Print

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

[Axxle]

(With the conclusion of MV, I have a perfect record in all Mafia games, but because of the Resistance 1 loss, Galzria has a better overall Forum Games record and this cannot stand. So I am going to have to assume Galzria is a Spy, because it's the only way for me to beat him this game...)

Now this is a very interesting thing to say.

Calling it:

Spies:
Robz
Qvist
Galzria

[Axxle]

(With the conclusion of MV, I have a perfect record in all Mafia games, but because of the Resistance 1 loss, Galzria has a better overall Forum Games record and this cannot stand. So I am going to have to assume Galzria is a Spy, because it's the only way for me to beat him this game...)

Now this is a very interesting thing to say.

Calling it:

Spies:
Robz
Qvist
Galzria

/partial joke

On a side note I want to fail this just to get more information about how other players pick their teams.

[cayvie]

I voted against. As stated earlier, I wish to propose Robz and Qvist as a team.

[Galzria]

(With the conclusion of MV, I have a perfect record in all Mafia games, but because of the Resistance 1 loss, Galzria has a better overall Forum Games record and this cannot stand. So I am going to have to assume Galzria is a Spy, because it's the only way for me to beat him this game...)

HA! Best reason ever. +1 somewhere I can find a non-forums games post.

If you really are Resistance, you'll have to wait until another game to break me of that.

[cayvie]

I was thinking that if we propose a team of Qvist and Robz, then if it fails, we will know 100% that Qvist is a Spy. (If Robz was a Spy and Qvist wasn't, why would Qvist report Robz as Resistance?)

If it succeeds, we won't know anything 100%, but that's the same as any other pairing.

Protip: Mission 1 very rarely fails. It's not worth the Spy's sacrificing their cred this early when mission sizes just get larger as we go.

At least, that is what I was told in Resistance-I. I assume it to be true because, well, it makes sense.

Okay.

I guess I just have to ask then: why did you say this?

[Galzria]

I was thinking that if we propose a team of Qvist and Robz, then if it fails, we will know 100% that Qvist is a Spy. (If Robz was a Spy and Qvist wasn't, why would Qvist report Robz as Resistance?)

If it succeeds, we won't know anything 100%, but that's the same as any other pairing.

Protip: Mission 1 very rarely fails. It's not worth the Spy's sacrificing their cred this early when mission sizes just get larger as we go.

At least, that is what I was told in Resistance-I. I assume it to be true because, well, it makes sense.

Okay.

I guess I just have to ask then: why did you say this?

... Because you were talking about missions failing? It's a direct response to the quote provided.

After talking about failing, you mentioned if it passed we learn as much as any other pair. Perhaps that's true. But on the off-chance the Spy's ARE willing to fail mission one, I would rather reduce the opportunity they get to do so to the the minimal amount. Thus why I won't approve an assignment I'm not on (outside #5, which I must pass).

[cayvie]

Galzria, that explanation has little to nothing to do with what you actually said.

You said "Protip: Mission 1 very rarely fails. It's not worth the Spy's sacrificing their cred this early when mission sizes just get larger as we go."

How does that at all lead you to "But on the off-chance the Spy's ARE willing to fail mission one, I would rather reduce the opportunity they get to do so to the the minimal amount. Thus why I won't approve an assignment I'm not on (outside #5, which I must pass)."?

[Galzria]

Not a contradiction, no. Just two separate logical arguments. The odds of it failing ARE small. Spy's should PROBABLY pass it. Nonetheless, the odds of success are better if I'm onboard, and I would rather not risk the possibility (or at least minimize it) that they DO fail it. Success is, I believe, better than failure + learning a spy is 1 of 2 people.

Bolded for emphasis. I never said one led to the other, I said both arguments made sense to me, but were SEPERATE arguments. They certainly aren't exclusive of each other.

Why are you ok passing an assignment you're not on? Don't care if it fails?

[ftl]

Yeah, I considered a team of Robz and Qvist. That was the other reasonable option I was referencing in my post

Considering what to make my team. I see two reasonable options, and not sure which to pick...

.

I might even vote for it.

I'm not so convinced that the spies will pass mission 1 for free. There's three of them, exposing one spy to stab one mission is a worthwhile trade, they need three failures to win. I suppose that's a tradeoff for them to decide.

[Galzria]

Not a contradiction, no. Just two separate logical arguments. The odds of it failing ARE small. Spy's should PROBABLY pass it. Nonetheless, the odds of success are better if I'm onboard, and I would rather not risk the possibility (or at least minimize it) that they DO fail it. Success is, I believe, better than failure + learning a spy is 1 of 2 people.

Bolded for emphasis. I never said one led to the other, I said both arguments made sense to me, but were SEPERATE arguments. They certainly aren't exclusive of each other.

Why are you ok passing an assignment you're not on? Don't care if it fails?

I should clarify that last sentence: I'm not accusing you, but there IS a chance the spies fail mission 1 if they can. Is a Resistance Cayvie willing to risk that by putting two unknowns on an assignment?

If it passes, hey, great! But we still know nothing new. I'm fine with this outcome.

If it fails, we know Qvist is a spy. That is good, but still leaves 2 unknown spies, and Resistance is down 0-1. - I'm NOT ok with that outcome.

Thus to me, the best way of reducing a CHANCE the spies would fail it, is to be on the assignment.

I would hope Resistance Cayvie would agree? Spy Csyvie, now I have to consider.

[cayvie]

Not a contradiction, no. Just two separate logical arguments. The odds of it failing ARE small. Spy's should PROBABLY pass it. Nonetheless, the odds of success are better if I'm onboard, and I would rather not risk the possibility (or at least minimize it) that they DO fail it. Success is, I believe, better than failure + learning a spy is 1 of 2 people.

Bolded for emphasis. I never said one led to the other, I said both arguments made sense to me, but were SEPERATE arguments. They certainly aren't exclusive of each other.

Why are you ok passing an assignment you're not on? Don't care if it fails?

No, no, no, no, no.

These two statements I quoted are not separate arguments.

The first is from an argument you made. The second is from a post you made explaining that same argument when I asked you to elucidate.

I was thinking that if we propose a team of Qvist and Robz, then if it fails, we will know 100% that Qvist is a Spy. (If Robz was a Spy and Qvist wasn't, why would Qvist report Robz as Resistance?)

If it succeeds, we won't know anything 100%, but that's the same as any other pairing.

Protip: Mission 1 very rarely fails. It's not worth the Spy's sacrificing their cred this early when mission sizes just get larger as we go.

At least, that is what I was told in Resistance-I. I assume it to be true because, well, it makes sense.

Okay.

I guess I just have to ask then: why did you say this?

... Because you were talking about missions failing? It's a direct response to the quote provided.

After talking about failing, you mentioned if it passed we learn as much as any other pair. Perhaps that's true. But on the off-chance the Spy's ARE willing to fail mission one, I would rather reduce the opportunity they get to do so to the the minimal amount. Thus why I won't approve an assignment I'm not on (outside #5, which I must pass).

[cayvie]

Galzria, that explanation has little to nothing to do with what you actually said.

You said "Protip: Mission 1 very rarely fails. It's not worth the Spy's sacrificing their cred this early when mission sizes just get larger as we go."

How does that at all lead you to "But on the off-chance the Spy's ARE willing to fail mission one, I would rather reduce the opportunity they get to do so to the the minimal amount. Thus why I won't approve an assignment I'm not on (outside #5, which I must pass)."?

These are the two statements referred to; they should be requoted in the previous post.

[cayvie]

Not a contradiction, no. Just two separate logical arguments. The odds of it failing ARE small. Spy's should PROBABLY pass it. Nonetheless, the odds of success are better if I'm onboard, and I would rather not risk the possibility (or at least minimize it) that they DO fail it. Success is, I believe, better than failure + learning a spy is 1 of 2 people.

Bolded for emphasis. I never said one led to the other, I said both arguments made sense to me, but were SEPERATE arguments. They certainly aren't exclusive of each other.

Why are you ok passing an assignment you're not on? Don't care if it fails?

I should clarify that last sentence: I'm not accusing you, but there IS a chance the spies fail mission 1 if they can. Is a Resistance Cayvie willing to risk that by putting two unknowns on an assignment?

If it passes, hey, great! But we still know nothing new. I'm fine with this outcome.

If it fails, we know Qvist is a spy. That is good, but still leaves 2 unknown spies, and Resistance is down 0-1. - I'm NOT ok with that outcome.

Thus to me, the best way of reducing a CHANCE the spies would fail it, is to be on the assignment.

I would hope Resistance Cayvie would agree? Spy Csyvie, now I have to consider.

Also, separate argument: if everyone follows that logic, only voting for missions they themselves are on, then no mission ever gets passed (until the 5th one submitted, I suppose).

[Galzria]

Cayvie, here is your claim I contradicted myself. You offer these as if I was led to one by the other:

I vote first:
Vote: No

I certainly can't trust Qvist's word over my own role PM. This mission would have a better chance to succeed if I were on it instead of Robz.

I don't blame you for making that pairing. It's the correct one for you to make. But I'm still voting no.

Protip: Mission 1 very rarely fails. It's not worth the Spy's sacrificing their cred this early when mission sizes just get larger as we go.

At least, that is what I was told in Resistance-I. I assume it to be true because, well, it makes sense.

You know what, Galzria? I kind of think you've contradicted yourself here.

Should we consider the likelihood of mission success or not, when determining our Mission 1 team?

Here is the ENTIRE second quote, including what you snipped:

 

I was thinking that if we propose a team of Qvist and Robz, then if it fails, we will know 100% that Qvist is a Spy. (If Robz was a Spy and Qvist wasn't, why would Qvist report Robz as Resistance?)

If it succeeds, we won't know anything 100%, but that's the same as any other pairing.

Protip: Mission 1 very rarely fails. It's not worth the Spy's sacrificing their cred this early when mission sizes just get larger as we go.

At least, that is what I was told in Resistance-I. I assume it to be true because, well, it makes sense.

My two posts were in no way related to each other. My first, was why I voted No, and will continue to do so until I'm on a wagon or we have more concrete information on somebody.

My second post was in DIRECT RESPONSE to something you posted, and was in no way a tie in to my first.

My first says:

A) Any mission with me has a better chance of success. Success is good. I will vote for missions with me.

My second says:

B) Spies will probably pass Mission one.

Theses statements do NOT contradict. Nor does one lead to the other. They were septate statements, made at separate times.

You're making terrible arguments, and you're clipping relevant portions of quotes to try and make them. I'd love to getty others to chime in here because the facts and history is less than two days old. What you're suggesting I said/did/implied is simply false.

Big FoS in your direction for intentionally misquoting to try and make invalid points.

[ftl]

Hey, I like Cayvie's proposed team. It was my second choice after me/robz, and I suspect it's the best choice we have that actually has a shot of being passed.

[Galzria]

Hey, I like Cayvie's proposed team. It was my second choice after me/robz, and I suspect it's the best choice we have that actually has a shot of being passed.

I understand. It's my "second choice" after a team that doesn't have me as well.

I don't see how it could be Resistance Cayvie's first choice. I could see why it would be Spy Cayvie's though, if Qvist were her teammate (note: I'm not claiming this, just saying it would fit).

In either case, my issue is not in the team she suggested. Where I take issue was her sniping quotes to make a completely bogus accusation that I contradicted myself or arrived at false conclusions. Her argument is completely fabricated.

[ftl]

Well, I considered making it my first choice, but decided against it.

We'll see, I guess. Lots of info going around early. This should be good.

[Tables]

Mission 1.1 proposed by: ftl:
Team Proposed: ftl, Robz888
Voting YES: ftl, Robz888, Qvist
Voting NO: Cayvie, Axxle, Grujah, Galzria
Result: Yes - 3, No - 4
Proposal Fails

Leadership passes to Cayvie

[ftl]

Hm. Interesting. Why did you vote for my proposal, Qvist?

[Robz888]

Hm. Interesting. Why did you vote for my proposal, Qvist?

Why wouldn't he? He knows I'm Resistance, so he would get to learn whether you are Resistance, ftl.

[Qvist]

Hm. Interesting. Why did you vote for my proposal, Qvist?

Because it was my idea and I already explained the reasons.

So I think that ftl should send himself and Robz to a mission. If the mission fails we know that ftl is a spy and know that the Opinion Maker most likely wasn't random. If the mission suceeds, well, that's our first point.

cayvie will now propose me and Robz. That's fine. A guaranteed 1-0 for the Resistence

[ftl]

lol yes, you did propose it, I'm stupid for forgetting that. Sry.

[cayvie]

##Propose Team: Qvist and Robz888

By the way, there's a big logic puzzle here.

Right now, we know that

1) IF Robz = Spy, THEN Qvist = Spy.

Which implies its contrapositive,

1a) IF Qvist = Resistance, THEN Robz = Resistance.

It seems unlikely that we'll get enough information from cards to completely solve the game, but it still seems useful to keep track of this stuff.

[Grujah]

Ok, I guess with this team we either find spies or pass it outright (which establishes the duo as more likely to be Resistance)? Seems like a fine one.

[Tables]

Quick note on Opinion Maker: If you think your vote will not vary either way, feel free to send me your vote before the Opinion Maker vote(s). If they will, you can still send a conditional vote.