@mackilroy, on 19 July 2012 - 09:19 PM, said in GTW 39:
And you were the one who voted fail on the second mission. I'm not to blame for your voting.
It's your word against mine when you start saying stuff like this.
EDIT: ITT, Mack uses mod ninja-edit to make it look like I'm not directly quoting him.
This post has been edited by adam_0 : 19 July 2012 - 09:26 PM
Well then. With the traitors having two rounds won and only one more to defeating us, it's time to look at... THE DATA.
Note: In all of this analysis, I am assuming that I am innocent. If you choose not to belief this, then you've lost the game, and aw s###, I just lost the game...
First let's look at simply the final proposals and their success rates.
Round 1:
JacaByte
retep998
Result: Success
This is completely useless info as it's still the first round because if JacaByte was a traitor, he could do this to gain a bit of trust.
Round 2:
adam_0
Mackilroy
retep998
Result: Failure
For sure, either adam_0 or Mackilroy is a traitor. This I know for a fact.
Round 3:
Crow T. Robot
JacaByte
Mackilroy
SoItBegins
Result: Failure
With no me in this group, we now have 4 candidates for traitor from this round.
Analysis: So basically, our choices of traitors brings us to either anyone with Mackilroy, or anyone with adam_0. Whether its Mack, or adam, or both, we don't know, and that other person is completely up in the air. Every single person has been on a failing proposal of some sort. Given that we have to win both of the next two rounds in order to defeat the traitors, this is clearly insufficient information.
So, on to the votes of approval/rejection...
Round 1, proposal 1 by JacaByte
JacaByte
retep998
Everyone approved the first successful round except Mackilroy and SoItBegins. This quickly puts suspicion on Mackilroy and SoItBegins, because a traitor would want to have a traitor in the first successful round, simply to keep the suspicion off them, or maybe they simply wanted more votes for more data?
Round 2, proposal 1 by Crow T. Robot
adam_0
Crow T. Robot
SoItBegins
Everyone rejected it except Crow T. Robot. Whether this means the proposal lacks any traitors, so even the traitors have to reject it, or the traitors are trying to appear innocent by voting against a proposal with traitors, we have no idea.
Round 2, proposal 2 by retep998
adam_0
Crow T. Robot
retep998
The only change was replacing SoItBegins with retep998, and changing retep998's vote to approve. Otherwise everyone is voting identically.
Round 2, proposal 3 by adam_0
adam_0
Mackilroy
retep998
Suddenly, getting rid of Crow T. Robot and adding Mackilroy made Mackilroy, and adam_0 a lot more approvative. Maybe they were trying to get both of them on the same proposal so that only one of them would be labelled as a traitor? Quite suspicious indeed. Especially since this proposal failed, we know that at least one of those two must be a traitor, so the possibility of them both is quite up there.
Round 3, proposal 1 by Mackilroy
Crow T. Robot
JacaByte
Mackilroy
SoItBegins
Crow T. Robot approves blindly as usual. But otherwise everyone else rejects it, EVEN Mackilroy, the guy who proposed this. Maybe he was trying to gather data, or maybe just trying to appear less suspicious? If his proposal passed right away, and then failed, eyes would quickly point to him.
Round 3, proposal 2 by SoItBegins
adam_0
JacaByte
Mackilroy
SoItBegins
Swapping out Crow T. Robot with adam_0 quickly induces the approval of Mackilroy, and also SoItBegins. However, adam_0 remains firm, and Crow T. Robot blindly votes approve as usual.
Round 3, proposal 3 by JacaByte
adam_0
JacaByte
retep998
SoItBegins
FINALLY, a proposal with me in it, taking the place of Mackilroy. I am quick to accept because I doubt I'll have another chance at being in this round. Notice how adam_0 accepts this round, but not the previous with Mackilroy. All three of us were in the previous failure round, so he should be equally suspicious of us, but no, he is specifically fine with me, but not fine with being with Mackilroy a second time? Clearly quite suspicious. Mackilroy as well, turns from approve to reject, simply because he was replaced with me, and that's how he should vote pretending to be innocent.
Round 3, proposal 4 by Crow T. Robot
Crow T. Robot
JacaByte
Mackilroy
SoItBegins
And, I'm out again. This time we have a major shuffle, all previous proposal changes were only a single person being swapped. Everyone on the proposal accepts, and everyone not on the proposal rejects. A plain and simple vote, which leads to failure.
So, after looking carefully through all the data, here is my ideas:
Mackilroy, most definitely a traitor.
adam_0, high chance of being a traitor.
Crow. T. Robot, such terrible voting, also a high chance of being a traitor.
SoItBegins, sorta suspicious, but not as much.
JacaByte, only other person who's been on a successful round
retep998, obviously innocent.
Determing who are the traitors out of these 6 people is difficult indeed.
As such, I do hereby propose the following proposal:
retep998 - Because innocent always
JacaByte - Because he's really the best I can hope for
SoItBegins - Because there's no good hard data against him
Comments? Opinions? Further analysis? Questions? Insults? Compliments? Obscene gestures? Just ask.
This post has been edited by retep998 : 19 July 2012 - 09:30 PM
I am completely innocent. adam_0 is trying hard to deflect attention to me so his choices go unnoticed. You've been suspicious to me too, retep -- especially now that you're backing Adam up (possibly one terrorist helping the other deflect blame?) but your voting pattern is a bit mixed, so… the only one I'm sure of is Adam.
EDIT: assuming you are innocent, retep, I will support your proposal. If you're not… well, I tried.
In case anyone is wondering, I am working off my compilation of all voting data.
https://docs.google....tne2cLpPzQ/edit
Since IM conversations between members are now fair game here's the most juicy bits from my conversations with Mack with emphasis drawn to some important parts;
Quote
Mackilroy: hello JB
thanks for posting that
it reminded me what I was going to tell you
JacaByte: Yah?
Right now I think mrxak is playing a trick on us and there's really 4 traitors
And retep and myself are the only innocents
Mack: I voted 'yes' when adam was there because there was a possibility he was the only traitor in that round, and if he voted no we would catch him
JB: Ok, that sounds like a good compromise
But I still think Crow is a traitor
Mack: I dunno, Adam's the only one I'm sure of
JB: Wasn't it convenient how he (Crow) rejected my proposal after I called him out for accepting every proposal given thus far?
Mack: it was
JB: But what I can't figure out is why SIB rejected my proposal
I don't know what his motivation is
Mack: because his computer is on the fritz, so he auto-votes without actually reading
that's my guess
JB: That doesn't help us, and doesn't help him either
He could always wait for his computer to be non-fritzy, read up and vote then
Mack: true, but he probably doesn't have a clue how long it would be out
JB: There are no time constraints in this game
Mack: indeed
Quote
JacaByte: Maybe we can pin adam_0 for the next detail, with 3 people on it?
How about we try pushing for a detail with me, retep and adam_0 on it?
Mackilroy: maybe, who picks the next detail?
okay
assuming retep isn't evil
JB: Right
that's an issue
Mack: I mean, I'm not evil so I'ld like to be on the detail, but meh
JB: So says you
Mack: quite
you'll have to go with your gut
JB: I'm only sure of my innocence, but then again everybody is
So Mackilroy has been manipulating people outside of this thread in order to place himself on details. Suspicious, no? I think retep998 has made a good mission selection. We can afford to eliminate 2 or more members from the 2nd mission from the members of this mission. Deduction singles out Mackilroy for being on both details that have failed thus far, so keeping him off this (and future) details is a good bet. I will be approving this detail, since I do not suspect retep of treachery.
I do suspect adam_0 of treachery, as well as Crow and Mack. At this point I think the traitors for this game are either Mack and adam_0 or Mack and Crow. Therefore, I no longer want adam_0 on this detail like I said in the chatlog; having SIB makes much more sense in my mind.
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 19 July 2012 - 10:30 PM
I am starting to think that Mackilroy is dubious, given his patterns. However, retep998 AND JacaByte? The chance of getting a traitor is pretty high
But.
It'll be a test. A sort of... test of fire. I know I'm innocent :ninja: so this'll solve things once and for all.
Approve... tentatively.
EDIT: Oh, and my computer is now in 100% working order again.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 19 July 2012 - 10:44 PM
Operation 4 Name Proposal 1
JacaByte
retep998
SoItBegins
Crow T. Robot - Reject 10:36 PM
Mackilroy - Approve 10:47 PM
adam_0 - Approve 10:52 PM
retep998 - Approve 11:16 PM
JacaByte - Approve 11:31 PM
SoItBegins - Approve 11:31 PM
Operation #4 is approved.
JacaByte, retep998, and SoItBegins should inform me via PM as soon as possible whether they wish the mission the SUCCEED or FAIL.
SUCCEED, naturally.
By the way: the reason I rejected JB's proposal was that it had retep in it.
This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 19 July 2012 - 10:56 PM
I'm for it, though I'll hold off on voting for a few hours. By now, I'm SURE Mack is evil, so I'm not going to trust anything he says— does anyone else who was on the last op team have any ideas?
Approving this mission is in the best interests of the innocents it would seem.
The first detail to not have Mack on it succeeded.
Crow has been on a detail that failed, but so has adam_0.
Assuming Mack and adam_0 are traitors would mean that mission 2 had two traitors on it.
Assuming Mack and Crow are traitors would mean that mission 3 had two traitors on it.
Edit: There is no question about the innocence of myself, retep998 and SoItBegins at this point, since if one of us was a traitor the traitor would have made the mission fail to win the game immediately instead of trying to hide until the last round, which could give us enough time to wisen up.
If asked who I would want to place on a detail "anybody but Mack" would be a good response. Unfortunately, he and only he knows who the second traitor is. His repeated attempts to scapegoat adam_0, both in this thread and outside of it, would suggest that either he's trying to draw attention away from Crow or he's being duplicitous by baiting us with adam_0, in the hopes that we put him on a detail.
The shear amount of energy he's poured into scapegoating adam_0 would lead me to believe that adam_0 is really innocent. Coupled with Crow's questionable voting hobbits habits and I can think of no better detail than one including myself, retep, SIB and adam_0. But I think I'll wait until the morning to send in my PM of approval, there's no need to rush in this game.
Edit2: Well, he's said it. When I read his post it said this;
@mackilroy, on 19 July 2012 - 10:50 PM, said in GTW 39:
I reject this motion, adam is on it.
But now it says this;
@mackilroy, on 19 July 2012 - 10:50 PM, said in GTW 39:
I reject this motion, adam is on it. Given what's going on, I now suspect he and Crow are the terrorists.
It doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? However, I feel it's more incriminating for Crow than for adam_0. adam_0 has been nothing but consistently logical throughout the entire game, but Crow assumed a pattern of approving every motion he came across until I called him out for it. adam_0 has also been an active target for Mack, Crow hasn't been until now.
On the other hand, what if Mack is telling the truth about being innocent? If Mack and Crow are the traitors OR Mack and adam_0 are the traitors operation 2 and 3 should have ended with 2 FAIL votes, not just 1. What if the FAIL votes that both operations received were not because one traitor was on both of them, but because both traitors were on both operations independently? That's an extremely interesting possibility, no? I hadn't considered it until just now.
This post has been edited by JacaByte : 19 July 2012 - 11:17 PM
