Definitely hoping this mission will succeed so we can win this round.

You know, every time someone says they want the good guys to succeed, I get suspicious. Right now I don't think I can trust anybody, except mrxak.

I have the faintest suspicion that this detail will fail as well. We'll see...

retep: no worries. We just have so little information that keeping the bad guys from stopping us is kinda difficult.

@retep998, on 28 May 2012 - 09:19 AM, said in GTW 36:

Right now I don't think I can trust anybody, except mrxak.

That's a mistake :p.

Only have 7 votes in right now. Hopefully I hear from the last person before this evening, but I have been gathering SUCCEED/FAIL votes so if it does pass, we can speed things along a bit. If you're one of the people named for the proposed subcommittee, please let me know your intentions.

Commentary: This smells.

Of the members of the first team, I'd trust prophile more because he voted against the lineup that included himself. I'm also not entirely certain about mud212 adding HIMSELF to the mix, but... ah what the heck. I'll vote no for the time being.

prophile also could have voted himself off simply because he didn't want to be bothered.

Mission #3 Subcommittee Motion by mud212
Mackilroy
mud212
retep998
SoItBegins

Approve:
mud212 - May 28th, 1:19 AM
retep998 - May 28th, 1:20 AM
Mackilroy - May 28th, 1:31 AM
JacaByte - May 28th, 10:45 AM
Crow T. Robot - May 28th, 11:09 AM
croc - May 28th, 11:36 AM

Reject:
prophile - May 28th, 1:42 AM
SoItBegins - May 28th, 3:38 PM

Result:
Approve 6, Reject 2
Motion Passes

The subcommittee consisting of Mackilroy, mud212, retep998, and SoItBegins has been approved, and will now carry out the third 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 croc's turn as Speaker to suggest the next subcommittee.

Mission #3
Enrique Huamani
Succeed: 3
Fail: 1

Two of five missions have now failed. Enrique Huamani's phone lead special forces from the four participating nations to an apartment building in Bogatá. Apparently he was was there, but left before they arrived. What's more, our special forces teams were killed when the apartment building exploded shortly after sweeping the building. There has been only one mission success. If three missions fail, the bad guys win.

croc, you may now submit five names (which may include your own name) in a motion to form a subcommittee to carry out the fourth mission. Should your motion fail, SoItBegins will have opportunity to submit five 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 #4
Gérard Martin
Gérard Martin is believed to be the strategic mastermind behind the imminent nuclear terrorist attack, though we are unsure of his operational control and knowledge of tactical specifics. Nonetheless, we'd like to interrogate him, and his live capture is a top priority. An elusive and wealthy figure who rose to public consciousness only in the 21st century, Martin is a vehement fascist that has called for a global authoritarian government with himself as its head. Wanted for a variety of crimes in France and other European nations, he has escaped justice by always being a step ahead of police and military forces. That seems to be how he likes it, often waiting until the last moment before making his escape in a spectacular fashion. His daring and charm have attracted a large following around the world, and more than a few would-be fascist revolutionaries have affiliated their organizations with his movement. Arrogant and pompous, Martin has never hid in a cave or jungle, and instead prefers elaborate disguises and false identities to hide, staying in lavish mansions and hotels throughout his home country and popular vacation spots. We believe we have located him now in the residence of one of his followers, though he's well defended and it will take the resources of five Security Council member nations to take him alive. As intelligent and arrogant as he is, we expect he believes he's untouchable, and it will take significant information to get him to move again before the terrorist attack. A single leak about the operation to capture him will not be enough for the mission to fail. His 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 croc puts forth five 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.

I think retep is sabotaging the missions. He's been acting strange on both IRC and here.

No Mack, it's you. You're the one who keeps blowing our missions, shame on you!

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 28 May 2012 - 03:43 PM

I've voted SUCCEED for every mission, and I can prove it.

EDIT: looking back over voting history, because I know how I've voted, and retep is the only one who's been in every failed mission but not in the first one (which succeeded), I'm betting he's the one who votes FAIL. croc, whatever you do, don't put retep on the next committee. Even if you have to pick all new people, keep retep off of it.

You've been on three missions, the last two of which have failed. retep has been on two missions, both of which failed. I'm convinced it's either you or retep at this point.

In the event that you are a terrorist it would be perfectly logical for you to let the first mission succeed, that would be of no consequence to you and it would generate credibility for you. You would then be free to sabotage the next missions you were on and shuffle the blame onto somebody else. Doesn't matter who, but retep is a convenient target since he was on all the missions that have failed.

But what if Mack is innocent? Then that means retep is guaranteed to be a traitor. Therefore, we can't put either Mack or retep on the next detail.

I propose the following detail; croc, prophile, mud212, SoItBegins and Crow T. Robot. Make amends as you see fit, but I believe these five are trustworthy members of the council.

Could be possible that both retep and mack are terrorist and are alternating the fail vote to throw us off the trail of who is guilty and who is innocent. Jacabyte, why have you not proposed yourself for the subcommittee? You have listed just about everyone except yourself, why?

This post has been edited by Crow T. Robot : 28 May 2012 - 04:05 PM

Because I don't want to involve myself in the confusion. I know that I'm innocent, but you guys don't. You may put me in the committee if you wish, I promise I won't let the mission fail, but if it were my choice to make I would avoid putting myself on a detail as retep did.

Removing me from a committee would be a mistake, as I definitely am innocent -- but JB, something's wrong with your math. There's five innocents and three evil players, right? So if you list five others as trustworthy, you're outing yourself as untrustworthy.

EDIT: I'll also note I've not asked once to be put on any committees -- people do it to me anyway.

@jacabyte, on 28 May 2012 - 04:00 PM, said in GTW 36:

I propose the following detail; croc, prophile, mud212, SoItBegins and Crow T. Robot. Make amends as you see fit, but I believe these five are trustworthy members of the council.

Uh, JacaByte, if that's true then you're a traitor, as there are 5 trustworthies and 3 traitors. In that case, why should we listen to you?

Okay, so my reasoning is this. I am going to put myself on the subcommittee since I know I'm not a terrorist-and to back it up, I went on the only successful mission. Mackilroy and prophile were also on that mission so I want them. Crow T. Robot put together the first team, again, the only one to succeed so far.

That leaves one spot. I feel the best thing to do would be to pick someonr that hasn't been on any failed missions...

So my last pick is JacaByte. I think this is our best chance, and it will certainly narrow the choices down. So to reiterate:

Proposed subcommittee members:
Crow T. Robot
JacaByte
prophile
Mackilroy
croc (me)

This post has been edited by croc : 28 May 2012 - 05:42 PM

@soitbegins, on 28 May 2012 - 05:17 PM, said in GTW 36:

Uh, JacaByte, if that's true then you're a traitor, as there are 5 trustworthies and 3 traitors. In that case, why should we listen to you?

Interesting, I did not realize that I was guaranteed to list a traitor.

In that case I'm forced to put myself on a detail aren't I? I was avoiding it because I didn't want to confuse you guys, I don't put myself forward because I personally think it's ignoble of me.

I think croc's selection is reasonable, though the addition of Mack concerns me gravely. I will not let you guys down, I promise!

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 28 May 2012 - 05:47 PM

If you feel it best then leave me out, but I'm definitely more trustworthy than JB, having been on a successful mission. He's been on none.