@mrxak, on 09 August 2012 - 12:09 AM, said in GTW 40:

After croc's hate-filled rant, I'm sure I'm the one who looks angry :p.
Trying to characterize me as lashing out at everyone, and being angry or whatever is simply a falsehood, and an easily verifiable falsehood at that. Certainly you must admit your hate-filled rants are a bit more hot than my admittedly long and calm language, and that I've yet to announce I'm putting my hands over my eyes and not reading any more of your posts. But I've obviously made some people mad with some of my assertions and when people get mad they don't see as clearly, assume things about other people's motivations, assume other people are as mad as them, and generally ignore facts that don't fit their preconceptions.

@techerakh, on 09 August 2012 - 06:31 AM, said in GTW 40:

Anyway, I don't know what the rules are on changing one's vote, but I am attempting to do so now. This proposal has received public support from, by my count, five of you, including at least one traitor. I hereby withdraw support for this proposal and encourage everyone to vote against it.
edit: As for who is/are the traitor(s) on this mission, I'm not really sure. My top suspect, I guess, would be SIB, despite everything. If not him, probably Jaca. I still feel pretty good about darth.

I don't think you should be allowed to change your vote like that. Besides, if you wanted to see how everyone else voted, why did you vote so quickly?

Does no one get that if the traitors don't know each other, they don't know how to vote to win except whether or not they themselves are on the proposal? Anyone care to respond???

10:1 multiple fail votes on this one

Does croc not get that the traitors have a mechanism of figuring out who each other are?

Anyway, vote changing is fine, as long as it happens before the last vote is in. I agree, though, Techerakh's sudden vote change at the end is pretty suspicious, especially on his own proposal. Must have wanted it to fail from the very beginning.

Anyone else care to respond???

If it fails with 1 vote my bet is on darth_vader. If it fails with 2, it pretty much had to be darth_vader and Techerakh who failed the mission.

Now that I think about it, I should have rejected this mission and held out for a mission including myself, SIB, croc and possibly Techerakh or retep998, whichever we decide we trust more.

If it fails with three votes, I'll just laugh my ass off. And then I'll blame JacaByte.

I still don't get why people don't trust retep998.

The only people who can guarantee multiple fail votes are those who know who the traitors are. Something to keep in mind.

As for my late-stage rejection, although it was perhaps aberrational, my logic is perfectly sound. Once it was apparent that the mission had the support of the traitors, it would be stupid to vote for it, especially since we had allowance for three more proposals. I presume that, had the time-frame allowed for it, more people would have joined me. Crow's SUBSEQUENT vote for the team skyrockets him to the top of my list of suspects.

In response to the ideas that I wanted this mission to fail or wanted to see the votes, both are inaccurate. I put this team together in good faith to try to win the game outright. I was doubtful that it would pass, though, and did not even consider the possibility that it would be overwhelmingly supported.
For the record, I did PM Mack a For vote immediately upon proposing and then a Fail vote-change this morning, though I guess it's Mack's prerogative whether or not to reveal that information. Personally, I think he should.

I still don't know why everyone suspects darth. Jaca seems the most likely traitor on the team to me.

Oh, one more thing: If at the end of the game it turns out that some traitors were in a must-fail mission and didn't vote fail, it should be taken as evidence of cheating and the result nullified. Just my two cents.

This post has been edited by Techerakh : 09 August 2012 - 01:16 PM

A bit of game theory:

Both traitors know who each other are by now (probably), and can vote SUCCEED or FAIL.

Both blink and vote SUCCEED: They lose the game.
One votes SUCCEED and one votes FAIL: Best outcome.
Both vote FAIL: They've partially given themselves away. Fail!

The problem is that the traitors cannot communicate amongst one another. It's really a variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

This post has been edited by SoItBegins : 09 August 2012 - 01:34 PM

@soitbegins, on 09 August 2012 - 01:34 PM, said in GTW 40:

Both traitors know who each other are by now (probably), and can vote SUCCEED or FAIL.

They don't even have to know who the other sleeper agent is. They just need to know that there is another sleeper agent on the mission, which is what Mackilroy said he's doing. If they do know who each other are, they might try to anticipate what the other one will do. But the fact is, if somebody fails this mission, it'll be the first fail vote yet that anyone has done. There's really no history to judge it on. I think if there are multiples on this mission (personally, I think there are two), they will have no choice but to both vote fail.

It's not exactly a prisoner's dilemma, because the optimal scenario is that they both take a different action. The optimal scenario in a prisoner's dilemma is they both take the same action. One can't take optimal strategy without knowing what the other person will do. It's unbalanced. In a prisoner's dilemma, all players are equal.

I wonder if Techerakh means what he says, and if so, does he believe that all three bad guys voted in favor of the proposal?

There seems to be many plots within plots within plots blowing holes in all of my notes about this game. :wacko:

@techerakh, on 09 August 2012 - 01:13 PM, said in GTW 40:

Crow's SUBSEQUENT vote for the team skyrockets him to the top of my list of suspects.

No longer sure if it WAS subsequent. Mack, can we get dates to go along with those times?

@soitbegins, on 09 August 2012 - 01:34 PM, said in GTW 40:

The problem is that the traitors cannot communicate amongst one another.

No, the problem is that they very easily could, but they're not allowed to, and we'd have no way of knowing if they did—which is why I said what I did earlier about presuming guilt if they don't all vote FAIL. Unless we all trust each other? Maybe you guys do…

@mrxak, on 09 August 2012 - 02:04 PM, said in GTW 40:

I wonder if Techerakh means what he says, and if so, does he believe that all three bad guys voted in favor of the proposal?

I do, and I'm undecided. There's no reason for all three to have to vote for it. If the team were an all-civ team, I would expect all traitors to vote against it because of the stakes. Letting a team fail has nowhere near the same stakes, and thus the traitors were free to support or oppose it as they saw fit.

edit: minor fixes

This post has been edited by Techerakh : 09 August 2012 - 05:29 PM

@techerakh, on 09 August 2012 - 05:28 PM, said in GTW 40:

No longer sure if it WAS subsequent. Mack, can we get dates to go along with those times?

I've asked for this before and Mackilroy basically said he doesn't care enough to keep track and give us that information. In theory, they're at least in order, within the categories, but he's made mistakes with that in the past.

The next motion, sure. This one, no. I will say that Crow was the second person to vote approve out of all the Approve votes.

EDIT: one mistake, mrxak. Not mistake s.

@mackilroy, on 09 August 2012 - 06:04 PM, said in GTW 40:

The next motion, sure. This one, no. I will say that Crow was the second person to vote approve out of all the Approve votes.

Thanks. If Crow was the second person to vote approve, then obviously what I said about him skyrocketing to the top of my suspect list is no longer true.

Also, incidentally, it seems I did change my vote after everyone else had already voted, which I think might be problematic—or at least would have been, if it had made a difference. We should probably have an Official Policy on this going forward.

@mackilroy, on 09 August 2012 - 06:04 PM, said in GTW 40:

The next motion, sure. This one, no. I will say that Crow was the second person to vote approve out of all the Approve votes.

EDIT: one mistake, mrxak. Not mistake s.

Thanks for clearing that up Mackilroy.

@techerakh, on 09 August 2012 - 09:16 PM, said in GTW 40:

Thanks. If Crow was the second person to vote approve, then obviously what I said about him skyrocketing to the top of my suspect list is no longer true.

Also, incidentally, it seems I did change my vote after everyone else had already voted, which I think might be problematic—or at least would have been, if it had made a difference. We should probably have an Official Policy on this going forward.

Well, if it makes any difference, there was a case of somebody changing their vote in one of the games I hosted after the final vote came in. I counted it. The closest thing to Official Policy here is all the votes before the host realizes all the votes are in get counted, based on that precedent.

Mission #3 (Failure)
John Brown
Succeed: 2
Fail: 2

The FBI’s inside man has resurfaced in Los Angeles -- on the doorstep of the local FBI office, with a note attached to his body: “We will always know when the government tries to infiltrate us. The next stooge will be returned in the same manner.” Authorities speculate Brown used a city utility vehicle to deliver the body before departing LA. One mission has failed -- the terrorists need two more to win.

croc, you may now submit five names (which may include your own name) in a motion to form a subcommittee to carry out the second mission. Should your motion fail, prophile will have the opportunity to submit four different names for consideration, and so on, until a motion passes. Should five motions fail in a row, the Security Council will be deadlocked, and the terrorists will detonate nuclear bombs in several world capitals.

**Mission Profile #4 **
_Mohammed Al-Dosary _
Mohammed Al-Dosary is the seventh son of the fourth wife of a Saudi oil baron. Raised to venerate Allah, in his early twenties he was heavily influenced by a radical mullah who led him to supporting a terrorist group with ties to attacks against American and British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one has been able to prove that it’s his money financing those attacks or more against targets throughout the Mideast and Asia, but GCHQ and the NSA are keeping a close eye on his phone and computer to see who he communicates with. If he can be found and eliminated, a major source of funding for one of the leading terrorist organizations in the Middle East can be curtailed.

Once croc puts forth five names, Security Council members should begin sending me votes to approve or reject the proposed subcommittee, via personal message. As always, public or private discussion at any time is welcome between members. You may publicly offer support or condemnation for the proposed subcommittee (either truthful or not), but only your private vote will be counted when all votes are in. You may PM me a second time (or more) to change your official vote. Once I receive 8 votes, I will announce the results. If I do not receive all 8 votes in a timely manner, I may choose to end the vote early if there are enough votes for a majority either in favor or against the proposed subcommittee. Please vote quickly once a set of names are proposed.

I will make a note: unlike the other missions which needed only one negative vote to fail, this one requires two. Choose wisely.

@mackilroy, on 10 August 2012 - 02:12 AM, said in GTW 40:

croc, you may now submit five names (which may include your own name) in a motion to form a subcommittee to carry out the second mission. Should your motion fail, prophile will have the opportunity to submit four different names for consideration, and so on, until a motion passes. Should five motions fail in a row, the Security Council will be deadlocked, and the terrorists will detonate nuclear bombs in several world capitals.

Wait, I thought prophile was out and if we are still following the initial order, it would be me next after croc because prophile was supposed to be before croc. Right?

...

OK, let's work through this constructively.

We know there are two traitors in the following subset:

JacaByte, Tcherak, darth_vader

I'll go through what I believe.

JacaByte: UNSURE. Seems to have good intentions but I do have to wonder.

Tcherak: PROBABLY EVIL. Prophile has been keeping his head down this entire game. He's like the anti-mrxak. Since he was replaced by Tcherak, I have to wonder if he was one of the traitors, trying to fly under the radar.

darth_vader: UNSURE. Not got much of a read on him...

@crow-t--robot, on 10 August 2012 - 05:55 AM, said in GTW 40:

Wait, I thought prophile was out and if we are still following the initial order, it would be me next after croc because prophile was supposed to be before croc. Right?

Yes.

@soitbegins, on 10 August 2012 - 06:25 AM, said in GTW 40:

...

OK, let's work through this constructively.

We know there are two traitors in the following subset:

JacaByte, Tcherak, darth_vader

I'll go through what I believe.

JacaByte: UNSURE. Seems to have good intentions but I do have to wonder.

Tcherak: PROBABLY EVIL. Prophile has been keeping his head down this entire game. He's like the anti-mrxak. Since he was replaced by Tcherak, I have to wonder if he was one of the traitors, trying to fly under the radar.

darth_vader: UNSURE. Not got much of a read on him...

If anyone here has flown under the radar, it's SIB. His credibility seems to be based on his inclusion on the first few (indeed, nearly all of the) teams, which itself was just luck of the draw in terms of being at the top of the game-order list. I'm not saying he's definitely guilty, but as I'm definitely NOT, all else being equal, he's got a 2/3 chance.

croc, fellow civs, listen: Your choice here is easy. The next team needs five people, and the traitors need two people on the team to win it. The best way to do this is to take the four people who weren't on the last team (i.e., mrxak, retep, croc, and CTR, hereafter the "Most Trusted Players" – of whom at most ONE is a traitor) and the ONE person from this team (i.e., SIB, Jaca, darth, and myself) whom you least suspect. But for God's sake be careful whom you choose. Even if you pick the last name out of a hat, the civs still have a 50% chance of winning the game in the next round alone.

Anyone who argues against this proposal is a traitor. It is uncontrovertibly the best option for the civs.

As an aside, I can guarantee you that a team consisting of the Most Trusted Players and myself will win the game for the civs, though that point of course is arguable.

And finally, just because croc puts forth a proposal that matches the requirements I've set forth above, make sure you still trust the fifth person he chooses. If croc is a traitor, so will that fifth person be. The good news is that the next five players (i.e., those who might make a proposal this round) include all four of the Most Trusted Players.

We have a good chance of winning this thing, folks. Let's not ###### it up.

edit: some small fixes. clarification: that last string of pound signs was meant to be the f-word

This post has been edited by Techerakh : 10 August 2012 - 06:46 AM

I just had a moment of inspiration in the shower (great place for it). Last round, I was able to guarantee that there had already been at least one sleeper agent in the game. Now, I can guarantee that there was at least one sleeper agent in the round 2 team.

If there were only one sleeper agent in the round 2 team, and such agent was mrxak or SIB, I would have expected such agent to vote FAIL, as mrxak or SIB could have credibly pointed the finger at Jaca or croc (since mrxak and SIB were also on the successful round 1 team, and Jaca and croc were not).

Thus, there are two likely possibilities:

1. There was one sleeper agent on the round 2 team, and it was either Jaca or croc. This is a straightforward analysis and a very legitimate possibility.

2. There were multiple (two, or even three) sleeper agents on the round 2 team. Consider the implications of this. With multiple sleeper agents, unlike in round 3, they might both/all have decided to vote SUCCEED in order to avoid the disastrous consequence of multiple FAIL votes on the mission. But, as fate would have it, they BOTH/ALL voted SUCCEED, as they both/all had the same thought process.

Anyway, something to consider.