[Resistance] #1 ~ Day 3 Voting Time²!

[Vieira151]

Pardon me. 

 

[HULKSMASH]

Aye. I think we should keep the same three people with one addition, as the current team has done nothing to suggest that there is a spy on it. Then, if we fail the second mission, we'll have a good idea who it is.

 

[Grimmend]

You guys are forgetting that a spy can choose to support a mission.  By sacrificing one victory, he would ensure another, only this time it would be a 1/4 chance of singling out the saboteur instead of 1/3.  That and the 90% approval of the first chosen team leads me to believe as much as well.

 

[HULKSMASH]

Yes, but I think that's a risk we can take. If I'm right, the good guys are one mission away from winning the game. If you're right, we're not any better off than we would be if we picked four different people, as chances are at least one of those four would be a spy.

Why does the 90% approval make you suspicious? Any good spy would realize that the first team was going to pass and therefore a no vote would be futile and look suspicious (as it did with Xardob). Even if we picked three good guys, the spies should've voted fyes.

 

[Dodes]

Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

-

Aren't you neglecting the possibility that one of the initial three could be spies and just choose to vote yes? If one or more of the three were spies than it would be a good strategy for other spies to advocate for resubmitting the initial three, to draw suspicion on the fourth.

I expected you to be a little smarter than that Hulk to not even mention that. This was even discussed prior to the vote and pointed out by gaham and llandy.

Also Vieira you seem to be 'acting dumb', this is actually a strategy I had employed in my first werewolf game, which iirc helped the wolves win.

Now, my educated guess is going to say Hulk, whose first post was nominating himself but then was totally complieand who put half-effort into putting
Xardob in the spotlight, wants the same team because he knows one (himself) or more is a spy of the three.

Additionally, Hulk nominated Konig out of the blue only giving evidence of a 'positive vibe' and knowing full well he would be team leader next round. (I didn't notice this until I started writing and went back through for posts).

Hulk, Konig, and Vieira are all suspicious to me as of now, from most to least.

 

[Dodes]

Also 3 wins are needed.

 

[Grimmend]

Why does the 90% approval make you suspicious? Any good spy would realize that the first team was going to pass and therefore a no vote would be futile and look suspicious (as it did with Xardob). Even if we picked three good guys, the spies should've voted fyes.

The first day was way too clean cut for my liking.  With the exception of Xar and Llandy (There may have been more, can't recall) self nominating, we had a team set up pretty quickly. The along with you and Vieira hoping right on the repeat team bandwagon first thing seems a bit off.

@Dodes.  I missed that about Konig too, but that could play into it.  Assume in this scenario Konig is innocent, being added to the team (Which HULK and/or Vieira plan to have succeed) would make him more amiable to re-enlisting Hulk and Vieira, with an additional member to be made the straw man for the missions' inevitable failure.

 

[Dodes]

Analyzation time.

Exactly.


We'd get more information anyway were he to pick any 3 of his choosing. At least, I imagine we would.

Vieira voices he supports Hulk (and not the consensus of everyone) to be who the three choices should be. He then shows hesitation with the followup, which would fit a MO of 'playing dumb'.

Alright, I suppose I'll nominate Hulk, Llandy, and Dodes.

Konig nominates Hulk, so it seems Hulk and Konig already have a pre-established cooperative going on.

I agree. That is reasoning I agree with. What are your reasons for choosing myself? Not that I'll argue. It's just for posterity.

Vieira supporting Hulk, then exemplifying hesitation again. Also double agreement is weird syntax, which I would consider a mistake. He agrees with Hulk twice more or less, which might mean he is more focused on agreeing with Hulk rather than what he is actually agreeing to.

I'm not sure if this will be considered valid reason, but I just have a positive vibe coming from him.

Aw, thanks man.

I've already said I think Hulk should be in it,  I don't really have any gut feeling against Viera being in it, and I know I'm not spy, so I'm good with that set up.

Konig supporting Hulk. Also "I'm not a spy". That's a dead giveaway, there was no accusation of such and we come in with the assumption that everyone might be a spy but the majority of players aren't, there was no need to say this, which might mean a mistake coming from the mentality that he doesn't want to appear suspicious and so reaffirms something more with that mentality rather than normal thinking of average players.

Even if we picked three good guys, the spies should've voted fyes.

Why say 'should've' instead of 'would've'? Might be a slip indicating that is what he wanted other spies to do, rather than actual reasoning.

 

[Xardob]

I don't think a spy indicating two spies for the mission team makes much sense. It takes only one spy to fail the mission, there are no benefits in having more on the team and a lot of risks. So, if Hulk is a spy, I very much doubt either Konig or Vieira are spies as well.

As for repeating the first mission team and adding only one more player, I have no strong feelings either way. I'd like to see myself and Llandy on the team.

Great work team! I'm a little regretful about my arm but it was for the good of the resistance, and we all must make sacrifices.

These types of posts on Werewolf always indicate a wolf. I wonder if it's the same with this game as well.

 

[Grimmend]

I don't think a spy indicating two spies for the mission team makes much sense. It takes only one spy to fail the mission, there are no benefits in having more on the team and a lot of risks.

Actually, I disagree.  You get two spies in, have one sabotage.  Next mission one spy gets booted, the other sabotages, then people think, "oh, I guess the first guy wasn't a spy after all"

 

[Xardob]

The spies can't coordinate that. They can't talk among themselves, how are they supposed to know which spy is supposed to sabotage the mission and which is supposed to support it? They run the risk of both sabotaging it, and this would be a disaster.

 

[König]

Response to Dodes:

Alright, I suppose I'll nominate Hulk, Llandy, and Dodes.

Konig nominates Hulk, so it seems Hulk and Konig already have a pre-established cooperative going on.

I've said multiple times before; I think the leader should always go on the mission, hence why I nominated Hulk, why I'll nominate myself, why I'll nominate Eternal next mission, and why I'll nominate you when it's your turn to lead.

Also what Xardob said on the matter. Unless it's a mission requiring multiple spies to sabotage, then it's much more of a liability than a help for a spy-leader to nominate another spy.

I agree. That is reasoning I agree with. What are your reasons for choosing myself? Not that I'll argue. It's just for posterity.

Vieira supporting Hulk, then exemplifying hesitation again. Also double agreement is weird syntax, which I would consider a mistake. He agrees with Hulk twice more or less, which might mean he is more focused on agreeing with Hulk rather than what he is actually agreeing to.

I do agree that sounds a little awkward, but it may have just been a poor choice of words.

I'm not sure if this will be considered valid reason, but I just have a positive vibe coming from him.

Aw, thanks man.

I've already said I think Hulk should be in it,  I don't really have any gut feeling against Viera being in it, and I know I'm not spy, so I'm good with that set up.

Konig supporting Hulk. Also "I'm not a spy". That's a dead giveaway, there was no accusation of such and we come in with the assumption that everyone might be a spy but the majority of players aren't, there was no need to say this, which might mean a mistake coming from the mentality that he doesn't want to appear suspicious and so reaffirms something more with that mentality rather than normal thinking of average players.

"I'm not a spy" wasn't intended as a standalone statement, nor a response to any perceived accusation. At the time it just seemed reasonable to include a short statement why I was approving of each person in Hulk's team, including myself.

Now, as to why Hulk said he had a "positive vibe" coming from me, I really can't explain.

______

As the mission leader, I'm proposing the candidates; König, Llandy, Dodes, and Grimmend. I decided to go with mostly new faces for this one. I've already explained how I feel about the mission leader going on the actual mission, so while I have no real evidence for or against any of them, they seem like a solid bunch. So your thoughts?

 

[Dodes]

Just because they can't talk to each doesn't mean they can't cooperate. Whatever their actions result as a group they can always then collectively speak in public  to spin it towards working in favor of future sabotage.

I don't think it's a stretch that if there was more than one spy during the first mission, that two or three could both/all come to the conclusion that it would not be the wisest to sabotage the first mission, which has only three people that could then easily all be excluded from all future missions to guarantee that at least one spy cannot sabotage anymore.

It'd be more valuable to aim for getting repeat spies for future missions from the first mission that went unsabotaged to then go on to be seen as less likely the ones who sabotaged later missions.

I think that's exactly what Hulk was trying to do as I think it would be the best strategy for the spies, up until the point it is pointed out (which is being done right now), which it then becomes incredibly ineffective as players become conscious of it.

If not brought up so enthusiastically by Hulk, I would have been in more favor of choosing one or more players from the first mission, but I think the safest bet is now not to have any of them.

The more I type, the more I feel confident that Hulk is a spy and choose a spy team of either himself and another one or two spies, then was ready to either play it as he did if it was successful, or through suspicion onto someone else. With that in mind, it would have been optimal for a 2 spy, 1  operative team. There would be little sense in having them all be spies in the case one decided to sabotage it without realizing the same strategy as the others and someone needed to take the fall.

But the thing that bothers me and doesn't make sense is that Hulk, Konig, and Vieira all seem notably suspicious, where I would think one wouldn't be at all.

-

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

-

So your thoughts?

I don't think you should be on the second team.

I've said multiple times before; I think the leader should always go on the mission, hence why I nominated Hulk, why I'll nominate myself, why I'll nominate Eternal next mission, and why I'll nominate you when it's your turn to lead.

Except I conveniently will never be a leader as the seventh player with five missions and I think you know that, so all this is an appearance to look "see this is fair" when it benefits the spies the most.

König, Llandy, Dodes, and Grimmend.

This seems like the perfect opportunity for you to sabotage the mission and then place the blame on me by saying that all three of mission 1's players were not spies and thus all-along I was a spy setting it up to have a more likely chance of getting spies into mission 2.

 

[Xardob]

I've said multiple times before; I think the leader should always go on the mission

Even when you suspect the leader is a spy?

I don't think it's a stretch that if there was more than one spy during the first mission, that two or three could both/all come to the conclusion that it would not be the wisest to sabotage the first mission, which has only three people that could then easily all be excluded from all future missions to guarantee that at least one spy cannot sabotage anymore.

I haven't done the math, but I suspect this is statistically wrong. Excluding the first team from future missions is probably an advantage to the spies if the first team has only one spy.

The only scenario we should exclude members from previous missions is if the mission had more than one sabotage. And this is the scenario the spies want to avoid the most. And that is why I think no spy would risk nominating a fellow spy to the same team. I suppose a spy could nominate another if he always planned on supporting the mission, but then, what's the point? That's basically waiving your choice on the result of the mission.

 

[Dodes]

Does anybody actually know the math by chance?

The only scenario we should exclude members from previous missions is if the mission had more than one sabotage. And this is the scenario the spies want to avoid the most. And that is why I think no spy would risk nominating a fellow spy to the same team. I suppose a spy could nominate another if he always planned on supporting the mission, but then, what's the point? That's basically waiving your choice on the result of the mission.

I'm not sure if it's me, but I had difficulty trying to understand what you are saying here.

"The scenario the spies want to avoid the most is the exclusion of members from missions with more than one sabotage." But this is only a possible case for mission 4.

I suppose a spy could nominate another if he always planned on supporting the mission, but then, what's the point? That's basically waiving your choice on the result of the mission.

But here's where I'm getting completely lost, could you maybe elaborate this in a different way?

 

[König]

I've said multiple times before; I think the leader should always go on the mission, hence why I nominated Hulk, why I'll nominate myself, why I'll nominate Eternal next mission, and why I'll nominate you when it's your turn to lead.

Except I conveniently will never be a leader as the seventh player with five missions and I think you know that, so all this is an appearance to look "see this is fair" when it benefits the spies the most.

Not true. If any teams/leaders between you and I get denied (which will likely happen sooner or later), then it moves to the next person in line. Making it actually quite likely you will end up as leader at some point in the game.

König, Llandy, Dodes, and Grimmend.

This seems like the perfect opportunity for you to sabotage the mission and then place the blame on me by saying that all three of mission 1's players were not spies and thus all-along I was a spy setting it up to have a more likely chance of getting spies into mission 2.

You seem pretty determined to paint me as the villain here, and yourself as the victim. We don't even know for sure if there was even a spy on that mission in the first place.

Thus my current informal-proposal for the team still stands. I'd like to hear other people's opinions, but don't take long.

I've said multiple times before; I think the leader should always [nominate themselves to] go on the mission

Even when you suspect the leader is a spy?

As a matter of principle, yes. However I would probably not approve the resulting mission-team, and so let it pass to someone else.

I suppose a spy could nominate another if he always planned on supporting the mission, but then, what's the point? That's basically waiving your choice on the result of the mission.

But here's where I'm getting completely lost, could you maybe elaborate this in a different way?

I think he's referring to a spy attempting to frame other spies to keep the blame off of themselves.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Ugh, reading all this on phone is a nightmare. I'll have to read through and throw in my tuppence when I get home tonight

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Can't edit my last post, but iirc mission 2 only needs a team of 3, not 4.

Natch, I volunteer, but I'll give my thoughts on other players later on.

 

[Dodes]

Mission 2 and 3 needs four, Mission 4 and 5 needs five, Mission 4 would have to have 2 sabotages to fail. It's all clear on the image in the OP.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I can't see the image, I'm on my Crapberry