So, is InfiniteCustomer now choosing or did we jump over to croc now?
-
Alright, here are some observations. Then I'm going to bed, and I'll get a proposal together for y'all tomorrow/later today
darth has voted for every proposal (except the one in which he abstained). Everyone else has voted down at least two. This makes darth an outlier, but I don't know if it makes him suspicious. Also, the only teams that were voted down by half of the team-members were the two teams with darth on them.
Since the first proposal, mrxak has voted no to every subsequent proposal. According to him, this is what the traitors would want to do, in order that they can discern who their teammates are. This isn't enough to condemn him, but it's worth pointing out
prop, croc, and Jaca always get/got their way when voting. Does this mean anything at all? Depending on the timing of the posts, it could suggest bandwagoning, but it's too late at night for me to go back and analyze that right now.
I guess I don't really have any good theories at this point. My inclination at the moment is just to stick myself in there with the group from the first team (i.e., mrxak, SIB, and retep), but I am wide open to suggestions, as well as game theoretical critique of the strategy of continuing to use the same people until you win or they start failing missions
I need to go back and analyze the conversation some more tomorrow. For now, good night
edit: removed half-formed thought
This post has been edited by Techerakh : 07 August 2012 - 12:59 AM
-
@techerakh, on 07 August 2012 - 12:58 AM, said in GTW 40:
darth has voted for every proposal (except the one in which he abstained).
That's not something I had picked up on. Good catch.
Quote
Also, the only teams that were voted down by half of the team-members were the two teams with darth on them.
People don't particularly trust him. That's why.
Quote
Since the first proposal, mrxak has voted no to every subsequent proposal. According to him, this is what the traitors would want to do, in order that they can discern who their teammates are. This isn't enough to condemn him, but it's worth pointing out
That's a rather strange interpretation. When I said that, I was referring to the first round only, where the benefits of rejecting the first proposal are nonexistent, and the risk of giving the bad guys information about their cohorts outweighs those nonexistent benefits. After the first round, it is much harder to make that argument, and I have not done so. There are several scenarios in which the bad guys have already determined who their cohorts are as early as the second round (I outlined some earlier, and there are surely many more now). Where we are right now, rejecting proposals gives the good guys clear benefit and the bad guys have nonexistent benefits after already determining who their cohorts are.
If this does not satisfy you, allow me to reiterate my reasoning behind rejecting all the proposals after the first.
Round 2 Names 1 contained Crow T. Robot and prophile. I trusted neither of them, and still do not.
Round 2 Names 2 contained darth_vader. I did not trust him and still do not.
Round 2 Names 3 was explicitly stated to be a mrxak-trap, and I wanted nothing to do with it since at the time I believed JacaByte was setting me up. Interestingly enough, the mission succeeded (of course now JacaByte claims that only mrxak could be so devious to allow the second mission to succeed, so apparently he's still trying to set me up after the fact).
Round 3 Names 1 contained darth_vader and prophile. I trusted neither of them, and still do not.I am perfectly happy to approve of a mission that does not contain Crow T. Robot, darth_vader, or prophile. Seeing as how Techerakh has replaced prophile, his role transferred, I don't trust Techerakh either.
Quote
prop, croc, and Jaca always get/got their way when voting. Does this mean anything at all? Depending on the timing of the posts, it could suggest bandwagoning, but it's too late at night for me to go back and analyze that right now.
Also an interesting observation. Not sure what it really means, though, if anything.
Quote
I guess I don't really have any good theories at this point. My inclination at the moment is just to stick myself in there with the group from the first team (i.e., mrxak, SIB, and retep), but I am wide open to suggestions, as well as game theoretical critique of the strategy of continuing to use the same people until you win or they start failing missions
I need to go back and analyze the conversation some more tomorrow. For now, good night
It has become commonplace for proposers to put themselves on the team, something I've advocated from the beginning. However, there are situations in which doing so is a bad idea. I believe this is just such a case. We do not need perfection on this mission, with all five good guys on a team. It's a four man team. If you are in fact innocent, it would be best if you put the four people you think are most innocent on the team, excluding yourself. We don't know you, we don't trust you, and you are replacing somebody who has never been trusted to be on a team before. The likelihood of any proposal you make being accepted, containing your own name, is rather low.
On the other hand, of the four members of the dream team, you suggest replacing the least trustworthy, JacaByte. For that, you have my grudging respect. Also, kudos for not actually making your proposal without further discussion.
As I've said before, I would not be opposed to this round going all the way to the fifth proposal. But even if it doesn't get all the way to me, I'd feel better about croc selecting the team this round.
-
@mrxak, on 07 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said in GTW 40:
That's a rather strange interpretation. When I said that, I was referring to the first round only, where the benefits of rejecting the first proposal are nonexistent, and the risk of giving the bad guys information about their cohorts outweighs those nonexistent benefits. After the first round, it is much harder to make that argument, and I have not done so. There are several scenarios in which the bad guys have already determined who their cohorts are as early as the second round (I outlined some earlier, and there are surely many more now). Where we are right now, rejecting proposals gives the good guys clear benefit and the bad guys have nonexistent benefits after already determining who their cohorts are.
That's a reasonable response, but I will point out that after the first round, the only way the Mafia/traitors/werewolves would have known everything was if all three members of the team were traitors, which I think we all agree is pretty unlikely. Thus your rejections in the second round almost certainly helped out the traitors, even as they also helped out the civs.
@mrxak, on 07 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said in GTW 40:
Also an interesting observation. Not sure what it really means, though, if anything.
I don't think it means anything. I went back and looked at the voting times, and neither croc nor Jaca seemed to be waiting around to put their votes in, something I would associate with bandwagoning. And Mack helpfully told me that prop was innocent, so I don't have to worry too much about analyzing his behavior.
@mrxak, on 07 August 2012 - 02:47 AM, said in GTW 40:
We don't know you, we don't trust you, and you are replacing somebody who has never been trusted to be on a team before. The likelihood of any proposal you make being accepted, containing your own name, is rather low.
This seems to me to be a fallacious argument. Also, your assertion that "we" don't know/trust me seems odd. I accept that you don't, because you suspected prop (for some reason). But I don't know that everyone suspected prop (and if you all do, you're barking up the wrong tree), and my newness (novelty?) doesn't really exist, as I am the same role as prop and thus not at all a complete unknown. As you have said many times, I am the only person that I know 100% to be innocent, and as we only need to win one more mission, I am not going to jeopardize that by selecting four, rather than merely three, unknowns.
mrxak may be wary of me because last week I read the beginnings of this game and then declared him guilty in IRC, with admittedly scanty evidence. I am not now (nor was then) convinced of his guilt (or innocence), however.
Also I am a bit unconvinced of the merits of this game variant you guys have introduced. Yes, the civs are helped insofar as the Mafia don't know who is who at the start, but at the same time, the confusion among the werewolves serves to undermine the utility of vote analysis. The mafia don't know who their teammates are, so their yes or no votes are not particularly meaningful.
Anyway here are two possible configurations. Thoughts and suggestions are most welcome.
Config 1: myself, mrxak, SIB, retep
Config 2: myself, SIB, Jaca, CTRThese are not set in stone, but in the absence of good feedback I'll probably pick one of them. Holler at me
-
I'd go for Config 2 since we still suspect mrxak and retep at this time in the game and keeps SIB and Jaca who we think are innocent along with me who is also innocent.
-
@techerakh, on 07 August 2012 - 07:19 AM, said in GTW 40:
That's a reasonable response, but I will point out that after the first round, the only way the Mafia/traitors/werewolves would have known everything was if all three members of the team were traitors, which I think we all agree is pretty unlikely. Thus your rejections in the second round almost certainly helped out the traitors, even as they also helped out the civs.
Or nobody on the first mission were bad guys, that would also narrow down the list quite a bit. Or as people were eliminated from subsequent name proposals during the the second round, various people were identified. The scenarios I referenced were specifically after at least a couple votes. I would be quite unsurprised if the sleeper agents had not already identified two of their number, if not all three. One would have to game out all possible scenarios to say for sure, but we're quite far into the game, now, and I imagine it would be quite unlikely for this not to be the case. As I said, the benefits to the bad guys at this point in rejecting lots of missions is virtually nonexistent. All they need is to get one of their number on a team this round. For good guys, getting more votes is all upside now.
But if you want to rehash old history, fine. Let's talk about how JacaByte suddenly started accusing me the instant I was eliminated from the first proposal in the second round, after agreeing and convincing others of my logic in the first round, and voting for my proposal. As I pointed out back then, JacaByte (and other sleeper agents) could have immediately been informed that the number of bad guys had increased by one upon SoItBegins' proposal, confirming my innocence. Suddenly I'm public enemy number one by a few outspoken people, after a successful and unanimously approved mission. Hmm.
My rejections don't help the bad guys after the first round, because it's not rejected votes that bad guys learn from, it's proposals that they learn from. The bad guys could have already learned quite a bit just from the first two proposals in the game. Yes, rejections lead to more proposals, but you should really be looking at who is making those proposals, and to what ends? My proposal was designed for easy approval, to deny the bad guys opportunities for intelligence. SoItBegins, by eliminating one and only one person from the line-up, provided the bad guys with a perfect opportunity for intelligence, learning about me, and 50% information on two new players. retep998's proposal then gave the bad guys perfect intelligence on darth_vader, by making a single addition to the first set of names. JacaByte's proposal gave perfect intelligence to himself, potentially, on croc and perhaps SoItBegins.
Did I help to get us rejections on those proposals, and thus get more proposals? Sure. But I made my rejection votes based on the available information, which I've outlined to you again in my last post. Are you going to give JacaByte, croc, and prophile the same scrutiny? They were right there with me on SoItBegins and retep998's proposals. Of all the things you outlined in your analysis post here, the thing I find most suspicious in the voting record post-first round, is darth_vader's apparent interest in approving everything. That's happened before, with Crow T. Robot. He was guilty, too. darth_vader is new, though, he hasn't figured out yet how bad an idea that strategy was in past games. By not taking a stand, you look at best unhelpful, and at worst nefarious in your attempts to not offend. I've never had any problem offending anyone, because I'm not trying to hide. If people choose bad teams, I'll reject them every time. I've been in the majority on all but one vote, so people seem to think my reasons are good ones.
Quote
This seems to me to be a fallacious argument. Also, your assertion that "we" don't know/trust me seems odd. I accept that you don't, because you suspected prop (for some reason). But I don't know that everyone suspected prop (and if you all do, you're barking up the wrong tree), and my newness (novelty?) doesn't really exist, as I am the same role as prop and thus not at all a complete unknown. As you have said many times, I am the only person that I know 100% to be innocent, and as we only need to win one more mission, I am not going to jeopardize that by selecting four, rather than merely three, unknowns.
Not so fallacious after all. prophile has had his name on two proposals so far, both were rejected. Maybe that's merely coincidence, maybe not. But my reason for rejecting those proposals has been in whole or part because of his name. The only people who have voted with approval for missions with his name have been people on the list with him, so their votes are hardly unbiased.
Your newness does exist, because you are in fact, quite new. Nobody knows how you're going to play your inherited role yet. You haven't had to argue your point of view in the previous rounds. We've had no time to observe change, as your knowledge of the situation has grown, you simply join us with 20-20 vision of the past, without having to take risks or offer strategy in that past. The best thing you probably could have done was stay the course of what we have already accomplished, reused the team from last round, and either the game would be won without your involvement, or you'd not be blamed for its failure. Instead you propose that you are on the list, a completely new and unknown element representing a previously suspected and mysterious player's role. I don't imagine many people supporting you.
Quote
mrxak may be wary of me because last week I read the beginnings of this game and then declared him guilty in IRC, with admittedly scanty evidence. I am not now (nor was then) convinced of his guilt (or innocence), however.
Ah, so what you bring to the game as a new player is unfounded bias. Excellent.
Quote
Also I am a bit unconvinced of the merits of this game variant you guys have introduced. Yes, the civs are helped insofar as the Mafia don't know who is who at the start, but at the same time, the confusion among the werewolves serves to undermine the utility of vote analysis. The mafia don't know who their teammates are, so their yes or no votes are not particularly meaningful.
Ah, so my rejection votes earlier, which help the bad guys gather info, actually sped up the arrival of the period of the game where the good guys can have clearer data on the bad guys. So my rejection votes were actually helping the good guys all along! Thank you for your endorsement.
Quote
Anyway here are two possible configurations. Thoughts and suggestions are most welcome.
Config 1: myself, mrxak, SIB, retep
Config 2: myself, SIB, Jaca, CTRThese are not set in stone, but in the absence of good feedback I'll probably pick one of them. Holler at me
I certainly won't be voting for the second configuration. I remain unconvinced that the first accomplishes anything but isolating you for the other bad guys to recognize your secret role.
@crow-t--robot, on 07 August 2012 - 07:55 AM, said in GTW 40:
I'd go for Config 2 since we still suspect mrxak and retep at this time in the game and keeps SIB and Jaca who we think are innocent along with me who is also innocent.
"We?"
Oh, I dearly hope Techerakh attacks you for that :p.
I cannot imagine why retep998 and I are suspects, while SoItBegins is not. I cannot imagine why JacaByte is less suspect than the other three of us who have been on two successful missions instead of a meager one.
If we're really going to talk about popular opinion, mission proposals with mrxak or retep998 on them, it's been 16 and 13 votes respectively. SoItBegins, I'll admit, is certainly quite popular at 19 votes for missions he's been named for. JacaByte only has 7 votes in his favor. Crow T. Robot, just 3. I think "we" suspect mrxak and retep998 a lot less than we suspect JacaByte and Crow T. Robot.
-
So your entire theory in which I'm a sleeper agent relies on the assumption that I identified my cohorts, put myself on a team that did not include any of them, then made sure the mission succeeded. Care to tell me what my devious plan is? Is it to frame you? Because I don't need to succeed a mission to do that.
Let's just bury the hatchet already, we both know that we could only be traitors in the most contrived of scenarios. That means we have a team of 4 players that we know is innocent.
-
@jacabyte, on 07 August 2012 - 09:51 AM, said in GTW 40:
So your entire theory in which I'm a sleeper agent relies on the assumption that I identified my cohorts, put myself on a team that did not include any of them, then made sure the mission succeeded. Care to tell me what my devious plan is? Is it to frame you? Because I don't need to succeed a mission to do that.
Let's just bury the hatchet already, we both know that we could only be traitors in the most contrived of scenarios. That means we have a team of 4 players that we know is innocent.
Well, two things.
One, the theory relies on the assumption that you identified me as not one of your cohorts, which explains why you suddenly attacked after nothing at all changed except the fact that the first mission succeeded after your own approval of the team, and that I was isolated from the other members of that successful team. I can't imagine any other logical reason for accusing me, unless you were a bad guy trying to make an innocent look like a bad guy. The endgame here for the bad guys is to ensure the final mission contains a bad guy. Seeing as how the final mission must be perfect, containing 100% of the good guys, in order for the good guys to win, discrediting a good guy ensures that the final mission does not have 100% of the good guys. Just 80%.
So, you've misunderstood the theory, or are pretending to. It doesn't matter if you've identified all your cohorts, just that you've identified and discredited one or more people who are not your cohorts. The rest will attend to itself.
Two, I would have to spend some time figuring out if you did in fact identify all of your cohorts by the time you made your own proposal, but I don't think it really matters. It makes sense for you to want to be alone on the second mission if you wanted to frame me, because you wanted to control the number of fail votes exactly to make your best possible case. Assuming you're following the rules and not communicating with your cohorts in secret, you have no opportunity to coordinate your fail votes. The best thing to do is make sure you're alone on the team, so you can only give one fail vote, thus minimizing blame on your cohorts, and not risk a large number of fail votes that would mess things up for you.
Now, on the other hand, you might not have cared if there were multiples, or you might have assumed your cohort(s) on the mission would vote fail, and that's why you voted to succeed, in order to minimize the mess. It could very well be the case that you anticipated behavior by your cohort that did not come through for you, and your attempt to frame me failed. Such miscommunications are exactly why the bad guys shouldn't be allowed to communicate in secret. It's part of game balance if the bad guys can and do make mistakes like that.
Then there's another possibility. You wanted to frame me, but my rejection vote for your proposal made you realize it wasn't going to work, that people wouldn't believe the frame job. You changed gears, voted succeed, and then tried to convince everyone that I'm the only player devious enough to succeed the second mission. You can't push too hard on that, because it's a ridiculous notion, but you want to put it out there early enough that you can come back to it later in the game once you've created a new narrative to fit the facts.
One thought hasn't occurred to you, of course. Rather than me being the only player with the balls to vote succeed on the second mission, perhaps I'm the only player with the balls to vote fail on every single mission I'm on, early and often, to wrap this thing up by the third round. I think that's a strategy I might just use. Certainly just as likely as the succeed twice thing. I haven't had the opportunity to find out, yet, though, because in all the many games of The Resistance I've played, I've never been a bad guy.
Oops, I made a mistake in my prior post, where I said retep998 had been on two successful missions. Only SoItBegins and I have had that honor. So, retep998 and JacaByte are equally as trustworthy, and both less trustworthy than SoItBegins and I.
-
You would have been framed whether you approved or rejected my proposal. Would have been even better if you had approved a mission you were on, only to have it fail. But rejection would show that either you are innocent or you are trying to be innocent. There are two way to interpret everything in this game.
It makes no sense for a traitor to vote succeed on mission that's not the first mission. Absolutely none. It only provides the innocents with an opportunity to wise up. As a traitor you want to create as much chaos as possible, and leaving the outcome of the game up to the last 3 missions is pretty dicey.
Screw this, I'm rejecting each proposal past this point that does not include me. I don't care what happens anymore, mrxak has impaled himself on his flimsy logic and it's not going to help the innocents one bit.
-
Here is my official proposal :
SIB
Jaca
darth
myselfSIB and mrxak both did some stuff I like: they voted down proposals that they were on, and they both voted for success on both missions. However, mrxak's behavior seems to me to have been straight out of the traitor playbook: first he suggests keeping as many people as possible from the first team to be in the next proposal, and he also votes down each proposal each time, in both cases greatly helping the traitors find their teammates. In his defense above, mrxak blames SIB for giving the traitors a helpful proposal, but SIB was just doing what mrxak had previously argued for. So of the two, I take SIB.
retep's overt strategy of voting for teams with himself in them is credible and somewhat defensible, and it's also the sort of multi-game strategy that allows one to deflect accusations whenever he is in fact the traitor. It doesn't condemn him in any particular game, but I don't feel too comfortable about him either.
We know that the traitors must know the identity of darth, ever since retep's proposal. Since retep's proposal, two of three proposals have included darth, and both were failed. Additionally, darth's proposal did not get a single supportive vote. If no one trusts him, then the traitors don't trust him, and thus I do trust him. He's on the team.
croc: The way croc has been posting seems suspicious to me. I know this is not the sort of hard evidence that some unnamed individuals clamor for, but it's enough for me not to want him on my team. (Looking at this game and the previous GTW game I played with croc, there is simply no comparison)
Jaca and CTR are left. Jaca gets the edge for having been on a successful team and for always voting with the people. (If we assume that proposals succeed or fail based on argumentation, this suggests that Jaca is being swayed by the consensus argument each time rather than following his own agenda)
I'm sure mrxak will have a lot of s### to say about this, but I'd really love to hear from the rest of you too
This post has been edited by Techerakh : 08 August 2012 - 02:03 AM
-
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 02:01 AM, said in GTW 40:
retep's overt strategy of voting for teams with himself in them is credible and somewhat defensible, and it's also the sort of multi-game strategy that allows one to deflect accusations whenever he is in fact the traitor. It doesn't condemn him in any particular game, but I don't feel too comfortable about him either.
Well then, since that's my strategy and you didn't pick me for your proposal, I do hereby reject your proposal.
-
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 02:01 AM, said in GTW 40:
SIB and mrxak both did some stuff I like: they voted down proposals that they were on, and they both voted for success on both missions. However, mrxak's behavior seems to me to have been straight out of the traitor playbook: first he suggests keeping as many people as possible from the first team to be in the next proposal, and he also votes down each proposal each time, in both cases greatly helping the traitors find their teammates. In his defense above, mrxak blames SIB for giving the traitors a helpful proposal, but SIB was just doing what mrxak had previously argued for. So of the two, I take SIB.
I know you claim to have read through the full topic, but perhaps you should have read a little more carefully. SoItBegins did not do what I had previously argued for. In fact he did two things I had specifically argued against.
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 02:01 AM, said in GTW 40:
retep's overt strategy of voting for teams with himself in them is credible and somewhat defensible, and it's also the sort of multi-game strategy that allows one to deflect accusations whenever he is in fact the traitor. It doesn't condemn him in any particular game, but I don't feel too comfortable about him either.
It's credible, but only in the sense that he's not very good at this game. His strategy is disruptive, and now that JacaByte is doing the same thing, potentially quite dangerous. We can't have whole voting blocs only approving of missions they are assigned to, and unwilling to reject missions they're assigned to. That makes voters predictable, and easily exploited to whatever ends. It's the same idiotic strategy of voting a straight ballot for a particular a party each time in real elections, instead of making up your own mind. People should be a little more independent.
Speaking of credible. How credible do you think it makes you, to have put JacaByte on the team, when you're criticizing retep998 for the same strategy JacaByte is using now?
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 02:01 AM, said in GTW 40:
We know that the traitors must know the identity of darth, ever since retep's proposal. Since retep's proposal, two of three proposals have included darth, and both were failed. Additionally, darth's proposal did not get a single supportive vote. If no one trusts him, then the traitors don't trust him, and thus I do trust him. He's on the team.
This is a very interesting point. On the other hand, it was a really bad proposal, obvious to all, and I'm sure nobody wanted to be on the record having voted for it.
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 02:01 AM, said in GTW 40:
croc: The way croc has been posting seems suspicious to me. I know this is not the sort of hard evidence that some unnamed individuals clamor for, but it's enough for me not to want him on my team. (Looking at this game and the previous GTW game I played with croc, there is simply no comparison)
croc seems like croc to me. I'm not really sure what you mean by this. But... that's not a good thing. croc needs to be a lot more active and serious.
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 02:01 AM, said in GTW 40:
Jaca and CTR are left. Jaca gets the edge for having been on a successful team and for always voting with the people. (If we assume that proposals succeed or fail based on argumentation, this suggests that Jaca is being swayed by the consensus argument each time rather than following his own agenda)
I think it's more accurate to say JacaByte is simply easily manipulated. I've certainly done it well in the past, and it stands to reason others are just as capable. JacaByte has been very good at seeing what's going on around him, but he doesn't follow through when he meets resistance. He's far too willing to go with the flow. Look at his erratic behavior towards me. Each round, he's shifted completely. First he trusted me above all others, then he suspected me above all others, and then back again. If this game goes another round, I'm sure he'll be against me again. He ought to trust his gut and stick to his principles more often, and argue the point rather than run away (as he's done twice now when confronted this game).
As such, JacaByte is the consummate swing vote, in this game and in others. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he's often on the winning side of a vote.
Hey JacaByte: Reject this proposal for me, okay? :wub: :wub: :wub:
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 02:01 AM, said in GTW 40:
I'm sure mrxak will have a lot of s### to say about this, but I'd really love to hear from the rest of you too
I would like to hear from everyone, always. I'm glad you agreed, with pressure from me and retep998, on IRC, to explain your reasoning. Much of it is contradictory of yourself or the facts, but at least we know that about you now.
-
@mrxak, on 08 August 2012 - 02:56 AM, said in GTW 40:
I know you claim to have read through the full topic, but perhaps you should have read a little more carefully. SoItBegins did not do what I had previously argued for.
Typical nonsense from mrxak:
@mrxak, on 27 July 2012 - 12:59 AM, said in GTW 40:
As likely as it is that there was a bad guy in the last mission, merely hiding out to get a nice cover as an innocent, I think it's worthwhile, on the chance all three of us were good guys, to keep on going. SoItBegins, I recommend you keep as many of the people from the last mission as possible.
@mrxak, on 07 August 2012 - 09:41 AM, said in GTW 40:
My rejections don't help the bad guys after the first round, because it's not rejected votes that bad guys learn from, it's proposals that they learn from. The bad guys could have already learned quite a bit just from the first two proposals in the game. Yes, rejections lead to more proposals, but you should really be looking at who is making those proposals, and to what ends? My proposal was designed for easy approval, to deny the bad guys opportunities for intelligence. SoItBegins, by eliminating one and only one person from the line-up, provided the bad guys with a perfect opportunity for intelligence, learning about me, and 50% information on two new players.
:wacko:
Despite what mrxak says, if SIB had kept all three players from the first team (like retep did, and like mrxak SUGGESTED), he would have provided the traitors with 100% info on the new fourth person. What SIB actually did might not have provided any information at all; consider if mrxak and CTR are both traitors (a perfectly likely scenario): SIB's proposal would have shown the same number of traitors as the first proposal, providing little in the way of additional information. ("50% information" is almost an oxymoron.)
@mrxak, on 08 August 2012 - 02:56 AM, said in GTW 40:
Speaking of credible. How credible do you think it makes you, to have put JacaByte on the team, when you're criticizing retep998 for the same strategy JacaByte is using now?
Jaca also said he was gonna ignore you until the end of the game. For better or for worse, he hasn't been doing that, and I have no reason to believe that this other statement of his was any less rhetorical.
Also, obviously, since Jaca only stated that he would begin using this strategy since the most recent proposal, all of his previous votes are perfectly worthy of analysis. So yeah, I feel pretty credible. Worry more about your own credibility; each specious argument you make drops you further and further.@mrxak, on 08 August 2012 - 02:56 AM, said in GTW 40:
This is a very interesting point. On the other hand, it was a really bad proposal, obvious to all, and I'm sure nobody wanted to be on the record having voted for it.
Unless you're a traitor, you have absolutely no way of knowing how good or bad the proposal was. At the time you had no specific problem with it whatsoever:
@mrxak, on 05 August 2012 - 06:34 AM, said in GTW 40:
I'm always in favor of more discussion, but honestly, what is there to say?
(For what it's worth, only Jaca out of all of you was able to point to a reason why he didn't like darth's proposal.)
@mrxak, on 08 August 2012 - 02:56 AM, said in GTW 40:
I think it's more accurate to say JacaByte is simply easily manipulated.
OK, you prefer to be more insulting in your choice of words, but we're saying the same thing. Anyway, who to you is more likely to be easily manipulated: a civ or a traitor? That's my point exactly.
This post has been edited by Techerakh : 08 August 2012 - 06:54 AM
-
@techerakh, on 08 August 2012 - 06:50 AM, said in GTW 40:
Typical nonsense from mrxak:
Nope! Again, SoItBegins did not do what I said. He also made a proposal with no discussion, which also went against what I said. If you're going to claim that SoItBegins did what I argued for him to do, that's simply false. Please stop lying about easily verifiable facts. It just makes you look clueless or malicious.
Quote
Jaca also said he was gonna ignore you until the end of the game. For better or for worse, he hasn't been doing that, and I have no reason to believe that this other statement of his was any less rhetorical.
Also, obviously, since Jaca only stated that he would begin using this strategy since the most recent proposal, all of his previous votes are perfectly worthy of analysis. So yeah, I feel pretty credible. Worry more about your own credibility; each specious argument you make drops you further and further.Okay, so then you just think JacaByte is a liar. Wonderful. Just for confirmation, though, you'd be selecting JacaByte regardless? If so, you are eliminating retep998 from consideration for a reason that only bothers you when retep998 does it, but not when JacaByte does it. Message received.
Quote
Unless you're a traitor, you have absolutely no way of knowing how good or bad the proposal was. At the time you had no specific problem with it whatsoever:
I know you flip out whenever I claim to speak for the group, and have no problem with it when Crow T. Robot does so, but the facts speak for themselves. Everyone rejected darth_vader's proposal. We all thought it was a bad idea. We all knew it was a bad proposal. So are there 7 sleeper agents in the game here? Is that what you're saying? Or, could it possibly be, possibly, that the reasons were obvious to everyone? I know you're joining late here, and skimmed the topic so you have some reading comprehension issues, but try to catch up here, please.
Or, perhaps, you're purposely being obtuse, because you're replacing one of the people that was responsible for the rejection due to their presence on the list. People don't trust prophile. You are the new prophile. You are trying to confuse the issue in order to earn back trust your predecessor lost.
I hope this replacement thing doesn't happen again, because it's clearly been a major disruption to the game, but if it ever does, allow me to give that hypothetical replacement some advice. If nobody trusted the person you're replacing, start off by saying your predecessor was a terrible player, and that you're willing to listen to the group of players that have already been through all of this. We've already established quite a bit in this game, and a new player would be wise to go along with what we've learned.
Quote
OK, you prefer to be more insulting in your choice of words, but we're saying the same thing. Anyway, who to you is more likely to be easily manipulated: a civ or a traitor? That's my point exactly.
JacaByte is obsessed with image and past games. I doubt he'd change his behavior suddenly upon being selected as a bad guy. He'd want to maintain that personality of non-confrontation and consensus building.
Anyway, we've learned a lot about you, and how you're going to play this game, Techerakh, from your last several posts, both what you've said and not said. You will treat the same behaviors from different people differently. Some might find this suspicious, others might find it simply prejudicial. Either way, here you are replacing somebody none of us were sure about, and behaving in clearly biased fashion. If you are truly innocent, then we are probably screwed because you're going to lose your spot on the last team.