GAH sorry I'm late LNSU I was at a party and was too tired to vote. The reasons for LNSU is because I have seen shifty voting patterns. Some would say I should self defense against SIB but I think he is innocent and don't want him to get voted off just yet. LNSU on the other hand is proving to be a shady character and unless he blows up parliament I'm against him.

Hmm, I don't like the way that darwinian is laying on the heat on jrsh92. It sounds to me that, according to xander's logic, jrsh92 is damned if he does vote and damned if he doesn't. That logic can be applied to everybody in this council room, if you ask me. It's the same logic that xander used in game 22 when he was a terrorist, down almost to the very word. With that in mind, I'm changing my vote to darwinian.

We know jrsh92 for long enough now to know that his current behaviour isn't really suspicious. For now, I agree with Jacabyte, and vote darwinian.

I retract my previous vote and change it to prophile to save my own skin.

Mispeld, I don't think all those probabilities are correct, but I'm too lazy to figure out what if anything is wrong. They're close enough. I was considering retracting my vote for SIB but that would I think break at tie with prophile thus causing his death. Am I counting that right?

@mispeled, on May 17 2008, 06:13 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

3. probability of mafia and serial killer picking the same person, so only one person dies
(mafia picks anyone, serial killer picks that person)
16/16 * 1/19 = 1/19 = 5.2%

I don't think this one is correct...

What if the serial killer was like the paranoid guy mrxak had in one of his previous games? The only way for there to be another unexplained death, then, would be for the serial killer to be one of the people either voted off or nightkilled.

Just a thought.

Also, I've got a thought on a way for the intelligence agent to safely reveal his information without dying, but I'm going to keep it to myself for the moment since it's not wholly fleshed out.

Saying that is a pretty dangerous thing to do, Mackilroy. Since you can't talk when you're dead you might get killed to keep your information out of the game.

Much as I hate SIB's random voting, I don't really think it's that dangerous. I do think

Spoiler

xander

is being extremely aggressive though, and aggressive to a tie vote. While lynching a random innocent is of course a bad thing, if we don't vote for anyone we don't even have the chance of lynching a terrorist. The first round is always sketchy because there's so little information, but if we don't shoot in the dark we have a 0% chance of hitting the target at all. And honestly our chances are even better in this game considering that there are four terrorists (and if the mayhem guy is also a killer, five killers).

This post has been edited by Rickton : 17 May 2008 - 09:54 PM

@jrsh92, on May 17 2008, 03:50 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

I have expressed no plan to do so unless a person presents themselves as a better option!

Yes, you have, in this post:

jrsh92 said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

I plan on moving one of my votes to break the tie, though I have yet to decide who to kill. I don't want to give the terrorists a free kill on one hand, but on the other hand a random innocent is likely exactly who the terrorists would choose to kill anyway.

In it, you explicitly state that your plan is to break a tie, and ensure that we kill someone.

@jrsh92, on May 17 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

off, dude.

Struck a nerve, have I? And you are taking a game way too seriously. My comments have nothing to do with you personally, and happen to be how I play the game. If it is so important to you, and makes you so angry that you have to resort to (censored) cursing, then I don't really want to play with you. If you can't enjoy the game, then I think that you should be voted off (or simply resign).

Rather than cursing at me, why don't you give me a better target? Right now, you have made more of a target of yourself (to my mind) than anyone else. I would be happy to vote for someone else (though I am sure that if I changed my vote, I would be accused of some terrorist like activity or another).

JacaByte said:

Hmm, I don't like the way that darwinian is laying on the heat on jrsh92. It sounds to me that, according to xander's logic, jrsh92 is damned if he does vote and damned if he doesn't. That logic can be applied to everybody in this council room, if you ask me. It's the same logic that xander used in game 22 when he was a terrorist, down almost to the very word. With that in mind, I'm changing my vote to darwinian.

Funny, that -- I play the game exactly the same when I am a terrorist as when I am an innocent. The fact that I am innocent will come to light when you all lynch me.

I would also point out that I haven't been laying that much heat on jrsh92 -- I made one post accusing him, one post responding to Templar98921, and this post. I have tried to justify the position that I am presenting, which is more than anyone else seems to be doing. If you think I am a traitor, vote me out. However, doing so will simply waste a round, and give the terrorists another chance to kill.

xander

@rickton, on May 17 2008, 07:18 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Saying that is a pretty dangerous thing to do, Mackilroy. Since you can't talk when you're dead you might get killed to keep your information out of the game.

Much as I hate SIB's random voting, I don't really think it's that dangerous. I do think xander is being extremely aggressive though, and aggressive to a tie vote. While lynching a random innocent is of course a bad thing, if we don't vote for anyone we don't even have the chance of lynching a terrorist. The first round is always sketchy because there's so little information, but if we don't shoot in the dark we have a 0% chance of hitting the target at all. And honestly our chances are even better in this game considering that there are four terrorists (and if the mayhem guy is also a killer, five killers).

sigh I have not been arguing that we force a tie. I have been arguing against the idea that we kill someone at random just for the sake of killing someone at random. When jrsh92 first posted that he would be willing to break the tie, the two or three people in the lead had been voted for at random, with no justification given. Thus, by breaking the tie, he would have been voting to kill someone at random. I don't believe that we should be killing people at random, but should rather attempt to divine their intentions from their posting.

Clearly, I have become a magnet for voting. So, all of you vote for me, get me dead, then you can start trying to figure out who the terrorists are. It is clear that if I survive this round, you are all going to come after me again, which will waste yet another round. So, kill me now, then have a serious look at LNSU, Templar98921, and jrsh92. It may be that none of them are terrorists, but they are the ones that have struck me most in the first round of voting. Mispeled also comes onto my radar for his singleton vote against nfreader (the same logic I am applying to jrsh92), so he might be one to look out for, as well.

xander

@rickton, on May 17 2008, 02:18 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Saying that is a pretty dangerous thing to do, Mackilroy. Since you can't talk when you're dead you might get killed to keep your information out of the game.

If I were a typical paranoid IA I'd worry about that, but a. I'm not, and b. we wouldn't be able to implement this until Game 25, anyhow.

Whats the vote tally looking like?

@hypochondriac, on May 17 2008, 07:52 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Whats the vote tally looking like?

My tally looks like this:

Manta - Hypochondriac
xander - jrsh92
egroeg - kickme
Eugene Chin - LNSU
EKHawkman - LNSU
Templar98921 - LNSU
Hypochondriac - Manta
Mispeled - nfreader
SoItBegins - prophile
kickme - prophile
prophile - SoItBegins
LNSU - SoItBegins
darth_vader - SoItBegins
Mackilroy - SoItBegins
jrsh92 - xander
JacaByte - xander
Rickton - xander
RJC Ultra - xander
lemonyscapegoat -
nfreader -

So, it looks bad for me and SIB (I am innocent, and I suspect that SIB is, as well), and it isn't looking great for LNSU, either. I would point out, to all of you who are berating me for voting for jrsh92, that he only has one vote (mine). I don't know what he is so worried about... I would also point out that I could break the tie between myself and SIB at this time by voting for SIB, but I am not going to do that, as I don't think that SIB is a terrorist, and I would be exchanging my own life for his (and I am not likely to survive the next round, anyway).

xander

@darwinian, on May 17 2008, 01:18 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Funny, that -- I play the game exactly the same when I am a terrorist as when I am a traitor. The fact that I am innocent will come to light when you all lynch me.

Your point? traitor = terrorist. That doesn't prove much.

@darwinian, on May 17 2008, 01:18 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

I would also point out that I haven't been laying that much heat on jrsh92 -- I made one post accusing him, one post responding to Templar98921, and this post.

One post by itself can change the course of the game. Again, this doesn't prove much.

@darwinian, on May 17 2008, 01:18 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

I have tried to justify the position that I am presenting, which is more than anyone else seems to be doing. If you think I am a traitor, vote me out. However, doing so will simply waste a round, and give the terrorists another chance to kill.

The round won't be wasted; we'll be down two people, and the chances of killing another terrorist will increase as more people are eliminated and as the IA makes more investigations. 'tis a sad fact, but I'm afraid it's true.

Round One Votes:
darth_vader - SoItBegins
darwinian - jrsh92
egroeg - kickme
EKHawkman - LNSU
Eugene Chin - LNSU
Hypochondriac - Manta
JacaByte - darwinian
jrsh92 - darwinian
kickme - prophile
lemonyscapegoat -
LNSU - SoItBegins
Mackilroy - SoItBegins
Manta - Hypochondriac
Mispeled -
nfreader -
prophile - SoItBegins
Rickton - darwinian
RJC Ultra - darwinian
SoItBegins - prophile
Templar98921 - LNSU

As there's only 3 people who haven't voted yet, I will start the countdown. Midnight tonight, EST (approximately 8 hours from now), the active phase will end. Current vote tallies:

SoItBegins - 4
jrsh92 - 1
kickme - 1
LNSU - 3
Manta - 1
darwinian - 4
prophile - 2
Hypochondriac - 1

Again, I wish to express my reasons for why ties are bad. You all came up with some fancy percentages, and they made some inaccurate assumptions in some cases, but the general idea is there. Here are my percentages:

Chance of voting off a terrorist if there is a tie: 0%
Chance of voting off a terrorist if there is not a tie: 20%
Chance of narrowing the field, making it easier to observe everyone's behavior, every time somebody dies, for any reason: 100%

There are 20 of you playing, and 4-5 bad guys. Doing nothing while they kill you off one-by-one is just handing them the game. Yes, killing innocents shifts the balance of power in their favor. However, it also makes it harder for them to hide, and every death makes picking randomly to find a terrorist easier as well.

Of course, just because this is my logical conclusion, doesn't mean that's what everyone else believes, regardless of their role.

@jacabyte, on May 17 2008, 08:03 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Your point? traitor = terrorist. That doesn't prove much.

Ah. Now you are harping on typos that were corrected 30 seconds after I posted. Spurious logic.

@jacabyte, on May 17 2008, 08:03 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

One post by itself can change the course of the game. Again, this doesn't prove much.

The claim is that I have some kind of vendetta against jrsh92, which I do not. People are questioning my single vote for him, and I am attempting to explain it.

@jacabyte, on May 17 2008, 08:03 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

The round won't be wasted; we'll be down two people, and the chances of killing another terrorist will increase as more people are eliminated and as the IA makes more investigations. 'tis a sad fact, but I'm afraid it's true.

Randomly killing people off does not help. If we are assuming that everything is done by random, then the terrorists win most of the time (random votes during the day + calculated votes at night = terrorists win). Statistically speaking, it is never a good thing to kill an innocent. The point that I am making is that we should not be voting someone off simply for the sake of voting someone off. We should be voting for people that are likely to be terrorists. Voting at random gives victory to the terrorists. Voting with some thought gives us a chance.

xander

mrxak is missing my vote:

@mispeled, on May 16 2008, 11:32 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

After just a few hours of the game, I'd be more concerned about people that I've seen reading the thread but not posting. nfreader is the only person I've seen so far doing that, as I mentioned earlier, so I'll go ahead and vote for him.

unless I missed it, nfreader has yet to post.

@darwinian, on May 17 2008, 04:34 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

Randomly killing people off does not help. If we are assuming that everything is done by random, then the terrorists win most of the time (random votes during the day + calculated votes at night = terrorists win). Statistically speaking, it is never a good thing to kill an innocent. The point that I am making is that we should not be voting someone off simply for the sake of voting someone off. We should be voting for people that are likely to be terrorists. Voting at random gives victory to the terrorists. Voting with some thought gives us a chance.

This is correct. I would say that random voting to get things started is ok, if you're planning to change the vote later.

@rjc-ultra, on May 17 2008, 03:00 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:

I don't think this one is correct...

Yeah, I thought about it more and I guess I oversimplified it, but I think it's still pretty close. Here's what it should be:

3. probability of mafia and serial killer picking the same person, so only one person dies
Let's number the possible people that the mafia can target as 1-16.

The probability of the mafia targeting person 1 is 1/16. The probability of the serial killer targeting that person is 1/19. The probability of BOTH happening is 1/304. Since there's 16 possible targets for the mafia, the equation becomes:

(1/16 * 1/19) * 16

But you have to subtract the probability of the mafia targeting the serial killer, so there's really only 15 possible ways they could target the same person.

(1/16 * 1/19) * 15
= 4.9%

I would hasten to add that the probabilities are pretty useless, as I don't think that anyone acting at night is going to be acting randomly. It is quite possible that the serial killer and the terrorists will apply the same logic, and attempt to kill the same person (or that the same general group of people will be targeted). This is basically the same point I was making above. The traitors are not going to act at random, and it is pretty stupid of us to do so. Killing a person at random is worse than killing no one. The best possibility is to kill someone that looks suspicious.

xander

Still having some flashbacks to Game 24, xander? We're not the traitors.