obey this 'Random List."

List updated for Mackilroy's vote, below.

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 17 May 2008 - 12:16 AM

Sheesh, I leave for work and we're already on the second page... some of you guys are paranoid, seems like.

Anyhow, SoItBegins annoys me, and his so-called 'Random Number Generator' cannot be trusted.

Actually, it's that mrxak's rules, as layed out, force the game into a rushed pace, lest we be caught unaware a round is ending.

mrxak is ending rounds whenever at least 15 people (75%) vote, and removing people who miss two votes.

The two rules, put together, probably aren't a very good idea, as we'll be seeing some people get "caught," simply because they can't check in as often.

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 17 May 2008 - 12:15 AM

My random number generator is called random.org. Live by it, and ye may yet find salvation.

However, if he ends the round early, he wont penalise people for not voting.

But if he ends the round early, those people may still get a vote against themselves automatically.

As it seems that LNSU's vote was not intended to be a third vote, and that it may have been an honest mistake (I am by no means entirely convinced of that yet, however -- and I notice that he has not changed his vote), I have retracted my vote for him. Furthermore, jrsh92 's insistence that we kill someone on the first round is slightly suspect to me -- if the day ends in a tie, I don't necessarily see that as a win for the terrorists -- they don't really get a free kill. Instead, we are most likely to kill off an innocent in the first round, thus our making a kill gives the terrorists an extra kill. Thus, the terrorists are going to be most in favor of killing someone by voting in the first round.

Since we have little to no information to go on at this point, I see no reason to make a big deal of being the tie breaking vote. jrsh92 seems to think that he has some power, and he is immediately abusing it. Thus, my vote is for him (again, until something better comes along).

xander

But xander, we really have to kill someone on the first round, and take a chance, otherwise the terrorists will whittle our numbers down while we can't make decisions. On the other hand that would make it easier to make decisions...

LNSU for the reasons that xander stated, and for the fact that there is no proof he didn't place a third vote on purpose.

Round One Votes:
darth_vader - SoItBegins
darwinian - jrsh92
egroeg - kickme
EKHawkman -
Eugene Chin - EKHawkman
Hypochondriac - Manta
JacaByte - prophile
jrsh92 - lemonyscapegoat
kickme - prophile
lemonyscapegoat -
LNSU - prophile
Mackilroy - SoItBegins
Manta - Hypochondriac
Mispeled -
nfreader -
prophile - LNSU
Rickton -
RJC Ultra -
SoItBegins - EKHawkman
Templar98921 - LNSU

That's 14 votes. I strongly encourage the last six of you to go ahead and vote soon.

LNSU should probably go, I'm afraid. My vote for kickme was just to get the ball rolling. LNSU is going out of a combination of two reasons: self defence (obviously) and the fact that he's voting randomly rather than with any kind of tactics. I know that round one is almost zero-knowledge but that kind of pattern gets dangerous very quickly. We have enough to worry about with four Mr Doggies, let alone a loose cannon too.

However, it's got to then be SoItBegins this round, who persuaded him to do it in the first place.

This post has been edited by prophile : 17 May 2008 - 04:39 AM

mrxak, what are you doing? Parts of that vote list are bogus. Here's a corrected version.

darth_vader - SoItBegins
darwinian - jrsh92
egroeg - kickme
EKHawkman -
Eugene Chin - LNSU
Hypochondriac - Manta
JacaByte - prophile
jrsh92 - lemonyscapegoat
kickme - prophile
lemonyscapegoat -
LNSU - prophile
Mackilroy - SoItBegins
Manta - Hypochondriac
Mispeled -
nfreader -
prophile - SoItBegins
Rickton -
RJC Ultra -
SoItBegins - EKHawkman
Templar98921 - LNSU

P.S: I'm not a loose cannon; had someone else come at the top of the list, I would have suggested that LNSUI vote for that 'else'.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 17 May 2008 - 05:04 AM

You and LNSU are loose cannons because you're killing off people purely randomly. For all you know, you could be voting off the IA*.

• don't read into that, I'm not the IA

This post has been edited by prophile : 17 May 2008 - 05:30 AM

Round One Votes:
darth_vader - SoItBegins
darwinian - jrsh92
egroeg - kickme
EKHawkman -
Eugene Chin - LNSU
Hypochondriac - Manta
JacaByte - prophile
jrsh92 - lemonyscapegoat
kickme - prophile
lemonyscapegoat -
LNSU - prophile
Mackilroy - SoItBegins
Manta - Hypochondriac
Mispeled -
nfreader -
prophile - SoItBegins
Rickton -
RJC Ultra -
SoItBegins - EKHawkman
Templar98921 - LNSU

I change my vote to SoItBegins in self-defence. This throws four votes at SIB over the 2 against me.

Edit: I miscounted in mrxak's list. I only have two against me now.

This post has been edited by LNSU : 17 May 2008 - 09:44 AM

@darwinian, on May 17 2008, 01:36 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Since we have little to no information to go on at this point, I see no reason to make a big deal of being the tie breaking vote. jrsh92 seems to think that he has some power, and he is immediately abusing it. Thus, my vote is for him (again, until something better comes along).
xander

xander , I certainly did NOT insist on killing someone the first round.
I suggested that it might be the best course of action, but I did not act on it, nor was I planning to unless someone presented themselves as a better target than no kill at all. I even questioned the logicality of "not giving the terrorists a free round" in the same sentence I suggested it, because us taking our 1 kill per round would be the same as the terrorists nightkilling randomly just to bring down our numbers:

@jrsh92, on May 16 2008, 10:13 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

...I don't want to give the terrorists a free kill on one hand , but on the other hand a random innocent is likely exactly who the terrorists would choose to kill anyway.

and I additionally admitted that despite my efforts to draw attention to all game members, that:

@jrsh92, on May 16 2008, 08:23 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Unfortunately the first round will probably descend into bandwagoning, against an innocent most likely, by the end of it

I did not insist on killing someone the first round, or any round at all. However, mrxak suggested that it was best to kill someone every round in the game rule. And my old analysis (a deeper explanation of it can be found in an earlier game) of the situation still stands: As much as a completely random kill won't help get rid of the terrorists in all likelihood, if there are 4 terrorists or so in this game of 20 people, then you have a 1 in 5 chance of killing a terrorist the first round, or any round, voting absolutely randomly. The nightkills have a 0% chance of killing a terrorist. The larger the ratio of normal lynchings to nightkills, the bigger the overall chance is that the terrorists will die, all rational reason behind the voting aside.
Still, I see no reason for any one of the people who had, at the time, been involved in the tie to die more than another one of them, and I knew that with so many people left to vote it would resolve itself. So, I certainly would think that indeed it is beneficial to kill a person each round, but whether you agree with this or not, I didn't do anything about it. Also, in reality, with a tie in need of breaking I DO have some power-- but accusing me of abusing that power when I didn't actually break the tie, nor did I ever break the tie before it was broken by someone else is just ridiculous.

@templar98921, on May 17 2008, 09:24 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

But xander, we really have to kill someone on the first round, and take a chance, otherwise the terrorists will whittle our numbers down while we can't make decisions. On the other hand that would make it easier to make decisions...

LNSU for the reasons that xander stated, and for the fact that there is no proof he didn't place a third vote on purpose.

On the first day, we gain absolutely nothing by killing someone at random. The probability is that we will kill an innocent. If we kill an innocent on the first day, as is likely, then we have given the terrorists a head start. Thus, it makes no sense to kill on the first day, until we have some real information.

That being said, I have two fairly good reasons to vote for jrsh92:

• First and foremost, he is really into making sure that someone dies this round, and has expressed that he very much wants to be the swing vote. Now, he may think that killing off someone in this round is a good idea (mrxak certainly gave that impression). However, I think that he is wrong, and I think that anyone that stops to think about how this game works would agree with me. We don't want to just kill of someone. Killing someone at random, especially during the first round, is more likely than not to kill an innocent, which gives the traitors exactly what they want. If we don't have a good idea about who we are killing, I think that we should not kill them (though, again, this is strictly first day thinking.

• If you look at his vote, he is the first and only vote for lemonyscapegoat. If you are a traitor, you want your vote to blend into the background. The traitors have already figured out that bandwagoning is going to get them killed, so I think that it is unlikely that they really would be the third vote for a given candidate (though I still think that is a good way of ferreting things out at the end of the day). jrsh92 voted lemonyscapegoat to (a) stay low on the radar and (b __) not vote the same way as the rest of the traitors. It gives him deniability later on.

Now, I am not saying that jrsh92 is a traitor. However, of all the people who have posted this round, he is the one that strikes me as most suspicious. Thus, if we are going to kill someone, let it not be at random, but let it be someone who has actually given us cause for concern.

By the way, Templar98921, if you had been paying attention to my voting, I retracted my vote for LNSU because I do think that he made an honest mistake. You claim that my logic is good, yet vote for LNSU rather than jrsh92. You are also convinced that it is in our best interests to make sure that we kill someone (whether we are justified in doing so or not), and are as bloodthirsty as jrsh92. I'm watching you.

xander

EDIT: it seems that jrsh92 posted while I was posting. His vote for me changes nothing.

@darwinian, on May 17 2008, 11:15 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

(*)First and foremost, he is really into making sure that someone dies this round, and has expressed that he very much wants to be the swing vote.

I am not that into killing someone this round! I have no desire to be the swing vote! I have not broken any ties this round! I have expressed no plan to do so unless a person presents themselves as a better option! I have stated multiple times that although I think someone dying this round would be beneficial, that since it's hard to determine anything about anyone, we shouldn't necessarily vote someone out this round! There are not enough exclamation points in this post! Because you're not listening to reason! Maybe you will if I make it louder!

Additionally, your reason that voting for lemonyscapegoat makes me a terrorist is just stupid. So, if you bandwagon you're a terrorist, if you don't bandwagon you're a terrorist? And apparently I'm also worthy of killing because I'm simply discussing the fact that we might want to kill someone this round?

off, dude. I didn't do anything to you or really anything worthy of anyone's suspicion, you're just going after me because it has the potential to make you look like you actually have justification for voting for anyone. You're acting like everyone was towards Templar last game. You get either some sort of bias against him or half-valid suspicion towards someone and won't let it go until they're dead, despite the fact that that person is in all probability an innocent.

This post has been edited by jrsh92 : 17 May 2008 - 10:58 AM

I think there's a pretty strong possibility that there will be two kills in the inactive phase, based on mrxak's explanation of the set-up.

"Twelve are all the same, and four work to destroy them. Three are tasked to stop the four, and one works for the mayhem."

The "mayhem" guy is probably a serial killer who isn't affiliated with the four mafia and kills separately. Assuming this is true, and we don't kill anyone, we could easily end up in day 2 with two innocents dead. It's also pretty likely that the intelligence agent won't have useful information. Here's a few quick probabilities:

(given that we don't kill anyone, there are two groups killing separately, and they kill randomly. mafia only have 16 choices, since they won't kill themselves, and serial killer has 19 choices.)

(also assumes that there is one IA and one Doctor-type role)

1. probability of intelligence agent being killed
(mafia kills him OR serial killer kills him. probability of BOTH happening is negligible)
1/16 + 1/19 = 11.5%

2. probability of person investigated by intelligence agent being killed
(mafia kills him OR serial killer kills him. probability of BOTH happening is negligible)
1/16 + 1/19 = 11.5%

(#2 might be invalid, because with the way the inactive stages work, I'm not sure if the IA knows who's been killed or not.)

---

3. probability of mafia and serial killer picking the same person, so only one person dies
(mafia picks anyone, serial killer picks that person)
16/16 * 1/19 = 1/19 = 5.2%

4. probability of Doctor protecting either the person that mafia kills or the person that serial killer kills
(mafia picks anyone, doctor protects that person OR serial killer picks anyone, doctor protects that person)
16/16 * 1/19 + 19/19 * 1/19 = 10.5%

---

A. Events 1 and 2 could each happen, so there is a 23% chance that we get nothing useful from the IA.

B. There's only a 16% chance of either 3 or 4 happening. The chance of both happening, where only one person gets killed and that's the person protected, but that's a negligible probability.

(I don't think I made any mistakes, but if anyone sees anything, please say so :p)

While these should all be taken with a grain of salt because actions in the inactive stage aren't really random, I'd argue that the less information we have, the more randomly things will play out. The fundamental assumptions that I made (that there is a serial killer and that we have one IA and one protector (god knows what the other power role is)) could also be wrong. But my point is that if we don't vote anyone off, we'll have no information and the odds don't favor us very much.