@mrxak, on Jun 12 2008, 11:17 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War Game 25:
Bad guys routinely lurk, especially when the players are occupied with killing each other, too busy to notice who's not voting or who's not saying anything. If I was a rogue member, and I saw, as an example, darth_vader and Shlimazel making huge posts and arguing with one another, it would be mere child's play to simply vote at the very end of a round or not at all, and never attract any attention at all.
And yet you voted for me. So what is it? Am I a lurker who should be eliminated for the general good or an active player who is being thoughtful and rational in his votes? Just as you did with jrsh92 last round, you are too quick to abandon your supposedly rational and incorrigible principles of voting when you are threatened. No matter what you claim it's now quite clear that you aren't playing the game for the benefit of the innocents. You're being purely self serving. That is not in and of itself is not an indication of evil alignment, but the fact that you are dissembling about it is highly suspicious. At least LNSU is upfront about his anyone-but-me mentality. Furthermore, I know that when you are innocent you don't play in an anyone-but-me style. The fact that you are now and are trying to hide that fact, indicates that your actions are in service of another goal, namely the furthering of the terrorist cause.
Quote
Have we had bad luck finding the lurking rogue members? Certainly. Perhaps it would have been best to go after late-voters like 1Eevee1, Eugene Chin, or nfreader, instead of non-voters. A slight change in tactics, but the same strategy, might have been better. I can't go back in time and change things, but I can continue to use the strategy, because Scenario 2 is much better than Scenario 1.
Great, great, but as I pointed out above, you voted for me. You didn't vote for 1Eevee1, Eugene Chin, or nfreader. You voted for a player who by your own stated criteria is highly valuable. It's obvious that you are voting for me because I am a direct threat to you.
Quote
I might also point out, my strategy has been derailed on several occasions by the necessity of self-preservation, preemptive in some cases. lemonyscapegoat has been on my target list for some time, but I have been unable to get him out. Perhaps I am not "controlling the game" as well as you think I am. This round, I am voting for the person who continues to try to derail me. Perhaps, when darth_vader is gone, I can go back to killing off afkers and lurkers, who will doom us when the time comes. I am hoping darth_vader is a rogue member, and with his death we can easily determine who his allies were. This is the advantage of Scenario 2, once we actually do know something, people are active enough to act on it.
This attitude of preemptive self-preservation is not consistent with your other stated goal of helping the innocents. I can see that you anticipated the attacks I have used above and are attempting to negate them, but this doesn't cut it. You know how I play. You know that once I'm sure I won't give up. You know that I will be after you for the rest of the game unless there is extraordinary proof of your innocence. If you really had the interests of the innocents at heart, you would allow yourself to die, thereby "narrowing the field" or "thinning out the pool" as you yourself have so eloquently put it. By repeatedly attacking you I have made myself extremely conspicuous at great risk to my own life in the game. You have made no such move. I have pursued you to my own detriment, but all you have done is lash out at whatever the easiest target is. If there is anyone here with the best interests of the innocent team truly at heart, it's me. You are clearly putting your own survival first, and worst of all, disguising that fact.
Quote
I have been accused of voting out innocents. Well, this happens. I've been an innocent myself voted out early in a game by other innocent people. I remind the random-vote crowd of the first round that we don't know a whole lot in the first few rounds of the game. And if we didn't get rid of people, we never would. By eliminating people, as we must, we gain insight into how people are voting, we clear names or uncover bad guys, and most importantly we narrow the field. My philosophy is this: The field will be narrowed no matter what, so it is best to keep only the best, most helpful players. Consider it an evolution of sorts. Our votes are a selective force. We can use it randomly, as SoItBegins wanted to do, and therefore accomplish nothing. We can use it not at all, as our lurkers seem to be doing, and therefore accomplish nothing. We can use it get rid of poor strategies and unhelpful players, as I have been trying to do, and therefore end up at the end of the game with the people best equipped to solve the puzzle. I understand that this type of "game eugenics" may rub some people the wrong way, but I've seen it work to great effect in previous games, and I stand by it in this game now.
I know that I'm not advocating random voting or not voting. Once again, if your vote is a selective force, why is it being used against me? I am playing in a very similar way to you right now. Stop claiming that you're the only one who can play like this and that you're the only hope of winning. If you actually believed what you're saying here you would have given up already, in order to narrow the field, prevent terrorists from hiding among our long posts, and avoid the risk of losing the other aggressive player. I don't agree with your stated strategy, so in a way I can't fault you for playing in this manner since it's probably what I would do were I in your position. However, it's become clear that you don't agree with your stated strategy either. If you were innocent there would be no motive for creating this disconnect between words and actions.
Quote
I and others have stated in previous games, regardless of my role, what I say in these game topics is in the best interests of the innocents as I see it. If you don't think my strategy is in the best interests of the innocents, then argue with me, I enjoy a good debate, but if you disagree with my strategy, don't assume I'm a bad guy for advocating it.
And that is the crux of the issue. I don't think you're a bad guy for advocating your strategy. I think you're a bad guy for disingenuously advocating your strategy, using it to distract while you pursue a rather different course of action, one that is far more self-serving and that is far less in the interests of the innocents. Your actions under your true strategy for this game point to you being evil.
