@jrsh92, on May 22 2008, 03:37 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

I meant that YOU had SAID that there was no reason for terrorists to kill each other.

Yeah? And I guess I wasn't asking you to point out where I said that, right?

@jacabyte, on May 22 2008, 05:33 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Eugene: I don't recall ever voting against Prophile, or defending Kickme, at least directly. Could you point out where I said these things? I'm very curious.

Your vote for prophile, shortly after prophile had voted for kickme:

@jacabyte, on May 16 2008, 05:34 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Oh no, not the balloons!

Anyway, kickme has a phobia for inflatable animals. He shouldn't not be killed because of his disability, so my vote goes for prophile.

It's practically the first thing you did. While you did change your vote later, it is this First vote that had caught my attention. It was also the source of my suspicion that you were trying to defend kickme. At the time, only kickme and prophile had voted for each other.

This is either very forgetful of you, or a very transparent bid to throw suspicion on your accusers, JacaByte.

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 22 May 2008 - 04:51 PM

@jacabyte, on May 21 2008, 11:35 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

There is one caveat to my logic that I didn't consider earlier; if Darwinian is, in fact, a terrorist, then none of the people who voted for him could be a terrorist. Why would a terrorist try to get one of his own killed by the council? This would turn the argument I just made on its head.

You claimed, in an absolute way, that someone voting for a terrorist COULD NOT also be a terrorist.

@eugene-chin, on May 22 2008, 03:44 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

It's practically the first thing you did. While you did change your vote later, it is this First vote that had caught my attention. It was also the source of my suspicion that you were trying to defend kickme. At the time, only kickme and prophile had voted for each other.

This is either very forgetful of you, or a very transparent bid to throw suspicion on your accusers, JacaByte.

Doh! I remember that post now. I didn't have any reasons behind that vote; it was a cynical vote against a random person since I didn't have anybody else to go for, and since I was he one kickme grabbed when the balloons popped, I believed that kickme shouldn't be voted against simply because he has a fear of balloon animals.

I may have just driven the last nail into my coffin with what I just said, but if my death helps you realize that I'm not a terrorist, then so be it.

@jrsh92, on May 22 2008, 03:50 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

You claimed, in an absolute way, that someone voting for a terrorist COULD NOT also be a terrorist.

A terrorist as opposed to, what, a chameleon? If you're not a terrorist, then you're an innocent; yes or no? I said that a terrorist wouldn't vote for a fellow terrorist, therefore everybody who voted for that terrorist in the past is innocent. I don't see anything wrong with that logic; it's what helped the innocents win GTW 23.

Edit: Clarification.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 22 May 2008 - 04:59 PM

@jrsh92, on May 22 2008, 05:50 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

You claimed, in an absolute way, that someone voting for a terrorist COULD NOT also be a terrorist.

Part of the reasoning behind statements like that it that it would put an unnecessary burden on the terrorists for an uncertain payoff.

It worked for mrxak once, but mostly because kickme's access to the internet was out for two consecutive rounds. If kickme had shown up, mrxak would have been nailed to a tree.

Jaca, as darwinian (I believe it was him at least) stated, there are plenty of reasons for terrorists to vote for other terrorists-- and most of them are based around tricking people like you who assume that it never happens.
Worst case, you have voted for a terrorist in the past and you're trying to make people think that that makes you innocent-- while you are in fact another terrorist.
Best case, it's just incredibly stupid to assume that.
Once you have everyone thinking that a vote for a terrorist demonstrates your innocence, it's quite easy for a terrorist to jump on a bandwagon if there is such a large pile of votes on another terrorist that he can't save them. If we think any one of many voters for a terrorist can be assumed to be innocent, it'll really mess us up.
Because there are many situations where a single terrorist's vote will do nothing to save his comrade, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that a terrorist might have, at once point, voted for another terrorist. I think it's in fact likely, again to fool people like you. Don't be fooled by it. Or, die for your foolishness! Which seems to be your present fate.
It's so incredibly easy for a terrorist to hide using the "I voted for a terrorist!" defense that anyone actually believing in its usefulness as a tool to determine innocence is hurting the innocent's chances, whether the person who believes it is a terrorist or not.
Are you absolutely the best person to kill that this point? Maybe not, if you're an innocent someone else is obviously the best one to kill... but at the moment, when my vote might tip the scales in your favor and kill off EKHawkman, I'm not seeing a reason to do that. Of the two people who have a chance of being voted off-- who are not coincidentally the two most suspicious-- you look the most like a terrorist to me. EKHawkman's just acting like he's on crack.

EDIT: added some cohesiveness/sense to the post's wording.

This post has been edited by jrsh92 : 22 May 2008 - 05:14 PM

Alright, so my innocence depends on whether or not Darwinian is innocent as well? So why are you going to kill be first, and then kill off Darwinian as well? Wouldn't it make more sense to go for Darwinian again and get my role straightened out instead of killing two innocents?

Your innocence does NOT depend on Darwinian's role. In fact, the idea that you would think anyone's innocence depends on anyone else's role because you assume terrorists don't vote for terrorists is EXACTLY why I'm voting for you.

I AM NOT ON CRACK! :mad:

I just sometimes talk way to much......

@ekhawkman, on May 20 2008, 05:04 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

My plan is to lure terrorists into a false sense of security and then have the council utterly annihilate them. They will be thinking of me as a good shield. In fact they probably are using me as a shield right now.

@ekhawkman, on May 21 2008, 05:19 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Its quiet......... Too quiet. :lights bottle rockets and shoots them at people: YAYYYYYYYY

@ekhawkman, on May 21 2008, 07:55 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

You obviously don't know how I act Prophile :shoots three bottle rockets at prophile:
THIS IS DEFCON!!!

I had forgotten to bold my vote for Lemonyscapegoat.

@jrsh92, on May 22 2008, 06:07 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Are you absolutely the best person to kill that this point? Maybe not, if you're an innocent someone else is obviously the best one to kill... but at the moment, when my vote might tip the scales in your favor and kill off EKHawkman, I'm not seeing a reason to do that. Of the two people who have a chance of being voted off-- who are not coincidentally the two most suspicious-- you look the most like a terrorist to me. EKHawkman's just acting like he's on crack.

Mmmm... One reason to get on the Hawk ticket is that a number of people are determined to see him Lynched.

Now, that's not the same as saying EKHawkman is evil. It's simply acknowledging that the people who keep championing his death will start looking at other suspects the sooner he's dead, and that until he dies any attention in any other direction has to overcome the "Hawk-Hate" factor before it can accomplish anything.

It isn't so much good targeting as it is clearing up congestion.

That's not to say I like this line of thought, but the number of times the Hawk-ticket has gained traction could warrant the removal of an obstacle to debate.

By my count the vote is currently tied between JacaByte and EKHawkman at 4 each, with only Templar and LNSU needing to vote still.

If it looks like the round will end on a tie, I'll probably switch my vote to the Hawk-ticket to break.

JacaByte: (4)
Eugene Chin
jrsh92
Rickton
EKHawkman

EKHawkman: (4)
prophile
lemonyscapegoat
darwinian
Manta

lemonyscapegoat: (3)
Mispeled
egroeg
darth_vader

Mispeled: (1)
RJC Ultra

Rickton: (1)
JacaByte

No Votes: (2)
LNSU
Templar98921

(EDIT) If there's any errors on this list, let me know.
(EDITx2) Anyone know when this round is ending?

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 22 May 2008 - 06:40 PM

EKHawkman

He's getting in the way, and if he's this loud we can't hear the terrorist whine... EKHawkman, calm down or die.

OK I will calm down. I'm telling you I'm not a terrorist and I can be a productive member of this council. Plus there is plenty of evidence towards Jaca and Darwinian. I think they are using this argument as a way to distance themselves and that way if one goes down the other is fine. You can be sure that I am not a terrorist and if you will give me a chance to calm down I can help find the terrorists.

^he's getting desperate. I can't blame him though, half the council is doing their best to kill him.

Wellllll... More like a third.
(EDIT) Now color-coded for my convenience.

EKHawkman: (5)
prophile
lemonyscapegoat
darwinian
Manta
Templar98921

JacaByte: (4)
Eugene Chin
jrsh92
Rickton
EKHawkman

lemonyscapegoat: (3)
Mispeled
egroeg
darth_vader

Mispeled: (1)
RJC Ultra

Rickton: (1)
JacaByte

No Vote: (1)
LNSU

Well, I think that just about cinches it.
If LNSU votes the Hawk-ticket, it's just drives in another nail, and if he votes JacaByte, I'll switch over to Hawk myself to break a tie.

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 26 May 2008 - 03:04 PM

Round Three Votes:
darth_vader - lemonyscapegoat
darwinian - EKHawkman
egroeg - lemonyscapegoat
EKHawkman - JacaByte
Eugene Chin - JacaByte
JacaByte - Rickton
jrsh92 - JacaByte
lemonyscapegoat - EKHawkman
LNSU -
Manta - EKHawkman
Mispeled - lemonyscapegoat
prophile - EKHawkman
Rickton - JacaByte
RJC Ultra - Mispeled
Templar98921 - EKHawkman

Round is ending in no more than 13 hours, and as little as 6 (really depends on when I get to sleep and when I wake up). Please verify that your votes are correct and let me know if they aren't.

"So, at last we have our decision!" mrxak says from the podium, after Mr. Elephant 'yielded' the floor to him. "Let's drag somebody away to be horribly killed, eh?"

Round Three Votes:
darth_vader - lemonyscapegoat
darwinian - EKHawkman
egroeg - lemonyscapegoat
EKHawkman - JacaByte
Eugene Chin - JacaByte
JacaByte - Rickton
jrsh92 - JacaByte
lemonyscapegoat - EKHawkman
LNSU - LNSU
Manta - EKHawkman
Mispeled - lemonyscapegoat
prophile - EKHawkman
Rickton - JacaByte
RJC Ultra - Mispeled
Templar98921 - EKHawkman

lemonyscapegoat - 3
EKHawkman - 5
JacaByte - 4
Rickton - 1
LNSU - 1
Mispeled - 1

_"Yay! EKHawkman will be killed, yay!" mrxak says, after listening to Mr. Elephant closely.

"Yay!" all the delegates cheer, including EKHawkman.

"Hey wait!" EKHawkman reconsiders, but guards drag him away screaming before he can take back his cheer._

EKHawkman has been voted out. He is now dead.

Thus begins the first inactive phase of round three. If you need to contact me in this phase, you have 12 hours to do so.

"Everyone go enjoy your snack time!" mrxak exclaims. "What are you going to have, Mr. Elephant? Peanuts? Outstanding!"

"Did he really behave this way, doctor?"
"The drugs will increase his eccentricities, of course, but these experiences are all derived from actual memories."
"What about the others?"
"Well you know how it works, Clara, I just hope there's less brain damage this time. We still haven't found what we were looking for."
"I hope so too, doctor."

Would this be considered absurdist, or surrealist? Or am I not even in the right ballpark? Hot dog, anyone?

xander

I hate waiting.