Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tables]

Votes are in. Vote 1.1 is over

Mission 1.1:
Team: WrathOfGlod, eHalcyon,
Yes: Morgrim7, eHalcyon,
No: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, Robz888,
Result: Yes - 2, No - 4
Proposal Fails

(note: This table is generated automatically and I'm not smart enough to make Excel not put the commas at the end).

Leadership passes to Morgrim7. Morgrim7 has 5 days to propose a team

[Morgrim7]

# I propose Morgrim7 and Thisisnotasmile #

[Thisisnotasmile]

Morgrim, why did you vote yes to the first proposal?

[Galzria]

Why did WoG vote no? I mean, it wasn't going to pass, but still, what better setup could he expect to get assuming he's resistance?

[Morgrim7]

Morgrim, why did you vote yes to the first proposal?

Because if it is denied, we will know that one or both af thos two is a spy. If it is approved... well, that is one mission under our belt. We will have to accept a mision someday.

[eHalcyon]

Morgrim, why did you vote yes to the first proposal?

Because if it is denied, we will know that one or both af thos two is a spy. If it is approved... well, that is one mission under our belt. We will have to accept a mision someday.

What?  I don't see the logic there.

I'm more interested in WoG's vote against himself, but I guess he wants to see more votes.  That has sense to it.

[Galzria]

Morgrim, why did you vote yes to the first proposal?

Because if it is denied, we will know that one or both af thos two is a spy. If it is approved... well, that is one mission under our belt. We will have to accept a mision someday.

What?  I don't see the logic there.

I'm more interested in WoG's vote against himself, but I guess he wants to see more votes.  That has sense to it.

I believe his logic was as follows (And there isn't a whole lot of fault in it really):

If we accept that assignment (and eventually we WILL have to accept an assignment, so what does #1 vs #5 matter?) and it fails, we know at least 1 of the 2 operatives is a Spy.
If we accept that assignment and it passes, we have 1 complete under our belt.
Since he (I assume) knows that he is Resistance, the quickest way to identify a Spy is to try and maximize their opportunity to fail a mission. So the more unknowns in the mission to him, the better, at least early.

Now, as it's been pointed out, Spy's vote to pass the first mission. No need to blow their cover when things are stacked against them early. So ultimately it likely won't matter.

[eHalcyon]

I believe his logic was as follows (And there isn't a whole lot of fault in it really):

If we accept that assignment (and eventually we WILL have to accept an assignment, so what does #1 vs #5 matter?) and it fails, we know at least 1 of the 2 operatives is a Spy.
If we accept that assignment and it passes, we have 1 complete under our belt.
Since he (I assume) knows that he is Resistance, the quickest way to identify a Spy is to try and maximize their opportunity to fail a mission. So the more unknowns in the mission to him, the better, at least early.

Now, as it's been pointed out, Spy's vote to pass the first mission. No need to blow their cover when things are stacked against them early. So ultimately it likely won't matter.

The first three points are true no matter which mission it is.  The only thing that changes is whether you are on the mission yourself.  As Resistance, I'd rather missions pass than fail.  Yes, a failed mission gives us information, but it's not complete.  I think the passed mission is more valuable.  This is why I voted yes -- if I am on the mission, it's more likely to pass because I only have to worry about the chance that the other guy is a Spy.  If it's two other people, the chance for a Spy on the mission is greater.

"Since he (I assume) knows that he is Resistance, the quickest way to identify a Spy is to try and maximize their opportunity to fail a mission. So the more unknowns in the mission to him, the better, at least early."

I don't understand this.  It would be easier to identify a spy if you are on the mission and it fails, because you know that, at the very least, you weren't the one who failed it.  In this first mission, if you are Resistance and it fails, you know immediately that the other guy is a Spy.

I believe that fewer unknowns is always better. 

[Galzria]

I believe his logic was as follows (And there isn't a whole lot of fault in it really):

If we accept that assignment (and eventually we WILL have to accept an assignment, so what does #1 vs #5 matter?) and it fails, we know at least 1 of the 2 operatives is a Spy.
If we accept that assignment and it passes, we have 1 complete under our belt.
Since he (I assume) knows that he is Resistance, the quickest way to identify a Spy is to try and maximize their opportunity to fail a mission. So the more unknowns in the mission to him, the better, at least early.

Now, as it's been pointed out, Spy's vote to pass the first mission. No need to blow their cover when things are stacked against them early. So ultimately it likely won't matter.

The first three points are true no matter which mission it is.  The only thing that changes is whether you are on the mission yourself.  As Resistance, I'd rather missions pass than fail.  Yes, a failed mission gives us information, but it's not complete.  I think the passed mission is more valuable.  This is why I voted yes -- if I am on the mission, it's more likely to pass because I only have to worry about the chance that the other guy is a Spy.  If it's two other people, the chance for a Spy on the mission is greater.

"Since he (I assume) knows that he is Resistance, the quickest way to identify a Spy is to try and maximize their opportunity to fail a mission. So the more unknowns in the mission to him, the better, at least early."

I don't understand this.  It would be easier to identify a spy if you are on the mission and it fails, because you know that, at the very least, you weren't the one who failed it.  In this first mission, if you are Resistance and it fails, you know immediately that the other guy is a Spy.

I believe that fewer unknowns is always better.

Oh, I agree, which is why I voted "no".

But there is something to be said for gaining SOME information round 1 (which is why even if a spy is in on the mission, they will let it pass, to deny us knowledge). If we go to round 2 with no idea of who the spy's are, and we fail day 2 (50% of the time?), we are left with 3 missions, requiring 4 operatives, 3 operatives, and 4 operatives. And all we know is that there is *at least* one spy amongst the 3 that went on day 2, but we have no idea who it is.

I don't know. It looks stacked against us pretty badly, even though we out-number the Spy's 4-2. I guess we'll see. For now though, I'll do my part and only vote "Yes" when I can be sure if increasing mission success rate (read: when I'm an operative).

[Robz888]

It seems to me we don't really gain much information Round 1 no matter what happens, because the Spies pretty much have to vote to succeed the mission no matter what. So based on that, I would understand approving every mission. But if you really want me to approve it, you have to pick me!

[eHalcyon]

It seems to me we don't really gain much information Round 1 no matter what happens, because the Spies pretty much have to vote to succeed the mission no matter what. So based on that, I would understand approving every mission. But if you really want me to approve it, you have to pick me!

Hey, that's not what you said earlier:

I suppose I will vote against this mission, solely because that seems like the popular thing to do.

[Robz888]

It seems to me we don't really gain much information Round 1 no matter what happens, because the Spies pretty much have to vote to succeed the mission no matter what. So based on that, I would understand approving every mission. But if you really want me to approve it, you have to pick me!

Hey, that's not what you said earlier:

I suppose I will vote against this mission, solely because that seems like the popular thing to do.

It's not what I said earlier. Nor is it inconsistent with what I said earlier.

Having no info, I guess I would have voted to approve that last mission because we have to eventually. But somebody (you, I think) said not to until I am on the mission. So I listened to that. Truly, I am a follow-the-crowd guy for now!

[Galzria]

It seems to me we don't really gain much information Round 1 no matter what happens, because the Spies pretty much have to vote to succeed the mission no matter what. So based on that, I would understand approving every mission. But if you really want me to approve it, you have to pick me!

That's the boat I'm in. However, I hold one piece of information that I can share with all of you if I'm given the chance that will make our odds MUCH better: I am Resistance. If we make it to Assignment Vote 4 (or Mission 1.4 for you technical people), I will be leader. I will vote NO for my own proposal. Now, I fully understand that holding the Vote of No Confidence means that most of you will have to vote Yes for my assignment (and because of that, I will be putting myself in). However, if we get that far, and you vote NO with me and it fails, I would have the opportunity to end the game on the next vote. In my choosing not to do so, the Resistance will KNOW that I should be on every assignment for the rest of the game.

--I doubt this will sway many people to reject my assignment (again, should it get that far). But because that is the best way I could relay my role to you, I present the option to all of you.--

For the time being, I will still be voting "No". 

[eHalcyon]

That's the boat I'm in. However, I hold one piece of information that I can share with all of you if I'm given the chance that will make our odds MUCH better: I am Resistance. If we make it to Assignment Vote 4 (or Mission 1.4 for you technical people), I will be leader. I will vote NO for my own proposal. Now, I fully understand that holding the Vote of No Confidence means that most of you will have to vote Yes for my assignment (and because of that, I will be putting myself in). However, if we get that far, and you vote NO with me and it fails, I would have the opportunity to end the game on the next vote. In my choosing not to do so, the Resistance will KNOW that I should be on every assignment for the rest of the game.

--I doubt this will sway many people to reject my assignment (again, should it get that far). But because that is the best way I could relay my role to you, I present the option to all of you.--

For the time being, I will still be voting "No". 

Ha, I thought of that too, but I really don't think it is worth taking the risk.  I mean, if you were a Spy, why wouldn't you offer the same thing and then end the game?  And that would be a really sad first game of Resistance, to end on the first round.

On the other hand, I think it would be hilarious if you were a Spy and pulled this trick off to make it look guaranteed that you were Resistance, only to drag the game on to an inevitable Spy-win.

Nonetheless, not worth the risk!

[Robz888]

It seems to me we don't really gain much information Round 1 no matter what happens, because the Spies pretty much have to vote to succeed the mission no matter what. So based on that, I would understand approving every mission. But if you really want me to approve it, you have to pick me!

That's the boat I'm in. However, I hold one piece of information that I can share with all of you if I'm given the chance that will make our odds MUCH better: I am Resistance. If we make it to Assignment Vote 4 (or Mission 1.4 for you technical people), I will be leader. I will vote NO for my own proposal. Now, I fully understand that holding the Vote of No Confidence means that most of you will have to vote Yes for my assignment (and because of that, I will be putting myself in). However, if we get that far, and you vote NO with me and it fails, I would have the opportunity to end the game on the next vote. In my choosing not to do so, the Resistance will KNOW that I should be on every assignment for the rest of the game.

--I doubt this will sway many people to reject my assignment (again, should it get that far). But because that is the best way I could relay my role to you, I present the option to all of you.--

For the time being, I will still be voting "No". 

Yeah, I bet you'd like us to fail 4 rounds, Mr. Spy....

[Thisisnotasmile]

Galzira wants us to vote down the first four proposals so he can prove to us he is Resistance by not making the Spies win when he then gets the chance to do so.

Lol blatant spy.

[Galzria]

Hey, this is a game of trust and no-trust. Read it how you will. Like I made more than apparent; I hardly expect that to sway anybody. However, I love how you two jump on shifting the focus. Nice to know.

[Galzria]

Reply #66 was directed at Robz and TINAS, btw.

[Thisisnotasmile]

I'm sorry but if you want to convince me you're not a apy you're going to have to try better than "give me a chance to end the game prematurely in a spy win, and I won't", because hey, that's exactly what a spy wants.

[Galzria]

I'm sorry but if you want to convince me you're not a apy you're going to have to try better than "give me a chance to end the game prematurely in a spy win, and I won't", because hey, that's exactly what a spy wants.

... Now, I fully understand that holding the Vote of No Confidence means that most of you will have to vote Yes for my assignment (and because of that, I will be putting myself in)... Now, I fully understand that holding the Vote of No Confidence means that most of you will have to vote Yes for my assignment (and because of that, I will be putting myself in).

Don't think I don't fully recognize this?

Galzira wants us to vote down the first four proposals

False. I just see how it is likely to go down that way if everybody waits to vote "Yes" until they are involved. Normally it would go to Vote #5, but as noted above, with my Vote of No Confidence, it can only really go so far as #4.

Galzira wants us to vote down the first four proposals so he can prove to us he is Resistance by not making the Spies win when he then gets the chance to do so.

Lol blatant spy.

Lol blatant attempt to spin words to hide who the spy is.

[Galzria]

... Now, I fully understand that holding the Vote of No Confidence means that most of you will have to vote Yes for my assignment (and because of that, I will be putting myself in)... --I doubt this will sway many people to reject my assignment (again, should it get that far)...

Corrected quote sequence from me.

[Galzria]

That's the boat I'm in. However, I hold one piece of information that I can share with all of you if I'm given the chance that will make our odds MUCH better: I am Resistance. If we make it to Assignment Vote 4 (or Mission 1.4 for you technical people), I will be leader. I will vote NO for my own proposal. Now, I fully understand that holding the Vote of No Confidence means that most of you will have to vote Yes for my assignment (and because of that, I will be putting myself in). However, if we get that far, and you vote NO with me and it fails, I would have the opportunity to end the game on the next vote. In my choosing not to do so, the Resistance will KNOW that I should be on every assignment for the rest of the game.

--I doubt this will sway many people to reject my assignment (again, should it get that far). But because that is the best way I could relay my role to you, I present the option to all of you.--

For the time being, I will still be voting "No". 

Ha, I thought of that too, but I really don't think it is worth taking the risk.  I mean, if you were a Spy, why wouldn't you offer the same thing and then end the game?  And that would be a really sad first game of Resistance, to end on the first round.

On the other hand, I think it would be hilarious if you were a Spy and pulled this trick off to make it look guaranteed that you were Resistance, only to drag the game on to an inevitable Spy-win.

Nonetheless, not worth the risk!

For the record, you are absolutely right. A spy WOULD say the same thing. And I fully noted that I wouldn't expect anybody to actually be swayed by that argument. Still, my point IS true, even if I'll never be given the chance:

That's the boat I'm in. However, I hold one piece of information that I can share with all of you if I'm given the chance that will make our odds MUCH better: I am Resistance.

Honestly, I was just fishing for reactions, and amongst the three that responded right away, I got what I was looking for. I now trust you more than I do TINAS or Robz. If I were to give odds based solely on reactions:

Robz: Spy 60%, Resistance 40%
TINAS: Spy 55%, Resistance 45%
Morgrim: Spy 50%, Resistance 50%
WoG: Spy 50%, Resistance 50%
eHalycon: Spy 40%, Resistance 60%
Galzria: Spy 0%, Resistance 100%

Better position than I felt I was before.

[Robz888]

Uh, why?

[Galzria]

Uh, why?

Because you're too crafty for your own good.
And anybody who can be involved in Mafia-I, Mafia-II, Mafia-III, Resistance, AND Isodom 5 can't be trusted.
 

[Robz888]

Uh, why?

Because you're too crafty for your own good.
And anybody who can be involved in Mafia-I, Mafia-II, Mafia-III, Resistance, AND Isodom 5 can't be trusted.
 

Makes sense.