I am in favour of this mission, evil female assassins should be stopped at all costs. Bloody assassins, always screwing things up.

Evil dagger-wielding female codenamed assassin from an Eastern Bloc country!

Agreed mackilroy, we were fortunate that the subcommittee got Jimmy Kines but this Rondel sounds like she could be a handful. Choose wisely retep998.

Because the previous subcommittee has proven itself capable, and I trust noone but myself, I cast forward the following subcommittee:

Mackilroy
croc
prophile
retep998

Okay, there is now a motion put forth by Speaker retep998.

He proposes that the second mission subcommittee be made up of the following members.

Mackilroy
croc
prophile
retep998

These members will be given classified information, enough to plan a mission to kill or capture "Rondel" with their combined forces, but also enough to sabotage the mission, if any of these members are helping the terrorists.

If you approve of retep998's motion, and wish these four members of the Security Council to form the second mission subcommittee, please send me a personal message with your vote to APPROVE.

If you reject retep998's motion, and wish for the second mission subcommittee to be made up of a different set of Security Council members, please send me a personal message with your vote to REJECT.

Once all eight votes are in, I will reveal them, including who voted how. If the motion is APPROVED by a minimum of five members of the Security Council, the subcommittee will be formed. If the motion is REJECTED by a minimum of four members of the Security Council, the Speakership will pass to mud212, and he will have opportunity to put forth a new motion for the Security Council to vote on.

You may discuss retep998's selection for as long as you'd like, but please vote quickly, as we are facing imminent destruction. I would also like to remind the Speaker that he, too, needs to vote to APPROVE or REJECT his own motion.

I'm rejecting retep's current motion on the basis that he may be a traitor; if he knows he's innocent, along with the 3 members from the prior mission, why would he choose to place himself on the mission detail? Consider what would happen if the mission were to fail; we wouldn't know if it was because one member of Crow's detail was a traitor or if retep was a traitor. Of course retep would deny that he was the traitor, but so would Crow's detail.

We could just try again with another member and see if that detail succeeded in order to narrow it down from retep and Crow's 3, but we could also do the same thing if retep was not in the detail. I don't think we should simply take retep at face value and allow him to add himself to the detail, because that is highly suspicious; it's something a traitor would be more likely to do than an innocent, because that aids the traitors in creating confusion. Your job as an innocent is to figure out who else is innocent, and you must remember that anybody could be a traitor, even people who have already been sent out on mission details. Therefore, don't put yourself on a detail.

So. That's my 2 cents.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 27 May 2012 - 04:51 PM

Agreed, those in the first subcommittee could have been traitors but felt that they did not want to expose themselves right away, mrxak said they could vote either way. I think that we need a new slate of people different from the first three so we can see how that group votes and help narrow down our enemies from our allies.

Five votes are in, by the way. Three more to go. People are of course free to change their vote all the way up to the moment I get the eighth. It's good you guys are starting to discuss strategy, too. I expect the discussions will get more heated as we get to later and later rounds.

I think retep might actually be on to something here. Assuming croc and Mack are both innocent (and, from your point of view, that I'm innocent too) we keep missions succeeding until the terrorists are forced to reveal themselves, and if any of us are terrorists we'd have to keep missions succeeding. I suspect retep is probably innocent and he's doing this to force Mack, croc and my hands if any of us are guilty - if we were terrorists it'd be too high a risk to sabotage this second mission.

I'm voting to go with this one.

EDIT: a little more reasoning - don't forget that the aim is to complete missions, not to weed out terrorists - the latter is a secondary goal, only useful as far as it helps the main aim.

This post has been edited by prophile : 27 May 2012 - 07:51 PM

@mrxak, on 27 May 2012 - 01:45 PM, said in GTW 36:

Evil dagger-wielding female codenamed assassin from an Eastern Bloc country!

Say that three times fast, please.

@jacabyte, on 27 May 2012 - 04:48 PM, said in GTW 36:

I'm rejecting retep's current motion on the basis that he may be a traitor; if he knows he's innocent, along with the 3 members from the prior mission, why would he choose to place himself on the mission detail? Consider what would happen if the mission were to fail; we wouldn't know if it was because one member of Crow's detail was a traitor or if retep was a traitor. Of course retep would deny that he was the traitor, but so would Crow's detail.

We could just try again with another member and see if that detail succeeded in order to narrow it down from retep and Crow's 3, but we could also do the same thing if retep was not in the detail. I don't think we should simply take retep at face value and allow him to add himself to the detail, because that is highly suspicious; it's something a traitor would be more likely to do than an innocent, because that aids the traitors in creating confusion. Your job as an innocent is to figure out who else is innocent, and you must remember that anybody could be a traitor, even people who have already been sent out on mission details. Therefore, don't put yourself on a detail.

So. That's my 2 cents.

I agree. We should not follow the same path blindly; although it may not look like it, backing a sure thing could be far more hazardous than taking a new course.
The reason why: a meditation on probability.

Let's first assume that Crow is innocent, and that his choice is non-deterministic (yes, I know that it wasn't, but as that intersects with mrxak's choices of traitors, we have no knowledge of the method used so it might as well be) if the first assumption holds.

Of 8 people, there are 56 ways to choose three traitors. The chances that one or more members of the previous coalition are evil:
3 of 3: 1/56
2 of 3: 15/56
1 of 3: 30/56
total chance: 46/56

You read that correctly. There is only a 10/56 ( 17.9%) chance that all three of the chosen members are innocent.

Now, the other possibility: That Crow is a traitor. Obviously, if this is the case, he would know who his fellows are. It's possible that he could put only good members in, but if that were the case, he'd have to deal with the fact that the upcoming motions are probably made in good faith. Still, if he WERE a villain, he'd want the first mission to go through. The players in it would be left out of future discussions if the mission were to fail.
With the first mission passing, he'd then want to have at least one of his friends within it, so they could be seen as 'good' for later.

No matter how you slice it, innocent or not, it's probable that we have at least one traitor within that group of three. (My apologies to those members thereof who were/are innocent, of course.) However, shifting to an entirely new group will gain us little.

I propose that we skip this motion, and make one that has two of the members from the last group, and two new ones. From there, we can make different combinations of overlap, like in Mastermind where you're trying to find the secret combination of pegs.

Mission #2 Subcommittee Motion by retep998
Mackilroy
croc
prophile
retep998

Approve:
retep998 - May 27th, 3:27 PM
mud212 - May 27th, 3:46 PM
Mackilroy - May 27th, 5:43 PM
prophile - May 27th, 9:10 PM
croc - May 27th, 10:15 PM

Reject:
Crow T. Robot - May 27th, 4:36 PM
JacaByte - May 27th, 5:28 PM
SoItBegins - May 27th, 10:20 PM

Result:
Approve 5, Reject 3
Motion Passes

The subcommittee consisting of Mackilroy, croc, prophile, and retep998 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. A single vote of FAIL will cause the mission to be unsuccessful. When I have received all four PMs, I will inform you of the mission's result, and then it will be mud212's turn as Speaker to suggest the next subcommittee.

@soitbegins, on 27 May 2012 - 09:15 PM, said in GTW 36:

The reason why: a meditation on probability.

I'm so proud of you.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 27 May 2012 - 10:58 PM

Mission #2
"Rondel"
Succeed: 3
Fail: 1

One of five missions have now failed. Rondel eluded capture at the airport where she was to be arrested. Apparently she was never there. It's believed that she was alerted to the operation and chose alternate transportation to her destination, wherever that is. Currently the game is tied one to one. If three missions fail, the bad guys win.

mud212, you may now submit four names (which may include your own name) in a motion to form a subcommittee to carry out the third mission. Should your motion fail, croc will have 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
Enrique Huamani
Native Ecuadorian and leftist philosopher Enrique Huamani turned revolutionary leader in the mid 1980s, plaguing several South American nations with his growing organization of rebels for about 14 years. Believed to be killed in a raid on his jungle compound 12 years ago, his voice was recorded just last month communicating with a key terrorist in the plot to steal the nuclear weapons that now threaten us. It seems he used his apparent death as a way of escaping justice, and has grown even more radical in the years since. While the stated goals of the terrorists threatening us now are not in line with Huamani's political beliefs, no doubt the chaos in the wake of a successful attack would give him and his causes a chance of flourishing once again. Huamani is a master tactician and should not be underestimated. His contacts and skills would prove invaluable to the terrorists in delivering the nuclear weapons to their targets. We have been tracking the phone he used and believe he is still in possession of it. His death or capture is a top priority, and should he escape us now, the terrorists will be one step closer to bringing about destruction on a massive scale. Members of the mission subcommittee will be given access to classified intelligence pooled from each of the Security Council members. They will then plan and carry out a mission to neutralize the threat.

Once mud212 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. I won't put a definite time limit on each round, but I'd like to see things progressing to a new mission every few days. It really depends on how many subcommittee votes we have each round and how quickly people do motions and votes.

The things that prophile said make me very suspicious of him.

Tol'ja so.

We had a chance and someone blew it. Shame on them.

Don't say we didn't tell you so.

Gentlemen! We now have an opportunity to choose our next detail and attempt to narrow down a team with good, honest men on it. I suggest we don't waste it.

We know that at least 1 member of retep's detail is a traitor. My thought is to mix one or two people from retep's team with two or three people who haven't been on a detail yet, to keep the probability of having a traitor on our third detail as low as possible. I don't think we can fully eliminate the possibility of having traitors on our details, but we can certainly try.

Sorry guys for choosing the wrong people. Next time I shall use statistics!
Oh, and uh, thanks mud?

This post has been edited by retep998 : 28 May 2012 - 12:19 AM

I'm going to take SIB's advice and divide the committee: two from previous missions, two who haven't been involved yet. As I only know for certain that I am innocent, naturally I will include myself in this committee. Since prophile made retep nervous, I'll let him sit out this round and substitute in SoItBegins. I would like to invite Mackilroy and retep998 to join us for this mission, as well.

Proposed Mission Participants: **
**

Mackilroy
mud212
retep998
SoItBegins

This post has been edited by mud212 : 28 May 2012 - 12:18 AM

Okay, there is now a motion put forth by Speaker mud212.

He proposes that the third mission subcommittee be made up of the following members.

Mackilroy
mud212
retep998
SoItBegins

These members will be given classified information, enough to plan a mission to kill or capture Enrique Huamani with their combined forces, but also enough to sabotage the mission, if any of these members are helping the terrorists.

If you approve of mud212's motion, and wish these four members of the Security Council to form the third mission subcommittee, please send me a personal message with your vote to APPROVE.

If you reject mud212's motion, and wish for the third mission subcommittee to be made up of a different set of Security Council members, please send me a personal message with your vote to REJECT.

Once all eight votes are in, I will reveal them, including who voted how. If the motion is APPROVED by a minimum of five members of the Security Council, the subcommittee will be formed. If the motion is REJECTED by a minimum of four members of the Security Council, the Speakership will pass to croc, and he will have opportunity to put forth a new motion for the Security Council to vote on.

You may discuss mud212's selection for as long as you'd like, but please vote quickly, as we are facing imminent destruction. I would also like to remind the Speaker that he, too, needs to vote to APPROVE or REJECT his own motion.