Dominion Strategy Forum
Miscellaneous => Forum Games => Non-Mafia Game Threads => Topic started by: Tables on May 25, 2012, 09:21:29 am
-
I will assume you're familiar with the rules from the signups thread. For plot cards, only the first leader gets one. The deck consists of:
2x Strong Leader
2x Keeping a Close Eye on You
1x No Confidence
1x Opinion Maker
1x Take Responsibility
Whose effects can be found here (http://boardgamegeek.com/image/866596/the-resistance?size=large).
Deadlines:
For the first leader in each round, the leader will have a 5 day deadline for giving out the plot card, and a 6 day deadline running concurrently to propose a team (the plot card must be distributed first). Missing the plot card deadline will result in a random person chosen, missing the team proposal deadline will result in a random team being chosen.
For the second and onward leader in each round, the leader will have a 5 day deadline for proposing a team.
Voting will have a 2 day deadline from the team being proposed. Failure to vote will result in a no vote being cast. Voting will end early once all votes are in and I have seen them all.
Missions will have a 1 day deadline. Only spies need to submit a decision for the mission. They may submit their choice in advance with their vote for the mission. Missions will never end early unless the game will end as a result of the mission - this is to protect the spies right to think in cases they need to make a non-trivial decision (e.g. both are on a mission). In the rare case of a spy missing the submission for a mission they will default to sabotage.
I will not wait for plot cards people have in cases they can be played, with the exception of Opinion Maker (see below). If you have a plot card, please leave CO (conditional orders) for when you want to use them. If you are very likely to want to use a plot card but need to see certain results to decide on whom (this mostly applies to Keeping a Close Eye on You) I will allow you to CO for me to wait for you on that.
If/when opinion maker is in the game, I will give a minimum of 1 day for voting after the opinion maker's vote has been cast. You may still wish to CO (conditional order) your vote depending on how the opinion maker does vote.
The role PMs in this game look like this:
You are a resistance operative
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic866462_t.jpg)
You win if the resistance succeed on 3 missions. You lose if the spies sabotage 3 missions
You are a spy
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic866471_t.jpg)
The two spies are:
X
Z
You win if the spies successfully sabotage 3 missions. You lose if the resistance complete 3 missions
Finally rules. Shamelessly stolen and adapted from Axxle, who stole them from Mafiascum.
General Gameplay and Etiquette:
1. You may not quote private Moderator-supplied information (either real or fabricated) of any kind. Paraphrasing is acceptable.
2. There is to be NO personal communication outside of the forum postings. This includes Spies!
3. As a general rule you should aim for one post every 48 hours, minimum, to keep the game moving.
4: You may talk at ALL stages of the game. This means during proposals, voting, and missions. There is never a period where communication is banned.
Miscellaneous/Mechanics:
1. Bold, blue text is reserved for the Mod.
2. No invisible/small text is allowed, nor is cryptography, or obscuring text in any way.
3. If you have an issue/problem with the game, please PM the Mod privately. Do not post issues/complaints in the game thread.
4. The Mod may make mistakes - please point out any mistakes gently. Mistakes will be corrected where possible, but sometimes mistakes are made that cannot be reversed. These will stand as final to be commiserated over after the game.
5. Please bold and double hashtag ## all requests to the Mod so that they don’t get missed. This includes all final actions (giving out plot cards, proposing a team, public vote if you have Opinion Maker).
6. Prods of missing players will be issued automatically after 72 hours of no activity or upon request after 48 hours of no activity. A prodded player has 48 hours to respond or risks replacement. A player who has been prodded 3 times is subject to replacement without further notice.
7. Rule violations will be dealt with according to their severity.
8. If you anticipate being unavailable for more than a 48-hour period please post a notice to that effect in the thread. Treat this game as a commitment. Be considerate – don’t leave us hanging.
The next post is reserved as the information dump. Please do not post until the game has been started.
-
Players (inorder of leadership, this has been randomised):
WrathOfGlod
Morgrim7
Thisisnotasmile
Galzria
eHalcyon
Robz888
Missions list:
Mission 1 - 2 operatives: Sending thieves to the Silk Road - Mission successful
Mission 2 - 3 operatives: Smuggling Spies into the Gardens - Mission successful
Mission 3 - 4 operatives: Setting up Saboteurs into the tunnel
Mission 4 - 3 operatives: Getting Minions onto the Island
Mission 5 - 4 operatives: Turning the Followers against the Duke
Mission 1: WrathOfGlod draws the plot card No Confidence and gives it to Galzria
Mission 2: eHalcyon draws the plot card Opinion Maker and gives it to Morgrim7
Mission 3: Thisisnotasmile draws the plot card Strong Leader
Mission 1.1 by WrathOfGod:
Team: WrathOfGlod, eHalcyon,
Yes: Morgrim7, eHalcyon,
No: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, Robz888,
Result: Yes - 2, No - 4
Proposal Fails
Mission 1.2 by Morgrim7:
Team: Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile,
Yes: Morgrim7,
No: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, eHalcyon, Robz888,
Result: Yes - 1, No - 5
Proposal Fails
Mission 1.3 by Thisisnotasmile:
Team: Thisisnotasmile, Robz888,
Yes: Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, Robz888,
No: WrathOfGlod, Galzria, eHalcyon,
Result: Yes - 3, No - 3
Proposal Fails
Mission 1.4 by Galzria:
Team: Galzria, eHalcyon,
Yes: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, eHalcyon, Robz888,
No: Galzria,
Result: Yes - 5, No - 1
Proposal passes
Mission 1 Results
Co-operate
Co-operate
Mission succeeds. Score is now Resistance - 1, Spy - 0
Mission 2.1 by eHalcyon:
Team: Thisisnotasmile, eHalcyon, Robz888,
Yes: Thisisnotasmile, Robz888,
No: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Galzria, eHalcyon,
Result: Yes - 2, No - 4
Proposal Fails
Mission 2.2 by Robz888:
Team: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Robz888,
Yes: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Robz888,
No: Morgrim7, Galzria, eHalcyon,
Result: Yes - 3, No - 3
Proposal Fails
Mission 2.3 proposed by: WrathOfGlod:
Team Proposed: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Robz888
Voting YES: Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, Robz888
Voting NO: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, eHalcyon
Result: Yes - 3, No - 3
Proposal Fails
Mission 2.4 proposed by: Morgrim7:
Team Proposed: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Galzria
Voting YES: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, eHalcyon
Voting NO: Robz888
Result: Yes - 5, No - 1
Proposal passes
Mission 2 Results
Co-operating: 3
Sabotage: 0
Mission succeeds. Score is now Resistance - 2, Spies - 0
-
All role PMs have been distributed. The game has now begun.
Mission 1: Two operatives must be sent
WrathOfGlod draws the plot card No Confidence.
Deadline for giving out the plot card is 14:43:54 GMT on Wednesday 30th May. Deadline for proposing a team is 14:43:54 GMT on Thursday 31st May[/color.
-
###I give the plot card no-confidence to Galzria
(I have no information so am basically choosing randomly)
-
I think for now I should
:-X
-
Man, I wake up, open the forums, and go "Oh boy! *unrealistic cartoon excitement* A new game has started! Open link, open link, open link! ... And already I've got a vote of no confidence??? Man I must suck at these games!
... Ok, now I should follow up and read what that actually means and what I'm supposed to do...
-
;)
-
Ahahahahaha. It's a good thing. It means YOU can vote a mission down whenever you choose, no matter what everyone else wants.
-
## I propose WrathOfGlod and eHalycon ##
-
## I propose WrathOfGlod and eHalycon ##
So let me see if I understand this:
Outcome of round 1: Fail or Pass. 2 Players involved.
There is a 33% chance that one of you is a spy. If we fail, then we have 2 *may be spies*, and 4 *don't know*. If we pass, most likely we have 2 Resistance, and 4 *don't know* (Although a spy may pass a first round mission to cover himself for future rounds).
Round 2, we have to send half the team. If we fail round 1 and round 2, then we are one win away from loosing, and sending a whopping FOUR round 3. In the case that we failed round 1, well, things seem bad. Do we choose 3 from the remaining 4 and risk two early failures (since unless BOTH were spies round 1, there is a 75% of hitting a spy by choosing 3 new members of the remaining 4), or try to pick the Resistance member from the first mission and add 2 new faces? Like I said, failing both would be catastrophic.
If we pass round 1, do we aim to keep the same two and add a third member (seems to be the safest?), or do we consider there may have been a spy bluffing?
Ah!! I don't know. :'( I can't see much to be gained from NOT letting the early mission go through. Unless you play this out like Mafia looking for tells until you have to vote? But here we gain actual useful information by a pass/fail, and with just 2 going out, our odds of passing will never be higher (until we can eliminate possible spies from future missions).
Thoughts? Am I understanding this correctly?
-
Yeah, you're understanding correctly. Basically, we have no information and during the course of the game, we're going to get some, but not really enough. The only way to increase the odds of mission one passing (i.e. better than choosing randomly), is to send me, because I am a guaranteed Resistance member (but hey, aren't we all?).
And for experience, Spies bluff mission one. It's pretty rare to see red on the first mission, but it's possible and the plot cards may change that (I usually play without them).
-
from experience*
(## Are we allowed to edit posts in this game?)
-
## I propose WrathOfGlod and eHalycon ##
So let me see if I understand this:
Outcome of round 1: Fail or Pass. 2 Players involved.
There is a 33% chance that one of you is a spy. If we fail, then we have 2 *may be spies*, and 4 *don't know*. If we pass, most likely we have 2 Resistance, and 4 *don't know* (Although a spy may pass a first round mission to cover himself for future rounds).
Round 2, we have to send half the team. If we fail round 1 and round 2, then we are one win away from loosing, and sending a whopping FOUR round 3. In the case that we failed round 1, well, things seem bad. Do we choose 3 from the remaining 4 and risk two early failures (since unless BOTH were spies round 1, there is a 75% of hitting a spy by choosing 3 new members of the remaining 4), or try to pick the Resistance member from the first mission and add 2 new faces? Like I said, failing both would be catastrophic.
If we pass round 1, do we aim to keep the same two and add a third member (seems to be the safest?), or do we consider there may have been a spy bluffing?
Ah!! I don't know. :'( I can't see much to be gained from NOT letting the early mission go through. Unless you play this out like Mafia looking for tells until you have to vote? But here we gain actual useful information by a pass/fail, and with just 2 going out, our odds of passing will never be higher (until we can eliminate possible spies from future missions).
Thoughts? Am I understanding this correctly?
I don't really want to check over the math, but the logic seems about right. However, as part of the Resistance, it's advantageous for us to vote no more often than not. Here's an article about it (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/666247/the-power-of-no-and-playing-irrationally-how-they).
Keep in mind that, although we don't know the roles of the others, we do know our own roles. That means that, if you are a RO, you know the mission has a better chance of success if YOU are on the mission yourself. For that reason, I will be voting yes for this mission proposal. However, if WoG had not picked me, I would vote no. If the proposal then fails, we get MORE information with which to pick out spies: who voted for the team to go through. Of course, the spies will probably try to vote as much like RO as they can, but they may slip up.
An important rule that I don't think was mentioned above: if team proposal fails FIVE times in a row, the spies automatically win. This makes cards like No Confidence extremely powerful, so be careful with the power you now wield, Galzria.
## I want a clarification from Tables -- Votes on mission proposals are to be PM'd directly to you, correct? The reason is that those votes are supposed to be revealed simultaneously (unless someone has Opinion Maker). Also, can you verify the rule I mentioned above? I may have remembered it incorrectly, or perhaps you prefer running a variant.
-
## I propose WrathOfGlod and eHalycon ##
So let me see if I understand this:
Outcome of round 1: Fail or Pass. 2 Players involved.
There is a 33% chance that one of you is a spy. If we fail, then we have 2 *may be spies*, and 4 *don't know*. If we pass, most likely we have 2 Resistance, and 4 *don't know* (Although a spy may pass a first round mission to cover himself for future rounds).
Round 2, we have to send half the team. If we fail round 1 and round 2, then we are one win away from loosing, and sending a whopping FOUR round 3. In the case that we failed round 1, well, things seem bad. Do we choose 3 from the remaining 4 and risk two early failures (since unless BOTH were spies round 1, there is a 75% of hitting a spy by choosing 3 new members of the remaining 4), or try to pick the Resistance member from the first mission and add 2 new faces? Like I said, failing both would be catastrophic.
If we pass round 1, do we aim to keep the same two and add a third member (seems to be the safest?), or do we consider there may have been a spy bluffing?
Ah!! I don't know. :'( I can't see much to be gained from NOT letting the early mission go through. Unless you play this out like Mafia looking for tells until you have to vote? But here we gain actual useful information by a pass/fail, and with just 2 going out, our odds of passing will never be higher (until we can eliminate possible spies from future missions).
Thoughts? Am I understanding this correctly?
I don't really want to check over the math, but the logic seems about right. However, as part of the Resistance, it's advantageous for us to vote no more often than not. Here's an article about it (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/666247/the-power-of-no-and-playing-irrationally-how-they).
Keep in mind that, although we don't know the roles of the others, we do know our own roles. That means that, if you are a RO, you know the mission has a better chance of success if YOU are on the mission yourself. For that reason, I will be voting yes for this mission proposal. However, if WoG had not picked me, I would vote no. If the proposal then fails, we get MORE information with which to pick out spies: who voted for the team to go through. Of course, the spies will probably try to vote as much like RO as they can, but they may slip up.
An important rule that I don't think was mentioned above: if team proposal fails FIVE times in a row, the spies automatically win. This makes cards like No Confidence extremely powerful, so be careful with the power you now wield, Galzria.
## I want a clarification from Tables -- Votes on mission proposals are to be PM'd directly to you, correct? The reason is that those votes are supposed to be revealed simultaneously (unless someone has Opinion Maker). Also, can you verify the rule I mentioned above? I may have remembered it incorrectly, or perhaps you prefer running a variant.
I can understand that, however I think it's fair to note that the spies will be playing the same way (as you point out). They will be voting "no" until a mission is proposed with a spy in it. This last sentence is VERY important because they DO have more information than us. They know who their fellow spy is. So they don't HAVE to wait for themselves to get chosen as a mission operative.
Also, it was my understanding ##And clarification would be nice, that mission assignment votes were public, but mission success votes were private? Is this correct? Do we cast assignment votes here (I believe this was the case), or in a PM to Tables, who will reveal at the time all are cast? Can a vote be changed once cast (up until Table's either posts or recognizes the the acceptance/denial of mission assignments)?
-
I can understand that, however I think it's fair to note that the spies will be playing the same way (as you point out). They will be voting "no" until a mission is proposed with a spy in it. This last sentence is VERY important because they DO have more information than us. They know who their fellow spy is. So they don't HAVE to wait for themselves to get chosen as a mission operative.
Yes. This is one of the slip-ups that we can find. If someone votes YES on a team they are not on, perhaps they are a Spy sending a fellow Spy on a mission! (Or maybe they're just messing with everyone.)
Also, it was my understanding ##And clarification would be nice, that mission assignment votes were public, but mission success votes were private? Is this correct? Do we cast assignment votes here (I believe this was the case), or in a PM to Tables, who will reveal at the time all are cast? Can a vote be changed once cast (up until Table's either posts or recognizes the the acceptance/denial of mission assignments)?
In the official IRL game, mission assignment votes are cast publicly but simultaneously. If this were not the case, the Opinion Maker plot card would be meaningless. In a forum setting, the only way to ensure simultaneity is to PM the mod, who can post all votes at once (with names attached). Mission success votes are private and secret, of course -- you don't see who voted what.
Official votes should not be change-able, but I believe we can discuss what we intend to vote without it being binding. Above, I said that I would vote yes on this proposal. We can continue to discuss it and I might change my mind in the end. That's very unlikely in the first round though. Similarly, if I'm not on the team, I will probably vote No straight through to the fifth proposal.
Oh, except that I would say to pass it on the FOURTH right now, because Galzria holds No Confidence. If he's a spy and we end up in a fifth vote, Galzria could use it to end the game immediately (assuming that that rule is in effect).
-
Oh, great. :-\ So the result of the first mission will rest on who *I* choose (leader #4)... :'(
-
Perhaps it should be noted (for valuable information or not), that WoG DID choose me to give the Plot Card to, knowing that IF I were a spy and it got to vote 5, I could end the game. It is important because he would have known before assigning the plot card that I was leader #4.
-
Perhaps it should be noted (for valuable information or not), that WoG DID choose me to give the Plot Card to, knowing that IF I were a spy and it got to vote 5, I could end the game. It is important because he would have known before assigning the plot card that I was leader #4.
That is, if he is a spy, you might also be a spy? :P
While it still matters (why wouldn't a spy give a power card to another spy? to throw people off?), the 5-fail rule doesn't indicate anything here because (unless I'm seriously failing at reading) it isn't in the OP. WoG might not have known about the rule.
Also, the vote might *not* go all the way to vote 4. It depends on the temperament of the group.
-
Perhaps it should be noted (for valuable information or not), that WoG DID choose me to give the Plot Card to, knowing that IF I were a spy and it got to vote 5, I could end the game. It is important because he would have known before assigning the plot card that I was leader #4.
That is, if he is a spy, you might also be a spy? :P
While it still matters (why wouldn't a spy give a power card to another spy? to throw people off?), the 5-fail rule doesn't indicate anything here because (unless I'm seriously failing at reading) it isn't in the OP. WoG might not have known about the rule.
Also, the vote might *not* go all the way to vote 4. It depends on the temperament of the group.
Haha. I'm honestly not even sure! X.x I just thought that perhaps it might not be coincidence and might be worth noting.
Anyway, I know many of our members (well, Robz in particular) don't post until later at night, so I'll shush up for awhile and let others have their input. I've noted before though, I live on the forums now, so I'm never more than a simple click-of-the-heels away. ::)
-
Hi everybody! Wow. Off to the races again! This is good, though, both Mafia games are in night right now.
Okay, I think I get it. Well, I get it, though I'm not sure about strategic considerations. So, I'm going last to be Leader, which means I absolutely won't be Leader before we vote down 5 teams and lose the game. So every team is pretty much the same to me--because I don't get to pick it--so wouldn't I just vote yes here?
Or wait, I want to vote yes when I'm on the team! Right? Do I? If everybody did that we would never agree on a team, though.
-
Hi everybody! Wow. Off to the races again! This is good, though, both Mafia games are in night right now.
Okay, I think I get it. Well, I get it, though I'm not sure about strategic considerations. So, I'm going last to be Leader, which means I absolutely won't be Leader before we vote down 5 teams and lose the game. So every team is pretty much the same to me--because I don't get to pick it--so wouldn't I just vote yes here?
Or wait, I want to vote yes when I'm on the team! Right? Do I? If everybody did that we would never agree on a team, though.
I'm just going by stuff I've read. I only learned the game about a week ago (a friend mentioned it and I was interested because of the thread that started this game off) and I went and read some theory and stuff. Might be safer to go read that thread I linked, and maybe search for others if you're interested.
Typically you wouldn't end up voting 5 teams down unless the spies manage to pull some shenanigans usually involving Plot Cards (specifically No Confidence and Strong Leader). It's *usually* safe enough to vote down 4 teams and approve the 5th. The presence of No Confidence means that, until it is used, we can safely vote down 3 but then we'd have to approve the 4th.
-
How long am I able to hold onto a Plot card unplayed? Until the end of a round... or until I play it?
-
How long am I able to hold onto a Plot card unplayed? Until the end of a round... or until I play it?
Of the plot cards in this game, Opinion Maker is permanent and Take Responsibility is immediate use. The others can be held onto until you want to use them, and they are single-use.
Take Responsibility forces you to immediately take someone else's plot card. This is the only way that Opinion Maker can be moved.
-
So, uh, TINAS is the mafia! (Oops, wrong game.) TINAS is a spy! There we go.
-
Not a lot of chatter today. I think everyone has checked in except Morgrim. Sooo, what's new? Oh, and for the record, Robz is much to crafty. Don't listen to anything he says. He's the spy.
-
Not a lot of chatter today. I think everyone has checked in except Morgrim. Sooo, what's new? Oh, and for the record, Robz is much to crafty. Don't listen to anything he says. He's the spy.
I feel like I've posted more than my fair share so far. ;) Is it quiet because of the long weekend? I'm Canadian so I got my long weekend last week.
Mostly I'm just waiting for clarification from Tables right now.
-
Not a lot of chatter today. I think everyone has checked in except Morgrim. Sooo, what's new? Oh, and for the record, Robz is much to crafty. Don't listen to anything he says. He's the spy.
I feel like I've posted more than my fair share so far. ;) Is it quiet because of the long weekend? I'm Canadian so I got my long weekend last week.
Mostly I'm just waiting for clarification from Tables right now.
Same. I think I've got enough of an understanding about what I'm supposed to do... Once I'm 100% clear on how to do it. :)
And the long weekend might be the culprit. Not too sure really.
-
Checking in. There is nothing to post about. No suspects… yet… -sigh-
-
So, uh, TINAS is the mafia! (Oops, wrong game.) TINAS is a spy! There we go.
To be fair I probably am.
-
So, uh, TINAS is the mafia! (Oops, wrong game.) TINAS is a spy! There we go.
To be fair I probably am.
A real Spy would never say this, so I think you're clear.
Unless that's what you want me to think. :o
Although waiting on Tables' clarification, maybe we can proceed on the assumption that, for the purpose of simultaneous reveal, we should PM him our votes on the team proposal. I'll go do that now.
-
So, uh, TINAS is the mafia! (Oops, wrong game.) TINAS is a spy! There we go.
To be fair I probably am.
So you admit it then? ;) Good thing I'm not.
-
5. Please bold and double hashtag ## all requests to the Mod so that they don’t get missed. This includes all final actions (giving out plot cards, proposing a team, public vote if you have Opinion Maker).
Re-read a bit more carefully and noticed this line. Since it specifically mentions "public vote if you have Opinion Maker", the implication is that regular votes are private. :)
-
from experience*
(## Are we allowed to edit posts in this game?)
Apologies for the delay. Board Games weekend at Uni and other things mean not online much. Please do not edit posts in this game. If you must, make a correction post to clarify what you mean. If you let something slip or word something in a bad way and post, tough.
An important rule that I don't think was mentioned above: if team proposal fails FIVE times in a row, the spies automatically win. This makes cards like No Confidence extremely powerful, so be careful with the power you now wield, Galzria.
This rule is correct. The resistance MUST choose a team by the 5th proposal each round, or the resistance fails from the lack of leadership
Also didn't quote the question, but Yes, PM votes to me.
-
As there were outstanding questions regarding voting, voting will close 48 hours from the above post, that is, 0:31 GMT on 29th May (Monday night/Tuesday morning).
Proposal: WrathOfGlod, eHalcyon
-
For the record, everyone here is more likely to be a spy than me. Unless they're not. Then TINAS is. Except for when it's Robz. Although it might be Morgrim. But only if eHalcyon is his partner. And once you understand that, you'll know WoG can't be trusted.
I'm ready to vote.
-
## Tables, can you also clarify this?
I was also wondering how free we are to discuss what we intend to vote. I'm still quite new to the game and Opinion Maker doesn't seem to be particularly significant to me because we can also discuss anyways, can't we? Granted, our pre-vote talk isn't binding, but it would be rather damning if someone said one thing and then voted the other way.
-
## Tables, can you also clarify this?
I was also wondering how free we are to discuss what we intend to vote. I'm still quite new to the game and Opinion Maker doesn't seem to be particularly significant to me because we can also discuss anyways, can't we? Granted, our pre-vote talk isn't binding, but it would be rather damning if someone said one thing and then voted the other way.
For clarity, my question is:
## Can we make public what we intend to vote, even when we don't have Opinion Maker?
-
The answer is yes. We can say anything we want. I am voting against this mission.
-
I suppose I will vote against this mission, solely because that seems like the popular thing to do.
-
Tables, is there some way you would like us to note this? For instance, maybe this convention would help:
Vote 1.1 -- Robz88: Against
If I understand correctly the votes for/against approving the team will be publicly revealed by you?
-
Oh, and... I suspect Morgrim is the spy. We should kill him.
-
I can dig that. WoG didn't pick me, so I don't trust the odds.
-
Your discussion about votes is pretty free, yes. Obviously you can claim to vote one way in the thread, and vote another in private, just as you could sit at the table with a no card ready and claim you want the mission to go ahead.
As long as your vote in the PM is clear, I don't really care about the format. I'm transferring it to a spreadsheet which just has yes/no's anyway. It WOULD be helpful if you said the mission number, as then I don't need to double check the thread to make sure it wasn't a vote from the previous mission or something else silly (if missions get proposed very quickly one after the other this could happen, otherwise it shouldn't matter), but it's not a rule. The format for votes when I post them should be very transparent.
-
Oh, and... I suspect Morgrim is the spy. We should kill him.
-Sigh-. If I defend myself I will become a suspect. If I do not, I become a suspect. Personally, I think WoG is a spy.
(WoG, you are supposed to turn around and say you think someone totally random is a spy. And on and on and on.)
-
Oh, and... I suspect Morgrim is the spy. We should kill him.
There aren't eliminations in The Resistance. :)
I would suggest specifying in the PM the specific team members that are being proposed, since there can be multiple proposals for a given round. Unless we have a format for mission number, like (round).(proposal) as proposed by Robz888?
-
Hey guys if you just say I'm a spy I will take all of the flack and then somehow get away with it anyway and then turn out to be the best damn guy ever and win it for everyone (apart from the baddies). So yeah, do that.
(Also it is 1.30 AM and I am still drunk and buzzing from an all day music festival so ignore anything I say/have said tonight and probably tomorrow too)
-
Personally, I titled my message:
Resistance: Mission 1, Assignment 1:
-
Personally, I titled my message:
Resistance: Mission 1, Assignment 1:
Pshhaw. Properly follow proper protocols.
-
My choices here were pretty much chosen randomly, as the first leader I have absolutely no information to go on (except I chose myself because I know that I'm resistance). However the first mission is pretty safe if the leader chooses himself. We have the following possibilities
Spy,Spy= Probable fail in the mission but probable win in the game
Spy,Resistance (leader Spy)= The spy pretty much has to pass the mission or else he'll spend the rest of the game unmasked
Spy,Resistance (leader Resistance)=Highest probability of failure but the spy can cast suspicion on the leader
Resistance,Resistance=Pass
So the first mission should usually succeed regardless of who chooses it. Even if we are forced into accepting a spy's proposal on vote 4.
-
Oh, and... I suspect Morgrim is the spy. We should kill him.
There aren't eliminations in The Resistance. :)
It's tragic how often an accident happens when a fellow resistance member is untrusted.
-
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
-
# I propose Morgrim7 and Thisisnotasmile #
-
Morgrim, why did you vote yes to the first proposal?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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!
-
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 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!
-
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". :)
-
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. :P
Nonetheless, not worth the risk!
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
Reply #66 was directed at Robz and TINAS, btw.
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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. :P
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.
-
Uh, why?
-
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.
;)
-
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.
-
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.
In all honesty? I don't know. Just the feeling I got when I read your response. 40% Resistance is still a lot though, and certainly not low enough for me not to bring you in if I feel I need to. I've looked over all the odds, and I can't fathom how else we are supposed to get things in our favor. This may not rely quite as heavily on instinct and feeling as Mafia does to out the opposition, but there still seems to be some level of it here.
-
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. :P
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.
So you think there are 2.55 spies?
-
I voted against the proposal in part to get some more information in the game (we still have 2 votes we can safely reject if need be) and also so that I wouldn't be the last in line for the leadership in the next round (as a resistance member I want to be sure that the third or fourth leadership position isn't a spy)
-
In all honesty? I don't know. Just the feeling I got when I read your response. 40% Resistance is still a lot though, and certainly not low enough for me not to bring you in if I feel I need to. I've looked over all the odds, and I can't fathom how else we are supposed to get things in our favor. This may not rely quite as heavily on instinct and feeling as Mafia does to out the opposition, but there still seems to be some level of it here.
It's all about the plot cards. Be careful who you give them to, who you use them on. Watch who gives the cards to who and try to figure out why they did it. Is it a Spy helping a Spy? A Spy framing a RO? A RO investigating a suspected Spy? A RO completely at a loss?
There's absolutely instinct, but there's also a great deal of real information available to pick apart.
-
I'm not particularly inclined to assign percentages to people, but FWIW Galzria's suggestion actually made me slightly less suspicious of him being a Spy, because asking people to fail the fourth mission while he holds No Confidence is such a TERRIBLE move as a Spy.
-
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".
Even if we get to Galzria's leadership we are safe
If he is spy- There are 4 votes to pass mission
If he is resistance-Vote may fail but he won't play no-confidence
-
I'm not particularly inclined to assign percentages to people, but FWIW Galzria's suggestion actually made me slightly less suspicious of him being a Spy, because asking people to fail the fourth mission while he holds No Confidence is such a TERRIBLE move as a Spy.
Well (and not to contradict you, as you're right on both counts. I'm resistance, and it would be a TERRIBLE spy move), like I pointed out... I NEVER really bothered to actually TRY and convince anybody. I know that would be futile. But throwing the idea out there was fun anyway. :P
Oh, and FWIW, I *DID* think about how fun it would be to actually BE a spy, GET you all to vote down assignment proposal #4, and then NOT play it, just to drag out the game with a false-confidence in me. ;D
-
No action here lately, whats up everyone? I believe this is our last day to vote?
Edit for typo.
-
Not sure. I've cast. Not much more for me to do.
-
No action here lately, whats up everyone? I believe this is our last day to vote?
Edit for typo.
No editing! :)
I cast yesterday. I don't think we'll have much real discussion until after the first mission, which means we (likely) have two more votes to go through. We had some fun banter at the start but now we're just waiting...
Maybe if we were all online simultaneously, we could sweep through these early votes quickly? Or maybe Tables would prefer to keep the given deadlines. There was something about doing it to give spies enough time to make non-trivial decisions.
-
Re-read deadline rules. That part only applies to voting on mission success/failure. So if we were all online at once, we could sweep through the votes.
-
Vote 1.2 is in
Mission 1.2:
Team: Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile,
Yes: Morgrim7,
No: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, eHalcyon, Robz888,
Result: Yes - 1, No - 5
Proposal Fails
Thisisnotasmile has 5 days to propose a mission
-
TINAS, why did you vote against the mission when you were on the mission?
-
Because he's TINAS! ;)
Probably because he knew he was in control on vote #3, and wanted that more than being included by someone else. Plus, the further he can get the leadership to move during Mission 1, the sooner it'll get back to him in later missions when it could matter.
-
Because Morgrim did something earlier that made me think he was a Spy. I think. Will check and propose a mission later.
-
OR at least he made me think he was more Spy than standard odds. I certainly have no reason to believe anyone is a Spy with any confidence yet.
-
Because Morgrim did something earlier that made me think he was a Spy. I think. Will check and propose a mission later.
Ooh, now you've piqued my curiosity!
-
Okay I checked just for you. It's because he voted yes for the first mission that he was not on. Still not proposing my mission yet though. Anyone want to convince me to choose them to go with me?
-
Interesting. If I went with you now, I could start Mission 2 as leader.
Hmm... If you want success, I'm a good choice, but I can't prove that to you now. Still, I think I would prefer to pick the two operatives. So I'm likely to vote "no" regardless, since I don't think you would be MY first choice at the moment. So I would rather have leadership.
-
Okay I checked just for you. It's because he voted yes for the first mission that he was not on. Still not proposing my mission yet though. Anyone want to convince me to choose them to go with me?
As a group we're likely to vote it down anyways, so it's not a big deal. :P Might as well propose anyone so we can move onward.
I'd try to convince you to take me, but I'm really not sure how. And if you're suspicious of Morgrim because he voted yes, you should have the same suspicion for both me and WoG since we were the team that was proposed.
My suspicions are similar. Morgrim because he voted yes when he wasn't on the team. WoG because he was on that team. Robz because of his comment that he was voting no on the first team because it was "the popular thing to do". Galzria because of his "let's vote down mission 4 while I have no confidence".
TINAS, you're the only one I think who hasn't done anything suspicious... and maybe that's suspicious in itself. ;)
But everything is easily explained away. Galzria didn't actually try to convince people that they should vote that way -- he just said that if it happened, he would be proven Resistance afterwards. Robz' comment is actually fairly innocuous. Morgrim might just want to move things forward, and if that's the case there is no reason to suspect WoG either.
-
I voted down the mission because the resistance wants as much info as possible while staying safe. Because the dangers of a spy leading the first mission are low I plan to vote against ThisIsNotASmile's mission and then vote for Galzria's (obviously)
-
Okay I checked just for you. It's because he voted yes for the first mission that he was not on. Still not proposing my mission yet though. Anyone want to convince me to choose them to go with me?
How do you think missions will be approved if we only approve missions we are on? We will have to approve one someday, and if it fails, we will learn something. If it suceeds, we know that those two are not spies, and we have one mission under your belt.
-
Okay I checked just for you. It's because he voted yes for the first mission that he was not on. Still not proposing my mission yet though. Anyone want to convince me to choose them to go with me?
How do you think missions will be approved if we only approve missions we are on? We will have to approve one someday, and if it fails, we will learn something. If it suceeds, we know that those two are not spies, and we have one mission under your belt.
No we don't know that they aren't spies
-
Okay I checked just for you. It's because he voted yes for the first mission that he was not on. Still not proposing my mission yet though. Anyone want to convince me to choose them to go with me?
How do you think missions will be approved if we only approve missions we are on? We will have to approve one someday, and if it fails, we will learn something. If it suceeds, we know that those two are not spies, and we have one mission under your belt.
No we don't know that they aren't spies
Very true. They could vote for the mission to fool people...
-
Okay I checked just for you. It's because he voted yes for the first mission that he was not on. Still not proposing my mission yet though. Anyone want to convince me to choose them to go with me?
How do you think missions will be approved if we only approve missions we are on? We will have to approve one someday, and if it fails, we will learn something. If it suceeds, we know that those two are not spies, and we have one mission under your belt.
Remember that the Resistance loses if it rejects 5 proposals in a row, so we will approve a mission eventually.
In general we wait until we must approve, which normally means the fifth proposal. But taking into account active plot cards, we'll be approving the 4th one, Galzria's mission, whomever he chooses.
-
## I propose myself and Robz888
(And I don't think you're going to get a better proposition than that seeing as we're forced into accepting Galzira's mission next, and he wants us to vote it down so he can insta-win for the spies.)
-
## I propose myself and Robz888
(And I don't think you're going to get a better proposition than that seeing as we're forced into accepting Galzira's mission next, and he wants us to vote it down so he can insta-win for the spies.)
This... this is a compelling argument. But I'm still back and forth on Galzria. I mean, yes he said that, and yes it's suspicious, but it's just so terrible that it makes me think he isn't a spy. :-\
Still, I think I'm more interested in who he picks to go with him.
-
Once again TINAS, a complete twist in what I actually said. Bravo.
Now, shall I make the point again, or is the time spent wasted on a determined spy? What I said was "If I'm given the chance, I can prove I'm resistance." Not "Give me the chance to prove I'm resistance". Very subtle difference that I'm sure you would love for people to overlook. I made it quite clear that I expect the proposal #4 to go through. Hence why I'll be sure to be going. Still, at least I'm confident of who NOT to take now, so thanks for helping the Resistance out.
-
I support this team!
-
Me too!
-
I don't trust Morgrim's support for every team offered
-
I don't either, but he's been consistent and transparent about it. He's clearly (and on multiple occasions) stated his reason for voting yes. So overall, while I don't think it's smart play, I don't think he's a spy either.
-
I don't either, but he's been consistent and transparent about it. He's clearly (and on multiple occasions) stated his reason for voting yes. So overall, while I don't think it's smart play, I don't think he's a spy either.
I think he's just being an oddball Resistance player in the same way that he is an oddball Mafia player. Hard to say though.
I haven't found his explanation particularly clear. How many times has he explained? Looking back now, I see two instances. The first is reply 54, immediately after the first vote. I didn't find it satisfactory and when I expressed my confusion (reply 55), he didn't clarify. Rather, it was you (Galzria) who tried to explain his explanation in reply 56.
The other explanation is in reply 96, and it seems similar, I guess.
Morgrim, can you clarify your approval for every mission? As far as I can tell, you're voting yes because you don't think the failed votes offer much information and you want to get a move on.
This isn't true though. One useful bit of information is seeing the teams that leaders choose.
And while it isn't a HUGE problem at this early stage, it can be crucial in the future when a team is on the cusp of victory.
-
What is the point of not supporting them? You do not achieve anything by not supporting. We will have to accept one sometime, or the spies get a point. FWIW, I approved this one too.
-
What is the point of not supporting them? You do not achieve anything by not supporting. We will have to accept one sometime, or the spies get a point. FWIW, I approved this one too.
That's been explained though -- you either want yourself on the mission, to improve chances of success, or you want to wait it out to get more information.
I think there is a misunderstanding now, as well. You said "or the spies get a point". Please note that if we don't approve a team by the fifth vote, the spies don't just get one point. They win the entire game.
-
Vote 1.3 has ended
Mission 1.3:
Team: Thisisnotasmile, Robz888,
Yes: Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, Robz888,
No: WrathOfGlod, Galzria, eHalcyon,
Result: Yes - 3, No - 3
Proposal Fails
Leadership passes to Galzria, who has 5 days to make a proposal.
-
What is the point of not supporting them? You do not achieve anything by not supporting. We will have to accept one sometime, or the spies get a point. FWIW, I approved this one too.
That's been explained though -- you either want yourself on the mission, to improve chances of success, or you want to wait it out to get more information.
I think there is a misunderstanding now, as well. You said "or the spies get a point". Please note that if we don't approve a team by the fifth vote, the spies don't just get one point. They win the entire game.
hmm makes sense. Are the votes (if the mission is approved) revealed to the public?
-
## I propose Galzria and eHalcyon
-
So this is the one we HAVE to approve, right, because of Galzria's card?
-
Pretty much. Unless you feel inclined to test my faith early, which you (I would think) have little reason to do.
-
Pretty much. Unless you feel inclined to test my faith early, which you (I would think) have little reason to do.
Now we are at the mercy of this mad man...
-
;D
-
Actually, I alluded to that earlier when I wondered if giving me the NC vote was deliberate by WoG knowing I would be 4th leader. It's that thought that kept me from choosing him.
-
Vote 1.4 results are in
Mission 1.4:
Team: Galzria, eHalcyon,
Yes: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, eHalcyon, Robz888,
No: Galzria,
Result: Yes - 5, No - 1
Proposal passes
Any spies on this mission, you have 24 hours to make your choice. Any resistance members, you will automatically co-operate
You all have 24 hours to talk and whatever, as I won't post results early.
(Also if people haven't seen it, all votes and other public information are in the second post. You might find it useful as a reference etc..)
-
Actually, I alluded to that earlier when I wondered if giving me the NC vote was deliberate by WoG knowing I would be 4th leader. It's that thought that kept me from choosing him.
I didn't really think carefully when I gave you the card it really was random
-
This is close enough to deadline and what the heck, every order (if any exist) is in.
Mission 1 is now over
Mission 1 Results
Co-operate
Co-operate
Mission succeeds. Score is now Resistance - 1, Spy - 0
Leadership passes to eHalcyon, who draws the plot card Opinion Maker
eHalcyon, you have 5 days to give Opinion Maker to another player, and 6 days to propose a team for mission 2 (3 people)
-
Oh, no.... the dread Opinion Maker! Um, we want to give it to a spy, right?
-
Oh, no.... the dread Opinion Maker! Um, we want to give it to a spy, right?
I'm actually not sure. Opinion Maker seems like one of the least interesting cards to me. I was hoping for something more fun to give out, like Strong Leader or Keeping a Close Eye. :P
The only person I don't really want to give it to is Morgrim, just because he's probably going to keep voting yes to everything. Any suggestions?
-
Suggestions request goes out to everyone. And those who are experienced with Resistance, I'd appreciate a lesson on strategy surrounding the card.
-
Suggestions request goes out to everyone. And those who are experienced with Resistance, I'd appreciate a lesson on strategy surrounding the card.
I think you would want to give it to the person whose votes have been the strangest.
-
Hold on e, let me see if I can find an article.
-
Hold on e, let me see if I can find an article.
I've found a couple but none have been super convincing to me. Since we're all free to say what we want to anyway, the only thing it really does is prevent people from lying about what they'll vote, right? But lying would be a dumb move anyway.
-
Well, got this, though it doesn't cover WHY:
" Very powerful card. If given to a spy, the spy has fewer options. If given to a suspicious Resistance member, and this often happens, it can provide cover for spy voting. If given to a trusted Resistance member, it can be bad for spies. A double edged sword for sure."
-
Source for above:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/673334/opinion-maker-card
-
Yeah, saw that. No explanation makes it difficult. In any case, I don't have strong suspicions of anyone. TINAS remains least suspicious to me, but not by a huge margin. Everyone still looks relatively neutral and we've all been pretty quiet here.
-
Man, now I'm bored with both Mafia threads closed!
eHalcyon, it's shocking that I can't find more info. There's a great post about how to play spy that mentions it, but only that it's super good for Resistance, and how to negate it's effects if placed on a known spy.
My thought then is that it should go on a known Resistance, but outside myself, whom you can't really trust, and without putting it on yourself, I don't know what to tell you.
-
Looking for insight from more experienced players. WoG maybe (since he started the original "let's play Resistance" thread, I think?) and TINAS, I think? Of course, if either is a spy, the suggestion they give is inherently suspect. But I'd like to hear from everyone. I mean, I can certainly random it, but I also want to get better at this game and Strong Opinion is something I'm unsure of how to handle.
-
Opinion Maker is very meh, in my opinion. Everyone who has a strong opinion is up-front about how they are voting anyway, and nobody would say one thing and do something else because that's just stupid. Anyone who doesn't express an opinion will then be grilled on their vote if it comes out unexpected. I guess the best thing to do (in terms of actually making a difference) would be to give it to someone quiet who would otherwise follow the crowd. It forces them to think for themselves and stop blending in to the background.
-
Looking for insight from more experienced players. WoG maybe (since he started the original "let's play Resistance" thread, I think?) and TINAS, I think? Of course, if either is a spy, the suggestion they give is inherently suspect. But I'd like to hear from everyone. I mean, I can certainly random it, but I also want to get better at this game and Strong Opinion is something I'm unsure of how to handle.
I'm not experienced (played Resistance twice) I would say that Morgrim might be a good choice just because his no votes are likely going to be especially meaningful
-
##I give the Strong Opinion plot card to Morgrim7. Even though he's probably going to vote yes on everything... ???
## I propose eHalcyon, Thisisnotasmile and Robz888 for mission 2. Let's go team! We've got Tunnels to collapse, King's Courts to overthrow...
Morgrim -- you're gonna have to vote first now, and publicly on this board!
-
Can we discuss before he votes?
-
Can we discuss before he votes?
Yes we can.
-
Well, I support this team.
-
Well, I support this team.
I should clarify: Because it includes someone who was on the previous successful mission, and it includes me.
-
Generally, I should vote No, if it doesn't include me, and contains someone I believe might be a spy, correct? But I'll never have leader this round, so if I vote yes and we lose, it gives us valuable information (eHalcyon could be spy, hiding first mission, or one of TINAS/Robz is - or a combination thereof).
What's the better move for me here? I would rather go up 2-0, so wait and hope to hit a pairing of my liking, but going 1-1 doesn't seen like the end of the world for us either. I'm so confused. ???
I'm leaning towards no, but am not sure.
-
Maybe I should have given it to someone more active. :-\
I would PM Morgrim to get a move on but I think that falls into illegal private communication territory.
## Tables, maybe you can give him a bump? :)
-
Yes, this is worrying. I'll give him a bump now. Sorry it's been so long, busy and then the forum went down for me earlier as I tried to check the game.
-
While waiting for Opinion Maker to resolve, feel free to send conditional orders depending on the OM's vote (e.g. Yes regardless, Yes if he votes yes, no if he votes no etc.). After this round (from 2.2 or 3.1 onwards), the Opinion Maker will have 48 hours to cast their vote - if they fail to do so, it will default to NO after that 48 hours. Everyone will have 48 hours to vote as well from the start of the vote, or 24 hours after the OM votes, whichever is longer
-
Sorry about the delay…
Anyway, Vote: Disapprove
I wanna be on the team.
-
Sorry about the delay…
Anyway, Vote: Disapprove
I wanna be on the team.
Well... that's different. Maybe I should have sent Tables conditionals after all.
## Can we change our vote even though one has already been sent?
But I guess I'll let my current vote stand.
-
I have no problems with votes being changed.
-
Vote 2.1 is in
Mission 2.1:
Team: Thisisnotasmile, eHalcyon, Robz888,
Yes: Robz888,
No: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, eHalcyon,
Result: Yes - 1, No - 5
Proposal Fails
Leadership passes to Robz888. Robz, you have 5 days to propose a team
-
So I'm not sure if people have reads on anyone yet. I know that TINAS and Galzria were rather antagonistic earlier, though it's understandable on both sides.
For my part, TINAS has looked least scummy (to borrow Mafia terms) so far. Galzria and Morgrim have both been a little off, but only a little. Galzria because of "if we get to mission 5 I won't veto and prove myself RO" (and I know it was just a passing comment, not a full out suggestion -- not gonna twist that ;) ) and Morgrim because of his many "yes" votes. I was mostly neutral on WoG and Robz.
I proposed TINAS and Robz hoping to see something interesting from the votes re: Robz. I included TINAS because of my RO read on him. Didn't want to pick Morgrim because I expected him to say yes either way. I was inclined to exclude Galzria as well just because he it would be too easy to vote yes for it (given that we were both on the mission 1 success). Then, it was just a toss up between Robz and WoG.
And I got more than I thought I would.
Suspicion on Galzria is *slightly* up now, because of this post:
Generally, I should vote No, if it doesn't include me, and contains someone I believe might be a spy, correct? But I'll never have leader this round, so if I vote yes and we lose, it gives us valuable information (eHalcyon could be spy, hiding first mission, or one of TINAS/Robz is - or a combination thereof).
What's the better move for me here? I would rather go up 2-0, so wait and hope to hit a pairing of my liking, but going 1-1 doesn't seen like the end of the world for us either. I'm so confused. ???
I'm leaning towards no, but am not sure.
Galzria, IMO, I don't see any reason why you should have voted yes. Indeed, if the mission goes through and it gets red-carded, you do get information. But as we said earlier (I think?) this holds true whether you accept the first mission or the fifth mission. In the meanwhile, holding off on missions gets us MORE data.
But that's not all. Earlier on you very rather against TINAS, so why wouldn't that continue into today? If you meant what you said, it would make a lot of sense to vote AGAINST this mission, just to keep TINAS off the team.
All that said, I can imagine a few reasonable explanations for your questions, which is why I think it only makes you a bit more suspicious. I really want to see your response.
MUCH more interesting thing that happened -- Morgrim votes NO for the first time and says that he wants to be on the team. This is a strange change from his mission 1 vote pattern. What happened? I see two major possible explanations. The first is that our arguments during the first mission (or maybe just Opinion Maker) convinced him to vote with greater care. The second explanation... Morgrim could be a spy.
On the first day, Spy Morgrim doesn't really care who goes on the mission. He votes yes to everything. If the team passes, great -- less information available to the rest of us. Otherwise, it doesn't really make a difference to him.
But now, the Resistance is up by 1. It would majorly suck for the Spies to be down 2-0. For all he knows, TINAS and I were going to approve the team since we were included (and Robz had already publicly voiced his intent to approve). If he voted yes as well, the team would go through with at least 4/6 approving. If there are no spies on that team, well, the safe thing to do is to vote NO and hope the team that is eventually approved has at least one Spy on it.
Therefore I am inclined to trust both TINAS and Robz a little more.
Morgrim, any comments on this?
-
So I'm not sure if people have reads on anyone yet. I know that TINAS and Galzria were rather antagonistic earlier, though it's understandable on both sides.
For my part, TINAS has looked least scummy (to borrow Mafia terms) so far. Galzria and Morgrim have both been a little off, but only a little. Galzria because of "if we get to mission 5 I won't veto and prove myself RO" (and I know it was just a passing comment, not a full out suggestion -- not gonna twist that ;) ) and Morgrim because of his many "yes" votes. I was mostly neutral on WoG and Robz.
I proposed TINAS and Robz hoping to see something interesting from the votes re: Robz. I included TINAS because of my RO read on him. Didn't want to pick Morgrim because I expected him to say yes either way. I was inclined to exclude Galzria as well just because he it would be too easy to vote yes for it (given that we were both on the mission 1 success). Then, it was just a toss up between Robz and WoG.
And I got more than I thought I would.
Suspicion on Galzria is *slightly* up now, because of this post:
Generally, I should vote No, if it doesn't include me, and contains someone I believe might be a spy, correct? But I'll never have leader this round, so if I vote yes and we lose, it gives us valuable information (eHalcyon could be spy, hiding first mission, or one of TINAS/Robz is - or a combination thereof).
What's the better move for me here? I would rather go up 2-0, so wait and hope to hit a pairing of my liking, but going 1-1 doesn't seen like the end of the world for us either. I'm so confused. ???
I'm leaning towards no, but am not sure.
Galzria, IMO, I don't see any reason why you should have voted yes. Indeed, if the mission goes through and it gets red-carded, you do get information. But as we said earlier (I think?) this holds true whether you accept the first mission or the fifth mission. In the meanwhile, holding off on missions gets us MORE data.
But that's not all. Earlier on you very rather against TINAS, so why wouldn't that continue into today? If you meant what you said, it would make a lot of sense to vote AGAINST this mission, just to keep TINAS off the team.
All that said, I can imagine a few reasonable explanations for your questions, which is why I think it only makes you a bit more suspicious. I really want to see your response.
MUCH more interesting thing that happened -- Morgrim votes NO for the first time and says that he wants to be on the team. This is a strange change from his mission 1 vote pattern. What happened? I see two major possible explanations. The first is that our arguments during the first mission (or maybe just Opinion Maker) convinced him to vote with greater care. The second explanation... Morgrim could be a spy.
On the first day, Spy Morgrim doesn't really care who goes on the mission. He votes yes to everything. If the team passes, great -- less information available to the rest of us. Otherwise, it doesn't really make a difference to him.
But now, the Resistance is up by 1. It would majorly suck for the Spies to be down 2-0. For all he knows, TINAS and I were going to approve the team since we were included (and Robz had already publicly voiced his intent to approve). If he voted yes as well, the team would go through with at least 4/6 approving. If there are no spies on that team, well, the safe thing to do is to vote NO and hope the team that is eventually approved has at least one Spy on it.
Therefore I am inclined to trust both TINAS and Robz a little more.
Morgrim, any comments on this?
I think you have a point with Morgrim, I personally am interested in seeing his vote for the next mission which doesn't include him. I also think that I will probably vote yes on the next mission (unless it looks overly scummy) because as a resistance member control over the plot card is pretty important
-
Well, you could play yourself out of a game that way. My question was honest. I have no real clue what I'm doing. I'll probably use my NC vote on the first mission that passes that kim not on, because I don't have any clue when better to use it. I've tried on multiple occasions to ask for advice and gotten none, so at this point I'm just going with whatever my instinct tells me, hence the no vote above.
If you want to think I'm a spy because I've never played this game before, don't know what to look for or how, and ask when I'm unsure, I don't know what to tell you.
-
I think you have a point with Morgrim, I personally am interested in seeing his vote for the next mission which doesn't include him. I also think that I will probably vote yes on the next mission (unless it looks overly scummy) because as a resistance member control over the plot card is pretty important
If we let it go to the fourth mission, Morgrim proposes it and maybe it fails, but then TINAS gets control, and I would be OK with that. It's just the Morgrim proposing that is a little iffy (pending his response). Another option is that we approve Morgrim's proposal but Galzria vetos it with his plot card, and then TINAS proposes the team. That would give positive points to Galzria in my book, and I would be OK with him distributing the plot card after that. But that No Confidence may be more useful down the line.
The tough part here -- even if Morgrim did slip up (and it's hard to say because he IS kind of an oddball in the Mafia games), we have to remember that there are two spies around.
-
Well, you could play yourself out of a game that way. My question was honest. I have no real clue what I'm doing. I'll probably use my NC vote on the first mission that passes that kim not on, because I don't have any clue when better to use it. I've tried on multiple occasions to ask for advice and gotten none, so at this point I'm just going with whatever my instinct tells me, hence the no vote above.
If you want to think I'm a spy because I've never played this game before, don't know what to look for or how, and ask when I'm unsure, I don't know what to tell you.
That's one of the reasonable explanations i could think of. :P
I reiterate that it's typically better to vote no, just so we have more information. WoG did bring up a good point that we might accept an earlier mission to make sure the Resistance controls the plot card distribution for the next round. Of course, I'm not sure I want WoG to be the one controlling the next one.
-
For the record:
## I voted yes to that mission
-
I think you have a point with Morgrim, I personally am interested in seeing his vote for the next mission which doesn't include him. I also think that I will probably vote yes on the next mission (unless it looks overly scummy) because as a resistance member control over the plot card is pretty important
If we let it go to the fourth mission, Morgrim proposes it and maybe it fails, but then TINAS gets control, and I would be OK with that. It's just the Morgrim proposing that is a little iffy (pending his response). Another option is that we approve Morgrim's proposal but Galzria vetos it with his plot card, and then TINAS proposes the team. That would give positive points to Galzria in my book, and I would be OK with him distributing the plot card after that. But that No Confidence may be more useful down the line.
The tough part here -- even if Morgrim did slip up (and it's hard to say because he IS kind of an oddball in the Mafia games), we have to remember that there are two spies around.
Remember we have to accept mission 4 because of no-confidence
-
For the record:
## I voted yes to that mission
Confirming this and changing it on post 2. Apologies for the mistake
(I am more careful with votes on the boundary, which really matter, but should have double checked anyway)
-
I think you have a point with Morgrim, I personally am interested in seeing his vote for the next mission which doesn't include him. I also think that I will probably vote yes on the next mission (unless it looks overly scummy) because as a resistance member control over the plot card is pretty important
If we let it go to the fourth mission, Morgrim proposes it and maybe it fails, but then TINAS gets control, and I would be OK with that. It's just the Morgrim proposing that is a little iffy (pending his response). Another option is that we approve Morgrim's proposal but Galzria vetos it with his plot card, and then TINAS proposes the team. That would give positive points to Galzria in my book, and I would be OK with him distributing the plot card after that. But that No Confidence may be more useful down the line.
The tough part here -- even if Morgrim did slip up (and it's hard to say because he IS kind of an oddball in the Mafia games), we have to remember that there are two spies around.
Remember we have to accept mission 4 because of no-confidence
Yeah, and both of my scenarios account for that. I think I was unclear in the first scenario though. I was saying that we could let it get to fourth proposal and let Morgrim pick the team. We accept the team. If Morgrim is a spy, the mission will likely fail. The next leader is TINAS, who gets to distribute the plot card (with which I am fine).
And of course, if Galzria uses no-confidence then we can safely proceed to the fifth proposal.
-
For the record:
## I voted yes to that mission
I don't think that changes my analysis.
I think you have a point with Morgrim, I personally am interested in seeing his vote for the next mission which doesn't include him. I also think that I will probably vote yes on the next mission (unless it looks overly scummy) because as a resistance member control over the plot card is pretty important
Coming back to this -- that's interesting... I've voiced my reads on people. On the first mission proposal phase TINAS and Galzria were suspicious of each other -- has that abated? And I don't think anyone else has mentioned who they suspect. I'd really like to hear more from you and Robz. You guys have been rather less communicative than the others, so it's harder for me to place you guys. So, what team would look "overly scummy" to you?
-
I was just about to mention that I am NOT fine with TINAS choosing the party, nor the role-card. So if I need to accept mission 2 or 3 to accomplish this (regardless of if I am on them), I will.
-
Okay, I'm checking here. Also, I have to pick the team. Most of the other teams somebody just came out and proposed it--I would actually like input, because I'm not sure what a good move for the Resistance is.
Since Morgrim has to vote, it's a good idea to put him on the mission, yes? Or do we not do that, because we don't trust him?
I was going to say that I didn't know why both TINAS and eHal voted against missions that they were on, but now I see that only eHal did that.
I will put myself on the mission I propose. Galzria and eHal were both part of the successful mission that passed, so do I want to include them? Or 1 of them, and somebody new?
-
I was just about to mention that I am NOT fine with TINAS choosing the party, nor the role-card. So if I need to accept mission 2 or 3 to accomplish this (regardless of if I am on them), I will.
(Aside: careful of the terminology here. We are on mission 2, proposal 2. I think you mean you would accept proposal 2 or 3 if necessary.)
What if TINAS is part of the proposed team on both the second and third proposals?
Okay, I'm checking here. Also, I have to pick the team. Most of the other teams somebody just came out and proposed it--I would actually like input, because I'm not sure what a good move for the Resistance is.
Since Morgrim has to vote, it's a good idea to put him on the mission, yes? Or do we not do that, because we don't trust him?
I was going to say that I didn't know why both TINAS and eHal voted against missions that they were on, but now I see that only eHal did that.
I will put myself on the mission I propose. Galzria and eHal were both part of the successful mission that passed, so do I want to include them? Or 1 of them, and somebody new?
I would recommend waiting until Morgrim has made some sort of statement.
I voted no because there's a much larger chance of selecting a spy now that we're taking half the group. I expected Morgrim to say "yes" and thought there was a good chance both you and TINAS would approve as well, but I didn't actually want the mission to go through this time. Morgrim's no vote changes that a bit now -- I feel good about us three.
But I want to hear thoughts from TINAS and WoG. And I'm still wondering who you suspect, Robz. Same goes for WoG.
-
What kind of statement eHal? I am not a spy. I am also wondering whether or not Robz will choose me. If he does, another point against the spies. (assuming he chooses himself and he is not a spy) If he does not, we remain somewhat blind unless the mission fails. If it does, I assume good strategy would be to avoid both members of the party, as we do not know which is spy?
Oh, and about my mysterious 'no' vote (breaking the pattern) after I found out it was a good idea, I decided to change my ways.
-
Okay, here's my thoughts:
I don't really have any strong opinions about anyone. I'm more suspicious of Galzria than anyone because of the mission 1 thing. Been there done that. Not a strong opinion because I actually don't think a spy would be stupid enough to say what he said, but at the same time, neither would a RO. Not believing any of his backpeddling about it, but as I say, we all already know this.
I slightly-more-than-average trust Robz and eHalcyon, simply because they both pulled up Galzria on the day one thing, like I did. Neither of them did it as aggressively as I did, and as such Galzria hasn't hit back at either of them as much as he has at me. Nothing unexpected there then.
No reads at all on WrathOfGlod yet.
As for Morgrim7, well, I am now of the opinion that his mission one voting was just inexperience. There might be something more to it, but for now, I have no feelings either way.
-
Not sure who the second spy is but I think Morgrim is the most likely to be a spy (possibly could be inexperience) but his mistakes have seemed to be things which could help spies out
-
We can also be certain that at least 1 of TINAS+Robz is not a spy (not that useful but still)
-
We can also be certain that at least 1 of TINAS+Robz is not a spy (not that useful but still)
What makes you certain?
-
What kind of statement eHal? I am not a spy. I am also wondering whether or not Robz will choose me. If he does, another point against the spies. (assuming he chooses himself and he is not a spy) If he does not, we remain somewhat blind unless the mission fails. If it does, I assume good strategy would be to avoid both members of the party, as we do not know which is spy?
Oh, and about my mysterious 'no' vote (breaking the pattern) after I found out it was a good idea, I decided to change my ways.
If it fails, it is impossible to avoid all members of that group. This is a 3 person mission and I the next one is 4.
-
What kind of statement eHal? I am not a spy. I am also wondering whether or not Robz will choose me. If he does, another point against the spies. (assuming he chooses himself and he is not a spy) If he does not, we remain somewhat blind unless the mission fails. If it does, I assume good strategy would be to avoid both members of the party, as we do not know which is spy?
Oh, and about my mysterious 'no' vote (breaking the pattern) after I found out it was a good idea, I decided to change my ways.
If it fails, it is impossible to avoid all members of that group. This is a 3 person mission and I the next one is 4.
Oh. Dear. Robz?
Not sure who the second spy is but I think Morgrim is the most likely to be a spy (possibly could be inexperience) but his mistakes have seemed to be things which could help spies out
I believe it was on page 4 or 5 when someone said why voting 'yes' to everything was not a good idea, so I changed my voting habits.
Also, because my mistakes could have helped the spies out, they didn't.
-
Typo: Even though my mistakes could have helped the spies out, they didn't.
-
I stand by exactly what I said before Mission 1. There's no "back peddling". TINAS continues to try and twist my words and the facts.
I would say exactly what I did, as an RO, every time. No reason not to.
-
Okay, I believe I am ready.
Mission 2.2: I propose Robz888, Thisisnotasmile, and WrathofGlod
-
Like I said, I wanna be on the team.
Disapprove
-
We can also be certain that at least 1 of TINAS+Robz is not a spy (not that useful but still)
What makes you certain?
If they were both spies then they wouldn't have voted in favor of a team containing both spies (2 "no"s equals resistance win)
-
We can also be certain that at least 1 of TINAS+Robz is not a spy (not that useful but still)
What makes you certain?
If they were both spies then they wouldn't have voted in favor of a team containing both spies (2 "no"s equals resistance win)
I think it should make you more confident, but not certain. First of all, even though they both vote yes, they could be relying on everyone else to vote it down. This is especially possible given that the likely swing vote was Morgrim, and he publicly voted no. That almost guarantees that they could both vote yes without passing the mission, even if I voted yes alongside them. There was no reason to expect you or Galzria to approve.
If it WAS approved and they really didn't want to go through, they could try to get Galzria to use No Confidence. They could appeal to his suspicion of TINAS, or just point to the fact that they somehow achieved a majority. That often indicates that a spy is on the mission (of course, this latter point would have been weak given Morgrim's vote record).
Finally, it would be a risky play, but if two spies go through and manage to coordinate, it would be extremely powerful for them.
In any case, I am actually considering voting yes this time. I feel fairly confident about TINAS and Robz thanks to the results of the first mission proposal. I'd feel better about it if I were on the team though.
Morgrim has already said no. I'd like to hear from TINAS and Galzria.
-
I've voted No, for pretty much already stated previous reasons. I'm not on it, and TINAS is. One of those I KNOW hurts Resistances chances, the other I suspect does. Combined, I see no reason to vote for this assignment at this time.
-
I've voted No, for pretty much already stated previous reasons. I'm not on it, and TINAS is. One of those I KNOW hurts Resistances chances, the other I suspect does. Combined, I see no reason to vote for this assignment at this time.
Can you explain why you distrust TINAS?
-
I've voted No, for pretty much already stated previous reasons. I'm not on it, and TINAS is. One of those I KNOW hurts Resistances chances, the other I suspect does. Combined, I see no reason to vote for this assignment at this time.
Can you explain why you distrust TINAS?
He has consistently and relentlessly tried to twist my words. I never (despite his assurances) asked, or suggested that people vote down Assignment 4 on Mission 1.
Instead, I said "If presented the chance" I could prove my RO status. And that is a VERY different statement. I was more than clear (in the original post, and subsequently) that I did NOT expect it to get that far.
While a few people (eH, Robz) noted it as a strange comment, neither kept returning to it, trying again and again to suggest my statement had been more along the lines of the former example, rather than the latter (in fact, eH has noted on multiple occasions that he understood completely what I had said).
Thus, I must be inclined to suspect someone who would go so far out of their way to discredit me, by twisting my words to suit his own needs.
-
I get what you are saying, and my estimate of P(TINAS Spy|Galzria not Spy) has gone up, but i still think you are more likely to be a spy than TINAS
-
So here's the thing -- Assuming that TINAS, WoG and Robz all approve the mission, I am now the swing vote. And I want to vote for this team. I started writing up a big post rationalizing why I should vote yes for this team. But the further I got with it, the less certain I was, and now I think I'm going to vote no.
I still find TINAS most trustworthy (despite Galzria's contention, though it is noted and it puts me just a little on edge) and Morgrim the least. Everyone else is hovering around neutral... Robz is a few points up because of Morgrim's no vote to my team proposal, and same for WoG (though Morgrim's second "no" vote carries less weight because it could be for the sake of consistency).
I'm torn on Galzria. I have a Resistance read on him, but I can't pinpoint any particular tells that make me think that. The problem is that I have a similar, stronger read on TINAS. The conflict between them is tricky. High level spy technique so that, when one is outed, the other has immense trust? Two Resistance members with bad reads on each other? Or (most likely, I think) one of the two actually is a spy. But in that case, I trust TINAS more than Galz right now.
All this is too say that, if I exclude myself, this team of 3 is what I'd pick as well. But excluding myself is really bad. I want to rationalize it away, but I can't get around it. But if I reject this team, I have no idea who WoG will nominate, or Morgrim if we get to that point. Those prospects might be worse.
So is there any other strategic consideration that should push my vote one way or another? If the team goes through and the mission passes, hurrah, but if it fails, maybe it's worth it to know that there is a spy among the people I'd felt most positive about. I'd really appreciate insights from everyone on this.
Unless someone makes a case for why I should push it through, I think I'm going to vote no.
-
Robz is a few points up because of Morgrim's no vote to my team proposal, and same for WoG (though Morgrim's second "no" vote carries less weight because it could be for the sake of consistency).
To clarify -- I meant to say that WoG is also a few points up, but still below Robz, because Morgrim voted no on Robz' proposal.
-
I voted no for the same reason you are planning on it, I wanted to be on the team. However I have a chance of getting on the team while you don't (I plan on putting myself on the team if made leader and Morgrim is a likely spy so you won't get on the team unless you are a spy).
-
I voted no for the same reason you are planning on it, I wanted to be on the team. However I have a chance of getting on the team while you don't (I plan on putting myself on the team if made leader and Morgrim is a likely spy so you won't get on the team unless you are a spy).
You could put me on the team. And it's more likely for Morgrim to take me if he's spy than if he's resistance since he'd probably avoid his partner. Thanks for your thoughts on this mission. They are interesting...
-
Not allowed to discuss it, but I am no longer suspicious of Morgrim. In fact, I no longer have any clue when I should be suspicious of Morgrim. Ugh.
Accordingly, I no longer view Morgrim's no votes as incriminating or affirming of anything. TINAS is still positive for his mission 1 posts, but Robz is neutral again. Morgrim is now neutral. WoG is still neutral. Galzria is closer to neutral than before because part of my suspicion was due to Galzria defending Morgrim early on (when Morgrim strangely voted yes, Galzria tried hardest to make sense of his explanation).
So I'm neutral on nearly all fronts now, from an analytical standpoint. From gut instinct I distrust Robz and WoG more now, simply because they haven't made much of an impact in the discussion so far (or at least that's how I feel).
This also means that almost all the reasons I entertained for approving this team are gone now, and I'm OK with letting Morgrim take control.
-
Mission 2.2 proposed by: Robz888:
Team Proposed: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Robz888
Voting YES: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Robz888
Voting NO: Morgrim7, Galzria, eHalcyon
Result: Yes - 3, No - 3
Proposal Fails
WrathOfGlod is the new leader. WoG, please propose a team
(Edit: New format is like the old one, but it's generated better. Yay for behind the scenes changes!)
-
Who do people want me to send. I am putting myself on the team but am open for people to give reasons for teams
-
I'm happy for you to make exactly the same proposal.
-
I'm happy for you to make exactly the same proposal.
So am I.
-
I'm happy for you to make exactly the same proposal.
So am I.
Because it will probably fail again?
I have no suggestions for now, though I'd like to be on the team of course.
-
WOG, I really liked the team I proposed, and it was close to passing... Perhaps you, and then either me or TINAS, and... ?
-
I'd rather see who Morgrim proposes. Though maybe that won't help us at all, given his super unreadability. ???
-
I like the team too but it is guaranteed to fail and then we have to vote for Morgrim's team so is it worth it?
-
Is there still significant reason to be wary of Morgrim here? I can't discuss it but... MIII...
And anyway, if we really don't want Morgrim's team, we can have Galzria veto it and let TINAS propose...
Er, actually, Galzria said he wants to avoid giving TINAS final decision on the team OR control of the plot card, which means he's going to have to accept this mission. But if it has TINAS on it... um. I don't know. Refer to posts #157 and #173.
So you could propose the same team and there is a chance Galzria will approve it.
Either way, I prefer seeing what Morgrim does. I will vote no unless I am on the team.
-
I propose the same team
WrathOfGlod, Robz888,ThisIsNotASmile
-
I propose the same team
WrathOfGlod, Robz888,ThisIsNotASmile
Disapprove. I wanna be on the team!!!
-
I propose the same team
WrathOfGlod, Robz888,ThisIsNotASmile
Was that an actual proposal, or suggestion/idea?
-
Needs ##bold to be official, WoG. ::)
-
##I propose WrathOfGlod, Robz888,ThisIsNotASmile
Sorry about that
-
I'll take Morgrim's vote above as an official no and the post at 4am GMT (post 191) as the start of the vote deadline timer
-
Bad news guys. Am phone posting, do not have time to say much. Will be gome for at least 24hrs. so I am sending.a pm to Tables with my proposal amd vote if necesaary. sorry again, guys, I am flying to Japan.
-
Bad news guys. Am phone posting, do not have time to say much. Will be gome for at least 24hrs. so I am sending.a pm to Tables with my proposal amd vote if necesaary. sorry again, guys, I am flying to Japan.
Going to Japan to coordinate with your government handlers? xD
(Have fun in Japan, always wanted to visit there)
-
Bad news guys. Am phone posting, do not have time to say much. Will be gome for at least 24hrs. so I am sending.a pm to Tables with my proposal amd vote if necesaary. sorry again, guys, I am flying to Japan.
Going to Japan to coordinate with your government handlers? xD
(Have fun in Japan, always wanted to visit there)
In tje airport at my layover. No, I am going to live there. :)
-
Way cool. Have a safe trip!
-
Mission 2.3 proposed by: WrathOfGlod:
Team Proposed: WrathOfGlod, Thisisnotasmile, Robz888
Voting YES: Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, Robz888
Voting NO: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, eHalcyon
Result: Yes - 3, No - 3
Proposal Fails
Morgrim7: Propose the next mission
-
Interesting...
## I think Morgrim said he PM'd you his proposal since he's on a flight right now.
-
##I voted yes
-
Sorry guys I thought I had sent my vote when I proposed the team, but I forgot
-
Sorry guys I thought I had sent my vote when I proposed the team, but I forgot
Oh. Well, that's less interesting then. :P
-
And I am back. Landed safe...we're good!!! #I propose WoG, Galzria, and Myself#. Oh, and, Approve, obviously.
-
I don't know how I feel about this team... No choice but to approve, but I kind of hope that Galzria vetos it afterwards.
-
To be clear -- I'd like it better if TINAS was on it or if I was on it. I don't have a good read on anyone else at this point.
-
I feel decent about this team, and would rather TINAS not have last choice, so will not be vetoing it.
-
Fair enough. Fingers crossed then.
-
Mission 2.4 proposed by: Morgrim7:
Team Proposed: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Galzria
Voting YES: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria, eHalcyon
Voting NO: Robz888
Result: Yes - 5, No - 1
Proposal passes
WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Galzria, if any of you are spies, please send your mission decision. If you are Resistance, you automatically choose to pass
-
Robz voted no. Huh.
-
I would have voted for the proposal, but I was away this weekend, and simply did not vote at all. I thought I had voted earlier. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Apologies for the delay. Not been online.
Mission 2 Results
Co-operating: 3
Sabotage: 0
Mission succeeds. Score is now Resistance - 2, Spies - 0
Leadership passes to Thisisnotasmile, who draws the plot card Strong Leader
TINAS: You have 5 days to distribute Strong Leader, and 6 to make your propsal. Mission 3 requires 4 people.
-
Yawn. No surprises here. Moving on. TINAS?
-
Yawn. No surprises here. Moving on. TINAS?
Really? I find it surprising. I had a resistance read on TINAS and was neutral on Robz. In all likelihood, a spy should have been on that mission. Scenarios:
1. Both spies were on board, neither was willing to risk a double sabotage.
2. One spy was on board, but is playing a very risky long con.
3. No spies on board, TINAS and Robz are both spies. Or from your perspectives, 2/3 spies are among TINAS, Robz and myself.
Seems fishy to me.
-
Or, fourth option, I was right to begin with about TINAS.
You also knew I had early suspicion of Robz. That why he was with you and your spy partner in mission vote 2.1. He took 2.2, so of course he was there, and when he proposed TINAS go as well, you pushed WoG to keep the same team in the desperate hope that it passed.
Having failed twice, you tried to convince me to veto a team (Morgrim's 2.4) that you knew had no spies on it, AND I would've burned my NC vote.
You've been backhand defending TINAS all game, never saying you trust him directly, but that you distrust me more. When asked for the arguments between him and I, I responded, he went quiet. From that you gathered "trust" in him, while still remaining "uncomfortable" with my being on a team.
Twice now WoG and I have gone out. Once with Morgrim. Both times we were successful. Team, don't let the spy's mislead you at this point. We're very very close to ending this here.
-
Or, fourth option, I was right to begin with about TINAS.
You also knew I had early suspicion of Robz. That why he was with you and your spy partner in mission vote 2.1. He took 2.2, so of course he was there, and when he proposed TINAS go as well, you pushed WoG to keep the same team in the desperate hope that it passed.
Having failed twice, you tried to convince me to veto a team (Morgrim's 2.4) that you knew had no spies on it, AND I would've burned my NC vote.
You've been backhand defending TINAS all game, never saying you trust him directly, but that you distrust me more. When asked for the arguments between him and I, I responded, he went quiet. From that you gathered "trust" in him, while still remaining "uncomfortable" with my being on a team.
Twice now WoG and I have gone out. Once with Morgrim. Both times we were successful. Team, don't let the spy's mislead you at this point. We're very very close to ending this here.
Are you kidding me? I have no defended TINAS, though I have explicitly stated that I have a positive read on him. How is that backhanded?
And you're very much mistaken here. You and WoG have not gone out twice. The first mission was you and ME. Not only that -- you were the one who proposed it. Seems like that's something you should remember.
-
Ah, really? Could have sworn I took WoG. I meant to. Ugh. Alright, I apologize. Too many forum games. Still, after the results of last mission (which I would have been more surprised to see fall) and your constant pushing of TINAS, whom I have a very strong Spy read on, AND your attempt to get me to burn my NC, I still believe you most likely spy #2.
Although my case isn't AS strong, it's still more than conceivable that you were a spy trying to gain trust by letting M1 pass than any of us 3 were spys playing some long game by passing Mission 2. Hell, you said it yourself: Spy's vote pass on Mission 1.
The fact that you were there does nothing to help your defense.
-
Ah, really? Could have sworn I took WoG. I meant to. Ugh. Alright, I apologize. Too many forum games. Still, after the results of last mission (which I would have been more surprised to see fall) and your constant pushing of TINAS, whom I have a very strong Spy read on, AND your attempt to get me to burn my NC, I still believe you most likely spy #2.
Although my case isn't AS strong, it's still more than conceivable that you were a spy trying to gain trust by letting M1 pass than any of us 3 were spys playing some long game by passing Mission 2. Hell, you said it yourself: Spy's vote pass on Mission 1.
The fact that you were there does nothing to help your defense.
When did I say that spies vote to pass on mission 1? Pretty sure that was either WoG or TINAS.
Long con isn't impossible. What happens now? Probably the best play is to take the 3 players from mission 2 and put them on mission 3 with one of Robz, TINAS or me. Let's call the new addition "X". What if mission 3 fails? Do you automatically suspect X? Because that would be perfect for the real spy, if he is part of the mission 2 team. Far more suspicion would be on X than on the original 3.
Passing Mission 2 hides information from the Resistance. If the spy sabotages mission 2, there is information to narrow down who he is. If he passes it -- high risk, high reward.
-
## Strong Leader goes to Morgrim7 for proposng a successful mission and being the team leader before myself.
## I propose for mission 3.1: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Galzria, Thisisnotasmile. Mission one means nothing as far as I'm concerned, however it's a very risky move for a spy to bluff mission 2. As such, I believe mission 2 contained three ROs, OR it contained 1 RO and two spies, and in that case Morgrim7 is not one of the spies as he would not propose a mission with 2 spies if he is one of them. Note that this puts Morgrim7 in the clear as far as I am concerend no matter what. I have added myself to the mission because I know I am a RO, and if I put someone else on the team we are guaranteed to have at least one spy on the mission.
-
## Strong Leader goes to Morgrim7 for proposng a successful mission and being the team leader before myself.
## I propose for mission 3.1: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Galzria, Thisisnotasmile. Mission one means nothing as far as I'm concerned, however it's a very risky move for a spy to bluff mission 2. As such, I believe mission 2 contained three ROs, OR it contained 1 RO and two spies, and in that case Morgrim7 is not one of the spies as he would not propose a mission with 2 spies if he is one of them. Note that this puts Morgrim7 in the clear as far as I am concerend no matter what. I have added myself to the mission because I know I am a RO, and if I put someone else on the team we are guaranteed to have at least one spy on the mission.
I completely agree with this logic and would do the same thing in your position. However, I know for sure that a spy is on this team as I am not part of it. Still, I am tempted to vote yes because I think double spy is a very real possibility. In that case we should move quickly before a spy can subtly indicate something like "I'll sabotage, you pass".
Long con possibility worries me the most, but it's less likely to be happening. I am OK with this team, hoping to see double sabotage come up.
For the record, I think spy Morgrim would be crazy enough to put himself on a team with his partner.
-
I intend to vote against this team, because there is certainly at least 1 Spy on it.
-
I intend to vote against this team, because there is certainly at least 1 Spy on it.
Do you SEE how scummy eH has been? There is NO reason to push this through if you're Resistance and not on the team. He knows it's likely I'll decline, meaning I get control, and would propose:
WoG, Robz, Morgrim, and myself
This is a winning team (I believe), which would cause him a game over. By voting yes, he may reveal himself as a spy, but could still push the mission through for a Spy success.
I an voting No. I highly encourage WoG or Morgrim to do the same, preventing eH from being able to force a Spy mission victory.
-
I intend to vote against this team, because there is certainly at least 1 Spy on it.
Do you SEE how scummy eH has been? There is NO reason to push this through if you're Resistance and not on the team. He knows it's likely I'll decline, meaning I get control, and would propose:
WoG, Robz, Morgrim, and myself
This is a winning team (I believe), which would cause him a game over. By voting yes, he may reveal himself as a spy, but could still push the mission through for a Spy success.
I an voting No. I highly encourage WoG or Morgrim to do the same, preventing eH from being able to force a Spy mission victory.
I did not say I would actually vote yes. I said I was tempted to, and that I would be OK with the team going if it was approved. I expected it to be approved! And it's OK if it fails, because we have 2 more shots after that.
Is it scummy to consider every possibility? Really? I don't know why you're so against us thinking through the situation.
FWIW, I don't think Galzria is a spy. I can see him acting this way if the mission 2 team is all Resistance, in which case Robz and TINAS are the spies. If that last mission had 2 spies, I can see Morgrim and WoG being the spies with each hoping that the other would throw sabotage.
If it's a long con then I don't think Galz would be the spy either, since then his partner is either TINAS or Robz. It's unlikely to be Robz since Galz is pushing for a team with both of them, and that would be especially risky for the Spies since the Resistance is up 2-0. Galz-TINAS though... I still have a positive read on TINAS. His logic has been excellent so far (you surely can't dispute that). The only way I can see this happening -- TINAS proposes a team with Galz, which then gets shot down. Galz proposes his team without TINAS, finally throws the sabotage, probably pins it on Robz and is clear to take mission 4 as well. Then we no longer know who to trust. That just seems rather unlikely to me, so I think Galz is clear but misguided and narrow-minded.
And since I do think you are town, I'd like to remind you that there is NO way I can force a team through. You have No Confidence, remember?
-
And since I do think you are town, I'd like to remind you that there is NO way I can force a team through. You have No Confidence, remember?
Where town == Resistance. Too much Mafia lately. :P
-
Do we think Tables is the kind of guy who would give us all RO at the beginning just for the lolz?
-
Do we think Tables is the kind of guy who would give us all RO at the beginning just for the lolz?
Now that WOULD be entertaining, but I can't see him bastadizing the first game of forum Resistance.
-
Do we think Tables is the kind of guy who would give us all RO at the beginning just for the lolz?
I doubt it, especially since it's the first one, like Galz said.
-
eH, you entertain me. Your desperation to spread around suspicion is fun to watch.
I agree with the logic of TINAS's proposal post, but then, had he posted anything other than that it would have been pretty ridiculous.
You're right, you can't "force through" this round of voting because of my NC vote - something you've been trying and trying to get me to burn.
As for the rest of TINAS's play, well, no. I don't think it's been particularly trustworthy. In fact, it's been relatively non existent. I *love* how you still claim to have a strong town read on him, even if it means that WoG+Morgrim+TINAS+Myself = 4 RO, meaning you couldn't be. Amazing how those numbers add up. Ah, but that's right, you'de rather suspect someone off the team of 3 that just put the Resistance at win-1. Lulz.
There is only ONE thing that I'm considering as an option outside what I've posted, but I need to reread to decide on which is more likely.
-
Err, "town read" = RO read.
-
There is only ONE thing that I'm considering as an option outside what I've posted, but I need to reread to decide on which is more likely.
Well seeing as what you've posted has a 0% chance of being correct, I'd say the other is more likely. Seriously, don't let something that happened before the first mission even went ahead cause you to lose the game for us. I'm over it and I think you should start thinking about other things too. We need all 4 RO to vote yes to a mission for it to go ahead now. That includes you.
-
There is only ONE thing that I'm considering as an option outside what I've posted, but I need to reread to decide on which is more likely.
Well seeing as what you've posted has a 0% chance of being correct, I'd say the other is more likely. Seriously, don't let something that happened before the first mission even went ahead cause you to lose the game for us. I'm over it and I think you should start thinking about other things too. We need all 4 RO to vote yes to a mission for it to go ahead now. That includes you.
Trust me, I am considering it. Strongly. I don't generally hold grudges (and certainly never do to a meta-game level), but I got such a BAD vibe early from you, it's tough.
I also recognize your playstyle is just that way sometimes (especially early in games), so... Yeah. I understand where you're coming from at this time though, and would NOT put a WIFOM play out of eH's tactics.
So, considering. Considering.
-
Hmm, Morgrim, you vote first. For now, could you please vote Yes?
-
eH, you entertain me. Your desperation to spread around suspicion is fun to watch.
I agree with the logic of TINAS's proposal post, but then, had he posted anything other than that it would have been pretty ridiculous.
You're right, you can't "force through" this round of voting because of my NC vote - something you've been trying and trying to get me to burn.
As for the rest of TINAS's play, well, no. I don't think it's been particularly trustworthy. In fact, it's been relatively non existent. I *love* how you still claim to have a strong town read on him, even if it means that WoG+Morgrim+TINAS+Myself = 4 RO, meaning you couldn't be. Amazing how those numbers add up. Ah, but that's right, you'de rather suspect someone off the team of 3 that just put the Resistance at win-1. Lulz.
There is only ONE thing that I'm considering as an option outside what I've posted, but I need to reread to decide on which is more likely.
Your numbers are off. I haven't given a pass to Morgrim or WoG.
-
Here I am guys. Will post in a munite. For now...let me review.
-
Ok, here I am. I approve, obviously.
-
Alright WoG, this question goes out to you:
For all the reasons I've posted since Mission 2 passed, I truly believe eH to be a spy. His partner is either Robz or TINAS. I had a spy read on TINAS most of the game, but I recognize that TINAS was just playing like TINAS, and probably spy hunting in his own best fashion.
This comes down to WIFOM. I thought eH had been supporting TINAS to strongly throughout the game, but that may have been simply to frame him, given my high level of suspicion. See, what I failed to notice was that the first three assignments in Mission 2 contained BOTH Robz and TINAS. Is eH a spy more likely to subtly (or not so much?) defend his teammate (TINAS), or use him to hide his teammate (Robz)?
I'm honestly not sure. eH played WIFOM well in Mafia 3 (I know you probably didn't follow that), and I really wouldn't put it past him here. Robz has been quiet enough most of the game, which is unusual for him. Although he hasn't played this game before, it's still unusual.
eH is obviously in a bit of a panic right now. By pushing TINAS when he knew my distrust coming in, he could be trying to get me to vote down the Mission (or better, use my NC vote).
This is where the WIFOM play comes in. is he trying to get me to fail the mission, or is he trying to get us to pass it.
TINAS and Robz won't be much help here, as they'll both claim RO. I wanted Morgrim to vote yes so that we still have control and decision. Had he voted No, and if Robz is eH's partner, we would be unable to pass this assignment. Now we still have the option.
So, what're your thoughts? Was eH playing obvious with a TINAS partner all game, or was he setting him up to fail if one of the first three assignments on mission 2 passed?
-
Not a panic. I'm asking you to keep an open mind when this mission fails, since it's obvious that I'm going to be left out now. Luckily the Resistance is up 2-0 so we can take the hit. I just don't want anyone to assume off the bat that the new addition is obviously the spy. In retrospect I shouldn't have put forward those possibilities until after mission 3 was over. Apologies if I have hurt the Resistance by losing trust.
-
Do we think Tables is the kind of guy who would give us all RO at the beginning just for the lolz?
Not sure if I should follow this up by jokingly saying yes or being a serious mod...
-
I think that TINAS is probably right that the last mission had either no spies or both spies. I know that I am a resistance operative and by TINAS's logic Morgrim is almost certainly not a spy (especially because he could choose his team as he wanted where we had to choose it) that means that Galzria is likely resistance, From my perspective we have to figure out which of TINAS,Robz,eHalycon is a spy.
My current read is that the spies are TINAS and eHalycon mainly because of eHalycon's posts. However Robz hasn't given me much to go on so I'm not so sure.
My main read on eHalycon being a spy:
1. I completely agree with this logic and would do the same thing in your position. However, I know for sure that a spy is on this team as I am not part of it. Still, I am tempted to vote yes because I think double spy is a very real possibility. In that case we should move quickly before a spy can subtly indicate something like "I'll sabotage, you pass".
That to me is a really scummy post, trying to get a vote to stop a spy from signalling while using the phrase "I'll sabotage, you pass" to me sounds like a total spy move.
Therefore I think that this team seems good, if it doesn't suceed I'll be reasonably certain that TINAS is a spy with my secondary suspicion on Galzria
-
Do we think Tables is the kind of guy who would give us all RO at the beginning just for the lolz?
Not sure if I should follow this up by jokingly saying yes or being a serious mod...
Shouldn't there be a meme image in this post :0
-
I think that TINAS is probably right that the last mission had either no spies or both spies. I know that I am a resistance operative and by TINAS's logic Morgrim is almost certainly not a spy (especially because he could choose his team as he wanted where we had to choose it) that means that Galzria is likely resistance, From my perspective we have to figure out which of TINAS,Robz,eHalycon is a spy.
My current read is that the spies are TINAS and eHalycon mainly because of eHalycon's posts. However Robz hasn't given me much to go on so I'm not so sure.
My main read on eHalycon being a spy:
1. I completely agree with this logic and would do the same thing in your position. However, I know for sure that a spy is on this team as I am not part of it. Still, I am tempted to vote yes because I think double spy is a very real possibility. In that case we should move quickly before a spy can subtly indicate something like "I'll sabotage, you pass".
That to me is a really scummy post, trying to get a vote to stop a spy from signalling while using the phrase "I'll sabotage, you pass" to me sounds like a total spy move.
Therefore I think that this team seems good, if it doesn't suceed I'll be reasonably certain that TINAS is a spy with my secondary suspicion on Galzria
Oops. That does read scummy on my part. :-\
I think there is a bit of a flaw in this logic. This applies to both Galz and WoG -- if you have any suspicion that there may have been two spies on the mission 2 team, then either you are both spies or Morgrim is. As I've said, I can see spy Morgrim being crazy enough to put himself on a team with his partner.
When this mission fails, I would not automatically assume TINAS to be the spy. I still see the possibility of double spy on the m-2 team, and unfortunately I've just given WoG the possibility of signalling by quoting me. Such a mess. We'll fix it on mission 4 though.
-
I don't get, nor buy, this whole "as Spy, you wouldn't choose your teammate for Mission 2". It's straight up WIFOM.
If a Mission falls, we can clearly not trust the three who went, so must start by choosing the three who did not go, for the next mission.
But only a great fool would think that a Spy would pair himself with his teammate, therefore one of the remaining three must actually be a spy, and therefore cannot be chosen.
However, nobody here is a great fool, so clearly a spy MIGHT have paired himself with his partner, therefore the three that didn't go are most likely RO.
But we all know that nobody here is a great fool and I am not trusted by you, just as you are not trusted by me. So clearly one spy would've been left off.
... Etc.
I don't see why it was "no spy" or "both spy", and I don't see why (and this may be a failure I'm my understanding of the game) if both spies WERE on the team it would hurt them to both sabotage. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I thought votes were secret? So it either passes, or doesn't. Am I missing something?
Hum. Anyway, I actually don't think Morgrim is all that nutty. He was a bit pushed around in M-II, and yes, he self hammered, but it was his first game and he didn't know better. In M-III,, I don't blame him for hammering me at the deadline. I was all but lynched anyway. And here, I don't take issue with his voting pattern D1. It's something I, as a new player as well, considered.
That said, nothing he has EVER done strikes me as a gambling kind of man. I just don't see the long-con game. Not from him.
WoG could be playing a long-con game, but with the amount of suspicion generated by me with Mission 1 comment (about letting it get to Assignment 5)... Why? I would've been set up much too neatly to take the fall for Mission 2. It just doesn't make sense to me that he would've voted to pass it as a Spy.
So, I believe that whole team was RO. That leaves 2 of 3 as Spy's. If I vote this mission through and it fails, I know TINAS is a spy. Since I sincerely believe eH to be a spy, that means that even if you have suspicion of me still, and don't want me on Mission 4, I would be fine with being replaced by Robz on the 3 man team (Robz/Morgrim/WoG).
So, I will be approving this mission, and crossing my fingers.
-
Galz, if both spies sabotage, it is revealed that two sabotages were thrown. It hurts the spies a lot because it narrows down the suspected members to 2/3.
-
Galz, if both spies sabotage, it is revealed that two sabotages were thrown. It hurts the spies a lot because it narrows down the suspected members to 2/3.
I thought votes were secret on mission success/failure?
-
Galz, if both spies sabotage, it is revealed that two sabotages were thrown. It hurts the spies a lot because it narrows down the suspected members to 2/3.
I thought votes were secret on mission success/failure?
You don't know who voted what, but you know how many of each are made.
-
Galz, if both spies sabotage, it is revealed that two sabotages were thrown. It hurts the spies a lot because it narrows down the suspected members to 2/3.
I thought votes were secret on mission success/failure?
You don't know who voted what, but you know how many of each are made.
Ahh, I see. Looking back at the results posted on the first page, I understand. So for fear of double-saboteurs being revealed, they would both vote pass.
That makes sense now, although as stated, I do NOT see Morgrim as the kind of person who would play a long-con game like that, and I don't think he's all that crazy, so cannot see him putting himself in that situation by choosing WoG as his spy partner. So all the more reason I'm really confident that team was pure RO.
-
So, I believe that whole team was RO. That leaves 2 of 3 as Spy's. If I vote this mission through and it fails, I know TINAS is a spy. Since I sincerely believe eH to be a spy, that means that even if you have suspicion of me still, and don't want me on Mission 4, I would be fine with being replaced by Robz on the 3 man team (Robz/Morgrim/WoG).
So, I will be approving this mission, and crossing my fingers.
Just going back a bit -- I don't think this is a good stance to take. I trust you more than WoG or Morgrim. Take this team now, and after it fails change it up, but don't leave both Morgrim and WoG on the team. Maybe even take them both off.
-
Heads up -- I will be out of town this weekend. I will probably still check in, but possibly not.
-
Mission 3.1 proposed by: Thisisnotasmile:
Team Proposed: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria
Voting YES: WrathOfGlod, Morgrim7, Thisisnotasmile, Galzria
Voting NO: eHalcyon, Robz888
Result: Yes - 4, No - 2
Proposal passes
Mission 3 Results
Co-operating: 4
Sabotage: 0
Mission succeeds. Score is now Resistance - 3, Spies - 0
Resistance Win 3-0!
Overall, I think the spies (who are obviously eHalcyon and Robz) were very unlucky - I don't think they played badly, and especially proposal 2.3 (which included Robz) should have gone through - but WoG managed to fluke avoiding the fail by accidentally not voting :P.
-
vote: Robz
-
Oh hey, it's up before I leave this morning.
Yeah, WoG, did you actually forget or was it some super strategic play or something? I was like, "this will work out wonderfully" but then nope.
And Galz was right, I kind of panicked at the end there. I should have waited to bring up long con possibilities (which were indeed possibilities!) after Robz was taken for mission 2. My bad Robz!
Now I'm thinking I should have just failed the first mission. If the very first proposal had gone through (WoG + me) I was going to fail it. I intended to fail the one with Galzria but at that point he was showing trust for me and distrust for TINAS so I thought I'd wait.
All in all, I wish others had talked more. And I think I vastly prefer being a civilian to being a bad guy. ::)
-
;D
TINAS, no hard feelings for early game? I needed to get reads somewhere, and eH's play all game RE: You and me is what really tipped me off to his WIFOM play.
-
No hard feelings at all.
TBH I hadn't even thought about who seemed like a spy or not, I just put the team that passed on with myself. It's pretty much what I had to do and I got lucky.
-
Ah man!!! Yeah WoG forgetting to vote absolutely killed us.
-
I expected 2.3 to go through, and I expected it to fail. At the time, my suspicion levels of eH were already raised, but I knew it wasn't the time to come out firing.
eH, you made one big Red Flag raising case Mission 2:
Obviously, a spy does not want to vote his partner onto a mission (that is, if Robz was 1 of 3 chosen and you were not, it would look bad for you to vote it through knowing it will fail), thus you never did. But you spent all of Mission 2 trying to get someone to do it for you. You kept talking about how good you thought the team was, and that you were right on the verge of wanting to vote. Had Morgrim come along and passed it, you could've tried to soon him as a spy partner.
Now, I DID vote it through the second time, but it was calculated to learn something. I had failed (at that time) to notice that Robz was also on every vote you liked with TINAS as well - but pass or fail at that point, I was sure you were a spy. One 2.4 passed clean, and I went back (and saw Robz everywhere you liked), it came together quickly. I was confident of the spy pairings during all of Mission 3.
Your long-con game didn't factor in much at all. It was mostly conceivable, although not with these players, and not given past events. Morgrim was clear because I actually think he's a smart, but honest player. WoG was clear because I would've been SO easy to frame 2.4
So yeah. Robz by himself generated only mild suspicion (for NOT being Robz), but I was really led to him by eH, who I pegged around 2.2
-
Thanks, Tables for moderating; this was awesome! I do think we were lucky... hmmm.... *drifts away, lost in thought*
-
Thanks, Tables for moderating; this was awesome! I do think we were lucky... hmmm.... *drifts away, lost in thought*
You were so quiet all game...
-
Thanks, Tables for moderating; this was awesome! I do think we were lucky... hmmm.... *drifts away, lost in thought*
You were so quiet all game...
What could I say? There was nothing. Did not want to make people not trust me; also I was gone alot. No cases to make...no reason to defend myself...Not allowed to discuss it, but I am no longer suspicious of Morgrim. In fact, I no longer have any clue when I should be suspicious of Morgrim. Ugh.
hahaha thats funny.
-
Thanks, Tables for moderating; this was awesome! I do think we were lucky... hmmm.... *drifts away, lost in thought*
You were so quiet all game...
What could I say? There was nothing. Did not want to make people not trust me; also I was gone alot. No cases to make...no reason to defend myself...Not allowed to discuss it, but I am no longer suspicious of Morgrim. In fact, I no longer have any clue when I should be suspicious of Morgrim. Ugh.
hahaha thats funny.
I found plenty to say, but I felt all done with eH at times. :(
But then, I always find stuff to say.
I actually want to play a game with you now where you AREN'T an innocent. It would intrigue me... ;D
-
Thanks, Tables for moderating; this was awesome! I do think we were lucky... hmmm.... *drifts away, lost in thought*
You were so quiet all game...
What could I say? There was nothing. Did not want to make people not trust me; also I was gone alot. No cases to make...no reason to defend myself...Not allowed to discuss it, but I am no longer suspicious of Morgrim. In fact, I no longer have any clue when I should be suspicious of Morgrim. Ugh.
hahaha thats funny.
I found plenty to say, but I felt all done with eH at times. :(
But then, I always find stuff to say.
I actually want to play a game with you now where you AREN'T an innocent. It would intrigue me... ;D
Hahaha ;D I've developed a repututation of being crazy; now nobody knows whether or not to suspect me. I might sign up for Mafia VI and hope to be mafia. :)
-
So it seems that my moment of idiocy saved the game, when we tell our grandchildren the story of our resistance we will have to change that part of the story.
-
By the way eHalycon, was your post an attempt to signal?
-
By the way eHalycon, was your post an attempt to signal?
Haha, totally was a very poor attempt to signal. :P
Yeah I definitely overplayed my hand. It was going fairly well but I started getting too friendly. Props to Galz. :)
If we do this again, I think I'll be much more anti-quiet. Need others to talk as well. I would not have talked so much except I think it's boring if everyone is just quiet. I kind of wish Robz talked a bit more. I would have liked an opportunity to denounce him but he didn't make any waves either.
As it is, apologies for Robz for being the giveaway!
-
Sorry! Yeah, a couple times I started to say something and deleted it. I felt kind of lost here, especially when it ended up that eHal and I were pretty much toast by accident.
I wasn't quite sure how to say who I suspected, since no one was really scummy. I don't know, things kind of fell apart. My bad!
-
Is there gonna be another one of these? I'm back to looking for a forum game of something now that I've been hammered in Medical Mafia. I didn't participate in this one or MIII or MIV because I was away on vacation in Italy, and so wasn't gonna commit to a regular posting schedule.
-
Is there gonna be another one of these? I'm back to looking for a forum game of something now that I've been hammered in Medical Mafia. I didn't participate in this one or MIII or MIV because I was away on vacation in Italy, and so wasn't gonna commit to a regular posting schedule.
I would play again. At times the slow pace was frustrating, but at other times it was relaxing not to have this game constantly demanding my attention (like some other games do from time to time).
-
I'm in, of course.
Now that I have an idea how to play I think I would contribute more.
-
I'd be up for another. And this time I'll be after the quiet ones whatever I roll. I'd like there to be more conversation. :P
-
I'd be perfectly happy to host another, if people want :). But if someone else wanted to take the reins, that's fine too.
Oh, here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApPT0N9WtHcKdDMyR1QtNGNrN3BKc0NldWJhb2Y3SXc#gid=4)'s the game spreadsheet, if anyone's interesting. I... don't think it is, really. Only that the last two Plot cards would have been (r4) Keeping a Close Eye on You and (r5) Strong Leader.
Also slightly surprised nobody commented that the player order ended up exactly the same as the signup order. It might be because I didn't record people's signups in the right order and thus it wasn't (which would make sense as obviously nobody but me would have noticed), but the RNG chose people in that order, which I found amusing.
-
Would you rather play, Tables? You've already modded one, seems like it's only fair to let you play the next one!
-
I was sad that I got Opinion Maker for my plot card. Wanted something more interesting to work with.
I'd like a bigger group so that we have things like In the Spotlight.
-
Would you rather play, Tables? You've already modded one, seems like it's only fair to let you play the next one!
Hmm... yes, I think so. With how incredibly active the mafia games here are I was expecting the same amount of discussion in this, but this game was less active than most, so yes, I'd be happy to play. I've already mentioned the spreadsheets and linked to one, but here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApPT0N9WtHcKdHotSGJqWUc2bXFXWjZxbzFpS1h1RGc#gid=6)'s the blank sheet for whoever wants to mod one.
-
I'd play if we had more than 7 people (finals coming up so i can't mod)