@jacabyte, on 20 July 2012 - 09:36 AM, said in GTW 39:

assuming the traitors are not communicating with each other directly via PM

You missed an important point in all of this (including your faulty assumption, but I think it stands for itself). Even if there was no communication via PM, it still could have gone down like this:

It was game 3 when the two traitors, Mack and Crow, were on the same team. Mack had just struck last round, so he was a pretty hot target. The terrorists had the game tied at 1-1, which puts the terrorists at a huge advantage. There was no need to push this though, so one of them let the operation succeed. Probably Mack. Crow, not knowing who is cohort was and being a little distracted, does the natural thing and fails the mission.

This makes the situation better than Mack would have expected! Not only does it fail a mission, putting the terrorists on the up-and-up, but they only suspect one terrorist from among the group.

This is just as plausible as your theory. You are overthinking it.

Mack and Crow have probably been in communication, thus mrxak's big "I am looking into this" post. Honestly, I don't blame them for using communication; if I were a terrorist, I would want a leg up on an op containing both terrorists.

All of this to say, this vote needs to pass or else Mackilroy (the next proposer) will substitute my name for his; the motion will probably pass, and it'll be failure for the innocents.

EDIT: Forget about it, I'm not going to sway JB, and Crow and Mack are going to (as they should) vote failure, so let's just cast our votes and get this over with.

This post has been edited by adam_0 : 20 July 2012 - 12:18 PM

@jacabyte, on 20 July 2012 - 09:36 AM, said in GTW 39:

Edit: Hush up about RealLife Crow, everybody agrees that you're a traitor.

I was just being honest. Take it easy, okay.

Sorry Crow, that bit about RL was uncalled for and I'll devowelize myself for it. Regardless, everybody agrees that you're a traitor, even adam_0.

@adam_0, on 20 July 2012 - 12:06 PM, said in GTW 39:

It was game 3 when the two traitors, Mack and Crow, were on the same team. Mack had just struck last round, so he was a pretty hot target. The terrorists had the game tied at 1-1, which puts the terrorists at a huge advantage. There was no need to push this though, so one of them let the operation succeed. Probably Mack. Crow, not knowing who is cohort was and being a little distracted, does the natural thing and fails the mission.

That's an illogical thing for Mack to do, assuming he's a traitor. If you want the mission to fail, voting FAIL is the only way to ensure that the mission does, indeed, fail, even if your cohort is on the same mission as you. Why? Because if you don't vote FAIL there's a possibility your cohort won't either, and that could potentially cost the traitors the game. Pretty sure that this is game theory we're using here; the only way to guarantee the success of the traitors is for the traitors to vote FAIL each time they're on an operation.

You also ignore the fact that, assuming Crow is a traitor, he had enough information by the end of round 2 to figure out if his cohort is Mackilroy or adam_0. I suggest re-reading retep's list of previous proposals.

Assuming Crow is a traitor and Mack is his cohort Crow would have been sent a PM by mrxak stating that his cohort was on round 2, proposal 3. Since he wasn't sent a PM for round 2, proposal 2 and the addition of Mackilroy was the only change between proposal 2 and 3, Crow would be able to deduce that Mack is his cohort.

Assuming Crow is a traitor and adam_0 is his cohort Crow would have been sent PMs for each of the three proposals given during round 2. Since adam_0 is the only name each of the three proposals has in common Crow would be able to deduce that adam_0 is his cohort.

@adam_0, on 20 July 2012 - 12:06 PM, said in GTW 39:

This is just as plausible as your theory. You are overthinking it.

Your theory is as plausible as a wet toilet paper airplane IMO.

@jacabyte, on 20 July 2012 - 12:49 PM, said in GTW 39:

Your theory is as plausible as a wet toilet paper airplane IMO.

Are you going to vote or just make noise? As far as I know, we're waiting on you.

I sent my vote in at 11:26 PM MST, about 12 hours ago.

Edit: Assuming both traitors were on one of the failed operations random chance is the only operator deciding that exactly 1 of the traitors voted FAIL. Otherwise we must assume the traitors are communicating. Since Mackilroy has shown himself to be very talkative I wouldn't put this past him, and my gut says that Mack and Crow are traitors. Therefore I've approved this proposal, so you can put your shirt back on.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 20 July 2012 - 01:17 PM

Sorry to be so pushy, I'm just frustrated at how much noise this proposal has generated (especially the meta business).

Operation 4 gave us 3 people we're 100% sure are innocent, selecting 1 innocent out of a pool containing 2 traitors and 1 innocent is pretty hard.

Operation 5 Name Proposal 1
adam_0
retep998
JacaByte
SoItBegins

Mackilroy - Reject 11:51 PM
adam_0 - Approve 11:51 PM
retep998 - Approve 11:59 PM
SoItBegins - Approve 3:48 AM
Crow T. Robot - Approve 7:38 AM
JacaByte - Approve 2:07 PM

Last vote I was waiting on was Crow T. Robot's, however JacaByte changed his vote this afternoon while I was still away from my computer. Doesn't make a difference, motion passes either way.

And the mission fails. I'm assuming adam_0 wanted to fail this mission so the terrorists would win.

Sleeper agents were adam_0 and Crow T. Robot.

Rocks fall, everybody dies.

Told you so.

FUNK!

Edit: At least Crow was evil.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 20 July 2012 - 02:09 PM

Problem is you told, without giving any real evidence. It really could have been either adam_0 or Mackilroy as the second bad guy. You two did have a different voting record. One of you should have busted it out to condemn the other guy. Instead, you two had a hissy fit (which certainly helped adam_0).

I did show retep and JacaByte my spreadsheet, but I stopped caring yesterday once it looked as though everyone was going to turn against me no matter what I said. shrug

That spreadsheet didn't confirm anything in my mind.

Now, even if I hadn't changed my vote from reject to approve we still would have lost. We would have needed to convince somebody else to change their vote to reject as well; the fact that Crow voted "approve" would have sealed his and adam's role in my mind. We needed another proposal.

Otherwise, what mrxak said. The fact that you had a hissy fit did not help prove your innocence at all.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 20 July 2012 - 02:20 PM

Defending myself against adam is not having a hissy fit.

So, if I have one big criticism, it's that dudes are proposing names without any discussion beforehand. At the start of a new player selection process, there really ought to be some debate over who the names should be, so that when the proposer proposes, there's already some consensus, or at the very least, people have talked about who they trust and don't trust. The only time you guys actually got a group together everyone pretty much agreed on, and it was successful, was when retep998 outlined very clearly why he was picking the people he picked. He could have discussed it more before posting his names, I think, but it worked out well.

At that point, I think it should have been pretty clear that Crow T. Robot was the bad guy (he wasn't really hiding it), so it came down to Mackilroy or adam_0. You guys chose to have your discussion after adam_0 immediately suggested names with himself on it. He spent no time justifying his choice on the most important proposal of the whole game. To me, that would be a big red flag. Of course, I'm sure Mackilroy or most anyone else would have done the same, but that's because you guys haven't learned to talk yet.

What happens in mafia-style GTW when somebody votes without explanation? We jump on him. You guys need to do the same with people proposing things without talking first. People really vote quickly, once a proposal is made, for whatever reason. Trying to discuss a proposal after it's proposed is not going to sway many, if any votes.

@mackilroy, on 20 July 2012 - 02:14 PM, said in GTW 39:

I did show retep and JacaByte my spreadsheet, but I stopped caring yesterday once it looked as though everyone was going to turn against me no matter what I said. shrug

I saw your spreadsheet. It didn't add any data people didn't already have. You needed to interpret that data, craft a narrative to explain it. I personally wouldn't have thought you were a bad guy, for the reasons JacaByte said earlier, about the unlikeness of Crow T. Robot and you being on the same team but only having one fail vote for the outcome. Plus, adam_0 seemed to be intimately familiar with the rules the sleeper agents were bound by.

Ultimately though, it was too little, too late. People need to be arguing their case before a proposal is made and three or four votes are already in.

@mrxak, on 20 July 2012 - 02:26 PM, said in GTW 39:

I saw your spreadsheet. It didn't add any data people didn't already have. You needed to interpret that data, craft a narrative to explain it.

@retep998, on 19 July 2012 - 11:06 PM, said in GTW 39:

Really, this all comes down to Mack vs adam_0, and I'm more trusting of adam_0 at this point. Crow T. Robot votes terribly, so he's most likely playing the idiot because he's the traitor.
Really, this could go either way. Statistically speaking, the odds are in the traitor's favor.

And that was the game plan. Once I figured out in Rd 2 with retep's proposal who my partner was, I decided that I would take the heat in order to cover the identity of adam_0 and throw blame on either retep or mackilroy and let you guys argue your way into defeat. It may not be a sound strategy, but it worked.

JacaByte: I discussed voting patterns with you several times. Maybe mrxak can say that, but you can't.

Secret communications outside the forum tend to make you look more suspicious, and if you have something important to say to sway people's minds, that would be something best said to a wider audience to sway the most minds.