@ekhawkman, on May 20 2008, 10:04 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.
You're not fooling anyone, mate.
EKHawkman
Heh, they're not using you as a shield after that comment, EKHawkman. But I have a different set of reasons behind my vote.
The reason I started the Darwinian bandwagon (or at least shoved it through) was so that I could observe the people who followed me onto that bandwagon with so much as a grunt. It's what mrxak did last game to snare me and my fellow terrorists, I believe; he gave us an easy target without so much as any other reason to vote for him except that mrxak had done the same. There were six people who were on the Darwinian bandwagon at one point or another; myself, jrsh92, RJC Ultra, Rickton, Lemonyscapegoat, and LNSU. jrsh92 was the first one to vote for Darwinian, but only in self defense, so I think it's safe to exclude him as an innocent. For the moment.
I am innocent, of course. In fact, I feel safe in revealing my role because, in effect, I have no role. I'm just an ordinary delegate. I'm just as dedicated to find the terrorists as the rest of you are, but I have to use what I have available to find them. Bear with me.
RJC Ultra fits the bill the best when it comes down to my strategy for finding the terrorists. His vote consisted of little more than two sentences. So did LNSU's. Under my logic, both are terrorists for certain, but there's still two more people to go over...
lemonyscapegoat's post is the most unique of the four. He did explain his vote in more than 2 or 3 sentences, but in the end, he was practically agreeing with what me and jrsh92 had already said. However, there is a chance that I'm going to call somebody who's innocent a terrorist. I wouldn't rule out lemony to be a terrorist yet, though.
Rickton's voting habits are the most suspicious. He voted for Darwinian and then, at the last second, changed his vote to nfreader. nfreader looked like a terrorist at the time, but it was proven that he was innocent after his lynching. Could it be that he saw danger in remaining on the Darwinian bandwagon and wanted to latch onto easier prey? I think so.
hmm . . . I'm rather confuzzled at this point. I'm not too suspicious of anyone at this point, but well EKHawkman is being silly and unhelpful, so until something else happens he gets to die.
Lemonyscapegoat for jumping on bandwagons, and because he's suspicious by Jacabyte's criteria which seem quite reasonable.
Edit: forgot to bold
This post has been edited by darth_vader : 22 May 2008 - 06:03 PM
Jacabyte, if RJC Ultra and LNSU are terrorists for sure then why aren't you voting for them?
And also, I already explained why I switched the vote. At the time, the votes were in a tie, and I agree with mrxak's philosophy that ties are bad. I switched from darwinian in order to break the tie (though it ended up being more trouble than it's worth since others came in after me to break the tie).
JacaByte's analysis is pretty good. The only point I find in fault is that he's assuming the best way to go is to assume that someone on that wagon was a terrorist. There's other people that are remaining under the radar: like what the hell has egroeg been doing all this time?
But to pick one person, I'm not liking Lemonyscapegoat... voting for EVHawkman with this attitude - "so until something else happens he gets to die" - is really quite lazy and noncommittal.
This post has been edited by Mispeled : 21 May 2008 - 09:29 PM
I still suspect EKHawkman. Also, if I am right, yesterday's vote against nfreader was used to save EKHawkman. So, if we kill EKHawkman, and it turns out that he is a traitor, my next suspects would be Eugene Chin, Mispeled, jrsh92, and RJC Ultra. I find it interesting that Eugene Chin overlaps my suspicions from the first day, so if EKHawkman is a terrorist, then I think he should be next on the block. I would also point out that Mispeled voted nfreader on the first day, and joined the bandwagon on the second day. If EKHawkman turns out to be a terrorist, and then we take out Eugene Chin, I think the third person on the block should be Mispeled.
xander
@lnsu, on May 21 2008, 08:19 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
Can I resign from this game? I have other things I need to do and I don't have time to contemplate everything necessary to vote properly.
If you want, you can quit, and I'll remove you from the game. Or, if you think maybe in a few days you'll be back again, you can just stay in the game, and you'll only be kicked out after voting for yourself twice.
Round Three Votes:
darth_vader -
darwinian - EKHawkman
egroeg -
EKHawkman - prophile
Eugene Chin -
JacaByte - Rickton
jrsh92 -
lemonyscapegoat - EKHawkman
LNSU -
Manta -
Mispeled - lemonyscapegoat
prophile - EKHawkman
Rickton -
RJC Ultra -
Templar98921 -
Mispleled's behavior is reasonable. If he voted nfreader on the first day, and his suspicions were not dispelled, something that nfreader himself did nothing for, then his behavior is perfectly acceptable, following his first round nfreader-is-lurking logic.
Eugene Chin, on the other hand, seems more dangerous. His reasons for voting LNSU in round one were of the blink-and-you'll-miss-it kind. Manta also deserves scrutiny, as he seems to jump on people for flimsy reasons. This may just be his behavior however.
The bandwagon against EKHawkman seems to have no evidence except his strange, over-excited behavior. I don't agree that is evidence.
I'm holding my vote until more evidence has come to light.
I have very little to go on right now. EKHawkman does look suspicious-- or at the very least annoying-- to me, but I know I can't vote for him just because what other people said makes sense to me, because I'll be accused of bandwagoning and lynched. At this point pretty much everyone is treading on thin ice. Attract the attention of the group and you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, bandwagoning gets you killed, being the first vote for someone CAN get you killed (though it's often justifiable), being the second vote for someone is just a clever tactic to make it look like you aren't bandwagoning, etc... again, I'd like to vote for EKHawkman but to be honest I don't have any reason to go after him except for what people have already said-- not because I have no reasons, the guy's acting like a maniac-- but because it's all been said.
Because I managed to attract attention earlier in the game and had to deal with this kind of extreme paranoia being directed at me, but egroeg (retracted) has not had attention drawn to him, I'm a bit bitter. Have fun watching people read "terrorist" into everything you do, buddy! It's your turn now.
To be honest I don't think my vote makes much of a difference now. EKHawkman seems to be in big trouble. I'd just like something to do that won't get me accused of bandwagoning, whether the "bandwagoning" would have been semi-justified or not.
This post has been edited by jrsh92 : 22 May 2008 - 05:45 AM
@rickton, on May 21 2008, 08:01 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
Jacabyte, if RJC Ultra and LNSU are terrorists for sure then why aren't you voting for them?
Because you've garnered the most suspicion of the four. (Well, six.) I can see an innocent using a brief post to make a vote like they did. In fact, I myself did so last round.
I am aware that there were other bandwagons and a terrorist could have easily slipped by on one of them, but the Darwinian bandwagon was the one that had least stuffing behind it, in my opinion, yet was the most believable. That's something every terrorist loves; an argument that provides a thick enough cloak for one of them to hide behind. Darwinian himself said that he behaves the same way when he's innocent as when he's a traitor.
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.
Edit: P.S.
@rickton, on May 21 2008, 08:01 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 24:
And also, I already explained why I switched the vote. At the time, the votes were in a tie, and I agree with mrxak's philosophy that ties are bad. I switched from darwinian in order to break the tie (though it ended up being more trouble than it's worth since others came in after me to break the tie).
Actually, if you read the events proceeding your vote change, you'll find that only LNSU came in after you posted, and his vote broke a tie between SIB and Darwinian that you caused.
Before you changed your vote to nfreader, there were 4 votes for SIB and 5 for Darwinian. One of those votes for Darwinian was yours. You changed your vote to nfreader, giving SIB 4 and Xander 4. LNSU changed his vote from SIB to Darwinian, giving 3 votes to SIB and 5 to Darwinian.
There is now no doubt in my mind that you are a terrorist.
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 21 May 2008 - 10:46 PM
Reason for edit: Making that word underlined instead of bold, so that I don't miscount it as a vote, and an invalid one at that...
That is very interesting.
Actually, think about it. Darwinian could have been lying about the 'i will die in a few rounds' thing. That leaves a gaping Darwinian-shaped hole in our theories.
Remember, if you bold words for emphasis, that might be mistakenly counted as your vote ;).
Round Three Votes:
darth_vader -
darwinian - EKHawkman
egroeg -
EKHawkman - prophile
Eugene Chin -
JacaByte - Rickton
jrsh92 - egroeg
lemonyscapegoat - EKHawkman
LNSU -
Manta -
Mispeled - lemonyscapegoat
prophile - EKHawkman
Rickton -
RJC Ultra -
Templar98921 -
Now the bold is back.