Let's do Shlim's because it would be really stupid if we accidentally lost this game voting down five in a row for no good reason

This post has been edited by Techerakh : 28 August 2012 - 09:15 PM

@jacabyte, on 28 August 2012 - 01:57 PM, said in GTW 41:

Well, we're not exactly in a rush, we've simply decided that we don't want retep on the first mission. I think this is a noble cause myself.

We have? All I was saying is I didn't want to be on a team with retep998, not that retep998 shouldn't have a proposal this round.

Sorry I'm kind of late in voting (only just did, I hope I wasn't the last). I had kind of a busy day.

@mrxak, on 28 August 2012 - 09:25 PM, said in GTW 41:

All I was saying is I didn't want to be on a team with retep998,

Oh.

@mrxak, on 28 August 2012 - 09:25 PM, said in GTW 41:

not that retep998 shouldn't have a proposal this round.

Fair enough. In my defense, if we all approve Shlim's proposal that's as good as saying we don't want retep to have a proposal this round. He'll get one next round for sure.

@eugene-chin, on 28 August 2012 - 09:02 PM, said in GTW 41:

Question then: How many people would prefer Shlimazel's proposal to seeing what retep998 puts up, just because? Let's do this old school:

Shlimazel: (0)

retep998: (0)

That takes me right back.

ALSO: Six people have voted.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 29 August 2012 - 05:55 PM

Sorry for taking so long to PM my vote. I'd hoped a few more people would have taken up debating between choosing Shlimazel and retep998 as the proposer when I brought it up.

For posterity, the turnout was:

Shlimazel: (2) (4)
JacaByte
Techerakh

mrxak (inferred only)
Shlimazel (inferred only)

retep998: (0)

And since I know darth_vader was getting upset about going through all five proposals, I suspect that's enough to pass this one.

I still want to get a fifth proposal on record before we go into mission 2, so.

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 29 August 2012 - 09:20 PM

We are waiting on Shlimazel.

Fun fact: The border between the two kingdoms has grown a no-man’s land in the past few years, which is heavily seeded with both cola-mentos and corn-kernel mines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Vegetable King examined the notes, a smile on his face. Four papers were marked with the blue ink of approval. He overturned the bowl, setting it upside down in the table. "It is time," he said. "Shlimazel, mrxak—"
The King rummaged, came up with some papers, and added the stacks to the dossier of each. "You have all you need to guide the sabotage team to success. Good luck."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shlimazel votes APPROVE at 11:07 AM.
JacaByte votes APPROVE at 11:57 AM.
Techerakh votes APPROVE at 4:44 PM.
retep998 votes REJECT at 5:28 PM.
mrxak votes APPROVE at 7:26 PM.
darth_vader votes REJECT at 3:23 PM the next day.
Eugene Chin votes REJECT at 7:20 PM.

Motion is approved.

mrxak and Shlimazel , please PM me a vote of SUCCEED or FAIL. Two SUCCEED votes will be needed for the mission to be successful.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 29 August 2012 - 11:10 PM

...how did you edit that without an 'edited' banner?

Super mod abuse. (He can do that to our signatures too.)

I see.

Fun fact: When the Candy and Vegetable Kingdoms annexed the Fruit Kingdom, the piece of land each kingdom claimed varied. The Vegetable Kingdom received control over tomatoes and avocado raw material groves, among other things; sweet-fruit territory was snatched up by the Candy Kingdom. Much of it is now processed into fruit leather or fruitcake building materials.

MISSION RESULTS
SUCCEED: 2
FAIL: 0

Infrastructural Attack: Munitions Production ~ SUCCESS!

The pair of saboteurs were successful! After basic infiltration as workers, the agents were able to cause significant amounts of trouble in the factory cluster.
Munitions production rate in the Candy Kingdom now stands at only 20% of capacity, with most of the machinery stalled, and the backups turning out non-spec items that will fail in a combat situation. In addition, one of the saboteurs was able to flood an underground basement believed to be the source of Caramelization Bomb warhead production.

So far, there has been 1 successful mission, and no failures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Well done," said the Vegetable King, as he and his advisors watched a grainy security camera video of a stamping machine dissolving, after surreptitiously being painted with an enzymated paste.

"The first mission has been completed successfully," he announced to the assembled seven. "I am already receiving reports that resources have been diverted to repair the factories, and restart bomb production.
We are safe for another day."

Sighs of relief from around the table.

"Unfortunately," the King said, "All that means is that we begin the whole procedure over again. Another mission. Another day's grace. I've had a report from our weapons division. They think they can have the bombs ready in two more days, as long as we keep the Candy Kingdom occupied— successfully."

The King turned the bowl in the center of the table over again, inviting votes, and consulted his ordering list. "retep998, it's your turn to make a proposal. This next mission will require a... higher degree of oversight, so choose carefully." He banged his staff on the floor. "You may—"

Then the King remembered something. "Oh, yes. We did receive a note from our adversary recently..." He held it up for all to see.

The ensuing discussion even got the King to smile, a little.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Target #2
Infrastructural/Morale Attack: Sewer System (Capital)

The Candy Kingdom is composed primarily of sugar-based and sugar-related substances. Most edibles are easily digestible. As such, the sewers of Kingdom cities carry a particularly noxious composite of additives, byproducts, and indegestible dye. Two agents have been readied to travel to the capital of the Candy Kingdom, hack into the sewer control systems, and cause multiple overflows, backups, and similar issues. However, they must be provided with guidance about the state of the sewer system and its computer security.

retep998 , it is your turn to make a proposal. This proposal should have three names, and everyone will need to APPROVE or REJECT it.
Including yours, there is enough time for 5 proposals.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 30 August 2012 - 05:51 AM

Well then, it looks like it is my turn to write a proposal.
Unfortunately we don't have any real information to run on, considering the first mission went by without a hitch.
I find it interesting how darth vader accepted the first two proposals without him, and then rejected the proposal he made with him on it. Also rather interesting how Eugene rejected that proposal with him on it too.
Anyway, my proposal shall be random for now. I shall use my IRC commands to generate randomness.

Quote

(12:30:06 PM) ***retep9981 rolls 2 6-sided dice: 4 6

If I match each number to the respective person on the list, that means Shlimazel and Techerakh.
Thus my proposal is as follows:

retep998
Shlimazel
Techerakh

Amazing, my proposal is in consecutive alphabetical order!

This post has been edited by retep998 : 30 August 2012 - 11:33 AM

I reject your proposal, as the first name on it was not randomly chosen at all.

No, really, I just don't like that Techerakh and you are on it. Shlimazel... eh. shrugs

I'm going to make out a list of proposals and related events, so we can see if Eugene's proposal for proposals gave us any useful information.

Quote

FIRST PROPOSAL (Jacabyte):
JacaByte
retep998

Jacabyte offered to change his proposal, at this point, to the following:
darth_vader
Techerakh

SECOND PROPOSAL (Eugene Chin):
Eugene Chin
Shlimazel

THIRD PROPOSAL (darth_vader):
darth_vader
Eugene Chin

FOURTH PROPOSAL (Shlimazel):
mrxak
Shlimazel

Eugene Chin wanted to see what retep998 would propose at this point, seeking a fifth proposal

And then of course our current proposal. I'm still going over the topic to see if I can find any other useful details.

As far as the current proposal goes, I'm tempted to say yes because I am on it, but I'm not sure about Techerakh. Maybe I missed a post, but I think he's been pretty quiet, even after he said he would be returning from vacation, and I'd prefer to see more posting activity from him before I vote for a proposal with him on it. I'm going to REJECT this initial proposal.

@retep998, on 30 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said in GTW 41:

Well then, it looks like it is my turn to write a proposal.
Unfortunately we don't have any real information to run on, considering the first mission went by without a hitch.
I find it interesting how darth vader accepted the first two proposals without him, and then rejected the proposal he made with him on it. Also rather interesting how Eugene rejected that proposal with him on it too.

@eugene-chin, on 25 August 2012 - 01:00 AM, said in GTW 41:

So, going into mission 2, the only thing we're going to have is: "Who did you pick as a partner?"

If it's an innocent picking the committee, then that answer is effectively random. If it's a traitor, though, he'll have to ask himself "Do I want to pick a traitor, and try to build trust, or should I pick an innocent and try to frame him?" Either way, if we learn one of the first five proposers is a traitor, we'll have something more to go on.

So, if all we've got going into Mission 2 is "Who did you pick as a partner?", we may as well ask it five times.

We've got five proposals. Let's use 'em.

When the point of that was clearly stated, I find it rather interesting retep998 would complain about it as if it was not.

Reject.

@shlimazel, on 30 August 2012 - 12:17 PM, said in GTW 41:

Jacabyte offered to change his proposal, at this point, to the following:
darth_vader
Techerakh

No I didn't, I was asking mrxak if those two were the ones who were idling. No more, no less.

As for this proposal, I'm confused by why retep would elect to leave mrxak out of this mission when the first mission went over fine, with mrxak on it. I believe any proposals for the second mission should be built upon the first mission, unless anybody can come up with good reasons why Shlimazel and/or mrxak should not be on the second mission. I will be rejecting this proposal.

Anyone reading anything into the first round is a fool. The first rule of Resistance is that the first round does not matter, at all. I'm sorry I didn't post enough , but there was (understandably) no worthwhile conversation going on.

That being said, we're now in a round where we can actually learn things from the votes and proposals. I have no reason to trust retep or Shlim, and this is only the first proposal, so I too will reject.

Oh, also, I've decided to take a second vacation next week (lol) so, though I'll be around, this whole game will probably see a lower posting rate from me than would be normal. I'll try and jam-pack what I can into these next few days though, in consideration of my adoring fans.

There's no need to be so sarcastic.

@jacabyte, on 30 August 2012 - 04:20 PM, said in GTW 41:

As for this proposal, I'm confused by why retep would elect to leave mrxak out of this mission when the first mission went over fine, with mrxak on it. I believe any proposals for the second mission should be built upon the first mission, unless anybody can come up with good reasons why Shlimazel and/or mrxak should not be on the second mission. I will be rejecting this proposal.

... Because in every previous resistance game, one or more of the players on the first mission turned out to be traitors?

Because what you're suggesting is exactly what was done in Game 36, and the traitors managed to get the proposer framed?

I'd rather have heard that from retep, but it's fine that you've stepped up for him anyway.

The trouble is that, in the event that there was a sleeper agent on the first mission, dropping a member from the first mission and adding two more to the second mission introduces the chance that we'll exchange innocent players for treacherous players. Granted, we might switch out a traitor for an innocent, but we wouldn't know about it, and we wouldn't have any information to go on for adding innocents to future missions. This would be especially problematic in the event that two of our missions fail, and we have to run a perfect mission with all four of the innocent players on it. We have to know what teams work early on, having late game mission failures sealed a (pretty much inevitable) win for the traitors last game.

So... I guess the question I'm trying to ask is whether dropping players from previous missions and adding players who've never been on mission to future missions is as beneficial as you imply it is.

@eugene-chin, on 30 August 2012 - 06:42 PM, said in GTW 41:

... Because in every previous resistance game, one or more of the players on the first mission turned out to be traitors?

Actually, I think one of the games that was not the case. I could be wrong, but anyway, it's bound to happen at some point. It would be a shame to miss out when it happens.