@darwinian, on May 23 2008, 11:48 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
Would this be considered absurdist, or surrealist? Or am I not even in the right ballpark? Hot dog, anyone?
Of the two absurdism, though probably not either. Definitely not surrealist, the laws of physics apply at least.
I will get yall for this! ROARARARAR!!!!! Except for Mr. Elephant...... altho he can never replace mr. fishy!!!!!!!
:Corpse Explodes in small nuclear reaction killing those in the room of my execution.: Sorry I had to add that. Gotta go out with style Ya know! I will take a snickers if you don't mind!
@darwinian, on May 23 2008, 10:48 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
Would this be considered absurdist, or surrealist? Or am I not even in the right ballpark? Hot dog, anyone?
It's mrxakist. And the hot dogs will happen towards the end.
Anyway, I got word from everyone that needed to contact me in both inactive rounds, so without further ado:
_"Yeah, peanuts really are awesome," mrxak says to Mr. Elephant, opening a bag he got before announcing snack time. "I- I love you Mr. Elephant. I wanted for so long to-"
LNSU explodes, this time there was a small mine under the table, and when LNSU broke the infrared laser range-finder trigger, a directed blast destroyed all but his upper body. The top half quickly bleeds to death.
"Holy crap!" mrxak screams, squeezing Mr. Elephant, who then pops. "Noooooo! Mr. Elephant! NOOOOOOOOOOO!"
Janitors come in to clean up the mess, but it takes some time before mrxak stops crying, and when he does, he explains that LNSU's country had been nuked as well.
"I got word before snack time started, I probably should've told you all. Maybe LNSU would've... oh well... I really like snack time, don't you?" mrxak shrugs, tying another balloon animal. The delegates soon see that it's a turtle. "Speedy the Turtle here has something to say, then you should all start voting."
mrxak picks up the remains of Mr. Elephant and throws him into the trash, holding up his arms in the field goal position for a few seconds before wandering out of the room suddenly. The delegates, looking at each other and laughing nervously, try to listen to what Speedy the Turtle has to say. Speedy says nothing._
LNSU is now dead. EKHawkman and LNSU were both ordinary delegates.
For the record, this is now Active Phase, Round Four. Get voting.
Round Four Votes:
darth_vader -
darwinian -
egroeg -
Eugene Chin -
JacaByte -
jrsh92 -
lemonyscapegoat -
Manta -
Mispeled -
prophile -
Rickton -
RJC Ultra -
Templar98921 -
"Subjects EKH104 and LNS111 have been eliminated doctor."
"Interesting. Excellent, I see that the synaptic relays are still working within expected ranges. How is subject MRX100?"
"MRX100 is more eccentric than ever. He just cried over the loss of one of his balloon animals."
"That was to be expected. The drugs will throw his system out of balance, but we need to push him."
"Don't you think, doctor, that maybe we should go easier? If we let everything proceed slowly, as it did before, we will learn everything?"
"No, there's no time for that, we have to learn all we can before it's too late. Try to increase synaptic function closer to tolerance."
"Yes doctor."
I gave a reason to vote for Rickton last round, along with a theory. It seems as if the validity of my theory depends greatly on
Spoiler
darwinian's
innocence. If he is a terrorist, then my head is on the chopping block since it'll look as if I'm a terrorist and if he's innocent then it looks like the people I condemned have some explaining to do. Might I point out that RJC Ultra and LNSU made no attempts to try to prove their innocence?...
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 25 May 2008 - 12:35 PM
Well, it looks like it is too late for me to stop this (incorrect) bandwagon. Following another line of logic, I am voting
Spoiler
Manta
. It is clear that my previous line of logic was incorrect, and Manta is one of the names that was high on my innocent list under that logic. Since EKHawkman was innocent, I think that goes some distance to clearing other people on my list, so Manta it is.
xander
I don't think it's usually considered a bandwagon if there's a lot of solid evidence for why you should die. In that case, I think it's just a matter of everyone voting for you. I think "bandwagon" implies people voting for you because it's the easy way out, in this case you're actually looking if not suspicious then just stupid. Therefore, we're eliminating you.
@jacabyte, on May 24 2008, 04:55 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
Might I point out that RJC Ultra and LNSU made no attempts to try to prove their innocence?...
What do you want me to explain? I'm innocent! I didn't make any idiotic, not-reasoned or over-reasoned votes, nor did I try to defend certain suspicious persons.
Vote me if you like, but be prepared for another dead innocent.
By the way, LNSU is dead, and was innocent as well.
EDIT: Misspelled some words.
EDIT2: Please don't laugh.
This post has been edited by RJC Ultra : 25 May 2008 - 07:57 AM
@rjc-ultra, on May 24 2008, 01:04 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
EDIT: Mispelled some words.
Or Mispeld, perhaps.
In terms of acting "stupid or suspicious" I do think JacaByte is more than darwinian. First he attacks me, RJC and LNSU (who we now know is innocent), then complains that LNSU and RJC didn't defend themselves...what's that all about?
Not to mention his seemingly entirely random vote for lemony earlier in the game...
@jrsh92, on May 24 2008, 04:46 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
I don't think it's usually considered a bandwagon if there's a lot of solid evidence for why you should die. In that case, I think it's just a matter of everyone voting for you. I think "bandwagon" implies people voting for you because it's the easy way out, in this case you're actually looking if not suspicious then just stupid. Therefore, we're eliminating you.
I find it funny that you think you have evidence. I am, after all, innocent. This solid evidence of yours doesn't exist, and you will know that very soon, when I am dead. But, hey, if you would rather continue this pointless vendetta, and kill me, it doesn't seem that there is much I can do to stop you. That being said, once I am dead and shown to be innocent, I suggest that jrsh92 be investigated. He is still after me based on first day suspicions, and doesn't seem to have bothered to update his thinking since then.
xander
I'm after you based on MY first day suspicions? Completely the other way around. You were suspicious of me the first day for something completely irrelevant, so I point out the weakness of the "logic" you were using to attack me. You die for your suspicions of me, and are brought back to life. Later in the game, you berate someone for posting without voting, which, as explained last round by me, is exactly the same thing you were doing to ME the first round-- being "suspicious" of people for just thinking too much. Had I been going after you due to first day suspicions-- the exact things I went after you for first round-- I would have voted for you before your behavior last round. However, I am going after you because of the combined accusations and survival in the first round that YOU made and the failure to update YOUR thinking later in the game when YOU attacked Rickton. The exact "failure to update your thinking" and "first day suspicions" that you are saying I am voting based on ARE what I'm voting based on-- except it's YOUR suspicions and backwards thinking that is causing me to vote for you, not my own.
I went after Jacabyte last round for a reason, and I agree with Rickton's suspicion of him, but darwinian seems a bigger threat to me at the moment and gets higher priority.
"Solid evidence for why you should die" was a terrible way to word it but if you actually think about what I'm saying, I'm not implying that there is solid evidence that you are a terrorist. There is only solid evidence that you death would benefit the council in general. The "evidence" I speak of is what I've been speaking of for a while-- the fact that your insistence on people not thinking before acting helps the terrorists. I admit, a terrible way to word it, but at the same time I really never did say that there was evidence pointing to you as a terrorist.
EDITS (lots of them): clarification and addressing additional concerns, no actual content in the original body of the post changed.
This post has been edited by jrsh92 : 24 May 2008 - 02:07 PM
@rickton, on May 24 2008, 12:27 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
Or Mispeld, perhaps.
In terms of acting "stupid or suspicious" I do think JacaByte is more than darwinian. First he attacks me, RJC and LNSU (who we now know is innocent), then complains that LNSU and RJC didn't defend themselves...what's that all about?
Not to mention his seemingly entirely random vote for lemony earlier in the game...
That vote for lemonyscapegoat was an attempt to get the terrorists to vote for him in a baseless bandwagon. It failed with flying colors, obviously, and it looks as if it also backfired.
I had forgotten that LNSU had died, but my statement stands. They were called "terrorists for sure" in my post, but they made no attempt at trying to prove their innocence. In my opinion, one of them was trying to lay low. Of course, a terrorist would have tried to defend themselves, more likely than not. We may never know who's innocent or who's a terrorist, we could just continue pointing fingers at each other for the rest of the game.
JacaByte seems increasingly desperate. He's doing the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing about the people he's accusing and whether they defend themselves or not. As for pointing fingers the rest of the game, well, yes. That's how the game works. I have good reason to point my finger at you right now and would encourage others to join me.
@jrsh92, on May 24 2008, 07:02 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
--==<snip>==--
Actually, if you actually paid attention to what I said, my complaint is about people who try to shift the way in which other people vote, but don't actually commit to voting for anyone themselves. When I am a traitor, one of the strategies that I like to use is to get a bandwagon going against an innocent, but not vote for that person. I will, instead, vote for another traitor once it is clear that the bandwagon is rolling. That being said, I haven't actually accused Rickton of doing anything, nor did I attack him. I just asked that he vote. My attempt was to be somewhat tongue in cheek, but it is clear that it was interpreted at more aggressive.
As to your own behaviour, why are you so hostile? You seem desperately to want me dead, and are twisting everything around to make me look guilty. It seems to me that you are not actually thinking about your votes, but pursuing a vendetta against me. As I said, I will be quite happy when I am dead, and you are forced to justify your hostility to an innocent to the rest of the players.
And, point of fact, I was on you the first day for insisting that we kill someone -- anyone -- without thinking it through. You were ready to kill someone at random, just for the sake of killing someone. Killing people at random does not help us. I believed that then, and still believe it now.
xander
I'm really, really not liking these votes on Darwinian.
It seems like jrsh's motivation for voting for him is dislike, rather than any kind of belief that he is mafia. After we wasted a round voting off EVHawkman because he was dead weight, and we've only gotten one of the four or five mafia, we really need to follow legitimate leads for our vote this round. I'm not sure if this makes jrsh suspicious, but you're certainly not helping our chances of winning.
And then we have JacaByte on the bandwagon just to test his theory which doesn't stand up under much scrutiny.
But seriously. Prophile really could not at all be bandwagoning any more blatantly than that.
