No, mrxak doesn't like it because it's too easy to fake and can inflame someone for the wrong reason, and maybe kill an innocent.
Unless you want that, which I believe you do not, SIB.
-
@jacabyte, on Feb 3 2008, 03:31 PM, said in GTW Game 18:
So... you don't like us to send PMs to each other? Why? A PM should be dealt with using more scrutiny than a normal post because they can hold information that can either be extremely deceptive or extremely helpful, depending on your course of action, and can be used to coordinate the efforts of innocents and evil dictators alike.
Obviously anybody PMing each other carries a very high degree of risk. And without people being able to CC me in on such back room discussions, I cannot moderate them. Generally speaking I would not PM anybody unless I knew exactly what they were, and be able to prove it. Otherwise you open yourself up to extreme danger and the other person may also not trust you at all. People receiving PMs should probably not trust them, and people sending them should assume doing so will get them killed. It may not always work out that way, nobody can tell without trying, but it's a very messy situation that I think everyone should strive for avoiding it. Again, I can't stop you, but be aware of the dangers and the effect it might have on game balance.
-
Quote
I agree. I have no problems telling you I received the PM. But posting screenshots breaks the game.
Frankly, Anon, I don't feel that it makes a difference whether you tell us you are innocent or not. The fact is that innocence seems to usually be proved posthumously in this game. I do think that nfreader should give a more concrete piece of evidence as to the accuracy of his information, though.
This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 03 February 2008 - 04:06 PM
-
@mackilroy, on Feb 3 2008, 12:53 PM, said in GTW Game 18:
No, mrxak doesn't like it because it's too easy to fake and can inflame someone for the wrong reason, and maybe kill an innocent.
Unless you want that, which I believe you do not, SIB.
Trust me: I don't want that.
-
@anon, on Feb 3 2008, 12:11 PM, said in GTW Game 18:
If you do decide I must die this round, and nfreader does not die during the interstice, remember when the investigation results come back negative that nfreader convinced you to take this path. I suspect, however, that if I die by a lynch, and nfreader is truly innocent, then he will die at the hands of the terrorists to prevent him from informing you of the source of his mysterious knowledge.
If we kill Anon based on nfreader's evidence, there are only two strong possibilities. Either we kill Anon and find out that he is a rogue, or we kill him and find out that he is not a rogue. In the first case, nfreader is almost certainly the IA and will likely be killed by the terrorists next round to defend themselves. If Anon is discovered not to be a rogue, then nfreader will be an immediate object of suspicion. Since such a move would hardly benefit a terrorist (he would be highly likely to be lynched by the voters after making such a false claim), I'm going to trust nfreader on this one and vote for Anon. The evidence seems clear, and it seems to me that a unanimous vote on this issue should be both easy and helpful to the community.
Secondly, the matter of darth_vader's supposed innocence. While I'm not taking a stand one way or the other at this point, I'd like to point out that there is no evidence that I can see clearing him of guilt. The most likely game mechanic is that someone thought he was guilty, and tried to have him killed, and someone else thought he was innocent, and thus intervened to save him. The only evidence we could base an assumption of innocence on is if he himself had the power to intervene and save himself, since giving that power to a terrorist seems overpowered and not something that mrxak would do. Now, it is possible that he did intervene to save himself in the first round, having no other sure innocent to protect, but it is by no means sure, since past game records have shown that this is not always the course the person with the shielding ability chooses.
Again, I'm not saying that darth is innocent or guilty, I just think the matter has been closed without adequate discussion, and that those most vociferously arguing for his innocence should consider things more carefully, lest they be suspected themselves as part of a terrorist conspiracy.
-
Quote
Again, I'm not saying that darth is innocent or guilty, I just think the matter has been closed without adequate discussion, and that those most vociferously arguing for his innocence should consider things more carefully, lest they be suspected themselves as part of a terrorist conspiracy.
This makes me wonder. SoItBegins went off on JacaByte because JacaByte was pushing Darth's innocence so heavily. Hmm. Maybe I have the seed of an idea. Let me go and meditate on the wisdom of the tuning fork for a while until I can figure this out. meditates
-
Aww man... I wanna whack someone...
-
I have an idea. IF the assassin is NOT working for the terrorists, then they should be interested in killing terrorists, right? So here's what I suggest.
We seem to all believe that Anon is guilty. Good and fine. So let's find ourselves another terrorist and ask the assassin to kill the terrorist. What do you guys think?
I mean, if we get the right guy we could kill two birds with one stone. We could just post a general request for the assassin to kill so-and-so.
This post has been edited by Shlimazel : 03 February 2008 - 06:06 PM
-
All right...
nfreader seems to have defined the match by accusing Anon. Since there have been suspicions voiced about nfreader, why don't we kill Anon and have the assassin kill the other guy? We'd at least be sort of likely to kill a terrorist.
-
We should know the roles of the dead guys before time runs out. It was 24h after death correct?
-
@jacabyte, on Feb 3 2008, 03:25 PM, said in GTW Game 18:
Fine idea, except that it won't work; the people with that type of information are the intelligence agents, and it would be suicide for them to reveal what they know to the council at large. Also, we don't know who the assassin is. What if the assassin was Manta? Or Anon?
I thought we were killing Anon based on the supposition that nfreader was an IA of some sort? As I pointed out, it is suicide for him to claim to be the IA either way, and the only way this would benefit the game (on either side) is if he is telling the truth.
@hypochondriac, on Feb 3 2008, 03:35 PM, said in GTW Game 18:
We should know the roles of the dead guys before time runs out. It was 24h after death correct?
Hopefully we'll have full details on Manta soon, though mrxak didn't mention if he was going to be investigating his Manta's status beyond the presumed "not a terrorist" identity.
<edited for punctuational clarity>
This post has been edited by rebelswin_85 : 03 February 2008 - 06:55 PM
-
@hypochondriac, on Feb 3 2008, 06:35 PM, said in GTW Game 18:
We should know the roles of the dead guys before time runs out. It was 24h after death correct?
And yet prophile's info is still missing...
-
@jacabyte, on Feb 3 2008, 05:47 PM, said in GTW Game 18:
What does the big board look like at the moment?
_The Big Board reads:
Anon - nfreader
darth_vader - Anon
1Eevee1 -
GutlessWonder -
Hypochondriac -
JacaByte - Anon
kickme -
Mackilroy -
nfreader - Anon
rebelswin_85 - Anon
Rickton -
RJC Ultra -
Shlimazel - Anon
SoItBegins - Anon_Manta's role will be revealed 24 hours after his death.
-
Well, it's been more that 24 hours after the death of prophile... what was his role?
-
Aw, what the hell, it looks like Anon is toast already. Considering the old adage "trust no one", I'll let all of you have your little anti-anon party. 1Eevee1 , I choose you!