[Resistance] #1 ~ Day 3 Voting Time²!

[Lord Brutus]

I like the flavor that Mahud threw in, especially Hulk losing his arm.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

My opinion is that there WAS a spy on the first team, but that he kept quiet to make us all feel more comfortable with the folks in the team and to make it more likely he'll get picked next time. Exactly who is the spy? I dunno. But with 2:3 odds, I'm willing to put money on somebody in team #1 being one.

With regards to the upcoming team: the spies can't afford to hand us another easy win. My feelings are that every spy on the next mission will have to vote sabotage, because the whole "the other guy might do it instead of me" mentality could end up handing another mission to us on a silver platter. Therefore I suspect next time, we'll find out how many spies are in the second team and be able to start making some informed choices.

Hell, for all we know, all three from mission 1 could have been spies keeping quiet to lull us into a false sense of security

 

[Xardob]

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.

Let me try again. The spies want to avoid having more than one spy sabotaging a mission (with the exception of mission 4) because it would give us a clearer picture of who they are. If we discover that two spies sabotaged the first mission, for example, we get a huge advantage. That's a risk too big for the spies to take.

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

If you're a spy that's going to nominate yourself for the team mission, you have two choices. You either plan on sabotaging the mission, and if that's so you don't need another spy on the team, or you plan on supporting the mission to earn trust from the resistance. In this case, if you nominate another spy to the team, you lose control of the result of the mission and your fellow spy will decide if he wants the mission to succeed or not. What's the point of planning all this if a player you can't even talk to can ruin your plan so easily?

Does anybody actually know the math by chance?

Considering that the first mission team had only one spy, the chance of randomly choosing a team with only resistance members if we exclude the first team from the second mission is roughly 3%. It goes up to 7% if we pick only one player from the first team and 9% if we decide on two players from the first team. I'm not sure this is entirely accurate, but it shouldn't be far off unless I completely forgot everything I learned in college.

I like the flavor that Mahud threw in, especially Hulk losing his arm.

Is this all you have to say?

With regards to the upcoming team: the spies can't afford to hand us another easy win. My feelings are that every spy on the next mission will have to vote sabotage, because the whole "the other guy might do it instead of me" mentality could end up handing another mission to us on a silver platter. Therefore I suspect next time, we'll find out how many spies are in the second team and be able to start making some informed choices.

Because of this, I'm toying with the idea of choosing as many spies for the team as possible.

 

[Vieira151]

In that case, Xardob, who do you believe are the spies that you propose to be on the next mission?

 

[Xardob]

Eternal, Brutus, Gaham and Dodes.

 

[gaham1]

What did I do? You are the one who voted no on the last team but they didn't have any of your suspects.

 

[Dodes]

Can we expect elaboration, or more than just names? I believe Hulk and Konig are spies, but I think I've made good reasoning on each and connected the two together.

Though I should update that I can't figure how Vieira fits in, seeing as I don't buy his inexperience and timid wording as geniune. It's too unlikely that all three to be spies, but it would fit with my suspicions.

 

[HULKSMASH]

Wow, a lot has gone on since I last posted, and I'll try and respond to everything. Apologies, I've been busy with family for the past couple days.

First though, let me try to encourage my original suggestion that the team be maintained through to the second mission.

For argument's sake, let us assume that I did indeed guess correctly and myself, Konig and Vieira are all innocent. That means that of the seven remaining players, four are spies, and three are innocent. When assembling a team of four entirely new members, it's impossible to pick a team with all good guys on it.
Even if one of the three of us is a spy, when picking from the remaining seven players, there's still an incredibly low margin for error. Picking four from seven when three are bad is lower probability than the chance of me picking all good guys from the ten at the start.
Statistically, the counter-argument doesn't make sense.

If anyone isn't satisfied with those numbers, I'd like them to speak up, but I think we can't afford to nominate four different people.



Now, on to some other stuff.

隐藏

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.
This is true, please read my discussion of statistics above, where I explain why that is wrong.

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.
How exactly has he been acting dumb? Please explain.

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.
I put Xardob in 'the spotlight' because I was concerned about his voting no. If being the only no vote didn't raise even a slight alarm for you, I'm not sure what to say. He then explained himself (albeit not a very good one) and I was satisfied. I'm still slightly suspicious of him, though.

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).
Actually no, I nominated him precisely because he would be leader next round, as I said when I nominated him. I did this so that we could get a read on the next leader to pick. If the mission had failed, it would have been smart to prevent Konig from putting himself on the mission.

Hulk, Konig, and Vieira are all suspicious to me as of now, from most to least.
I'm glad I'm on the top of your list, as you're on the top of mine.

This post strikes me heavily as a spy. It seems to me that he is frustrated that the first mission succeeded (since perhaps there were no spies on it) and now a reshuffle is imperative, lest the second mission have a chance of having all innocents on it as well (we have a 3/7 shot at picking a fourth innocent, assuming all of our current team is good and we keep it). Otherwise, we get the first two missions, which is really bad news for the spies.

隐藏

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'.

What consensus of everyone, exactly? You were really the only one advocating for a random selection of the first mission members, which actually favors the spies. Nearly everyone else said that they thought that the mission leader ought to be on the team.

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.
He also nominates you, so I don't think there's much merit to that argument. Also, he also said that he is always in favor of the mission leader going on the mission, which means that supporting me (the mission leader) is a natural thing to do.

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.
You're grasping at straws here.

I'm not sure if this will be considered valid reason, but I just have a positive vibe coming from him. Plus, he's leading the second mission, so it may be advantageous to be able to get some kind of read on him before he starts his own nomination process.

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.
Thanks for cutting out the important half of my quote. I've added it back to clarify. And again, he supported me because he thought that the leader should go on his own mission. Saying "I'm not a spy" is not a suspicious thing to do, in that context.

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

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.
Again, grasping at straws.

I hope I've managed to debunk some of the accusations put up against me. I'm now of the firm belief that Dodes is a spy, and is pushing for a reshuffle for exactly the same reason that I am pushing for the same team. Math.

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?

I strongly urge you to reconsider. Dodes is, in my opinion a spy, and I've already explained why the math works out to keep the same team.



More Dodes posts, fun!

隐藏

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.
Is that what you are doing?

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.
Except, by not recycling any of the first three of us, you're essentially doing the same thing.

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.
If the second mission fails, then likely none of those four will be reused. That's still only one mission that the spies would've caused to fail.

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.
Are you sure? Why is it that you simply don't want me on the next mission. You can't think that I would be silly enough to bring three spies with me on the first mission. It doesn't make any sense. If my two spy accomplices had both thought it smart to sabotage (possible, since the rules state that there is no outside communication), then three spies would immediately become incredibly suspicious, and the spies would only have one usable member left. The real reason why you want the three of us out is that we're all innocents and a repeat group would kill the spies.

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.
Explain this more, please.

---

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.
You will actually, assuming two votes fail. If one fails, the next mission leader gets to make the next proposal. Theoretically, everybody has a chance to host.

Now, for something besides Dodes.

Eternal, Brutus, Gaham and Dodes.

These seem like fairly good bets, especially Dodes. However I don't think having an all-spy team would do us much good, unless it is on the fourth mission, which by nature they would all pretty much have to vote no for.



Damn, this turned into a longer post than I was expecting, but I think it's all good information. Let me know what you guys think about my arguments.

 

[Dodes]

Wow, a lot has gone on since I last posted, and I'll try and respond to everything. Apologies, I've been busy with family for the past couple days.

First though, let me try to encourage my original suggestion that the team be maintained through to the second mission.

For argument's sake, let us assume that I did indeed guess correctly and myself, Konig and Vieira are all innocent. That means that of the seven remaining players, four are spies, and three are innocent. When assembling a team of four entirely new members, it's impossible to pick a team with all good guys on it.
Even if one of the three of us is a spy, when picking from the remaining seven players, there's still an incredibly low margin for error. Picking four from seven when three are bad is lower probability than the chance of me picking all good guys from the ten at the start.
Statistically, the counter-argument doesn't make sense.

If anyone isn't satisfied with those numbers, I'd like them to speak up, but I think we can't afford to nominate four different people.

Statistically the counter-argument doesn't make sense - under a good deal of confidence that the three initial players are not spies. I'm not sure you could have posted anything else that would increase my suspicion of you more, seeing as you are going out of your way to defend and vouch for Konig and Vieria without specifically mentioning names in their defense. Simultaneously you are dismissing both of their actions that could even be regarded as suspicious. I've even cited the places were I believed Vieria to be playing dumb.

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'.

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.

And now Vieira has gone silent. This exactly how I would play as a spy - play dumb, then go silent and let more vocal players gather the attention. I'm confident that Hulk is a spy, and I severely doubt that a 3-spy team would be assembled without one mistakenly thinking it would be a good idea to sabotage mission 1. So the most likely scenario I see is Hulk being a spy with Konig or Vieira as a second spy, with a less likely chance, but still a possibility, of all three being spies who were wise enough for none to sabotage. I'm ping-ponging back and forth between Konig or Vieira, because both would be good choices by Hulk to assemble in the first team with the hope/intent that a mission 1 two or three spy team wouldn't sabotage at all. My reasoning behind this if I was a spy on mission 1 with another spy or other spies, I wouldn't sabotage because it would put the spies in such a favorable position that they could cite back to mission 1 being sabotage-less and then pinning mission 2's failure on the new fourth guy. Though it would be better for mission 2 to be two of the originals and 2 new guys, in the case that both spies vote to sabotage, which is very possible without communication. Speaking of which, I keep hearing the assumption that the spies can't work together as they can't talk to each other, but if they know who each other then they can predict each other's sabotage choices and what teams would be optimal.

If being the only no vote didn't raise even a slight alarm for you, I'm not sure what to say.

Except I did.

Xardob?

Actually no, I nominated him precisely because he would be leader next round, as I said when I nominated him. I did this so that we could get a read on the next leader to pick. If the mission had failed, it would have been smart to prevent Konig from putting himself on the mission.

My theory here is that you planned going into mission 1 with the intention of not sabotaging, so if Konig (or Vieira if Konig is not) did sabotage against your hope that another spy would not sabotage, then you could either throw Konig under the bus or pin it on him. Doing that would give you credibility to get on the second team - which I believe was your plan when setting up mission 1 and something that you have voiced intently in your posts after mission 1's outcome. If Konig isn't a spy, then your plan would be to discredit him by calling back your intent to 'get a better read on him', then pushing his team 2 choices down the shoot, which would give spies more control in choosing mission 2's team and justify a no vote against his choice if mission 1 failed.

It seems to me that he is frustrated

I don't see where there could be any indication of that, except in the this post I'm writing.

What consensus of everyone, exactly? You were really the only one advocating for a random selection of the first mission members, which actually favors the spies. Nearly everyone else said that they thought that the mission leader ought to be on the team.

The consensus of everyone thinking what should be best, I didn't suspect you at all before mission 1, that's why I voted yes. My position of advocating random selections wasn't even a strong position, it was a suggestion that I thought would be a good idea, but once the idea was fleshed out more it became apparent it wasn't. You're now using that as ammunition against me and trying to play it off as if I was a single person opposed to the entire group.

He also nominates you, so I don't think there's much merit to that argument. Also, he also said that he is always in favor of the mission leader going on the mission, which means that supporting me (the mission leader) is a natural thing to do.

Like I said, it was a good idea to nominate me from a spy's perspective, seeing as then mission 2's planned sabotage could then be pinned on me. Also if Konig is a spy, then it makes perfect sense he would be in favor of the mission leaders going on the mission, seeing as then the first two mission leaders would both be spies.

You're grasping at straws here.

Hardly, I think other other players see what I'm talking about here. Also this is such a common spy/wolf quote to say to discredit investigation, it kinda feels ridiculous.

Thanks for cutting out the important half of my quote. I've added it back to clarify. And again, he supported me because he thought that the leader should go on his own mission. Saying "I'm not a spy" is not a suspicious thing to do, in that context.

There is never a time where saying "I'm not a spy" is not suspicious.

Again, grasping at straws.

You really believe word choice and Freudian slips are worthless in games like this and werewolf?

 

[Vieira151]

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'.

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.

And now Vieira has gone silent. This exactly how I would play as a spy - play dumb, then go silent and let more vocal players gather the attention. I'm confident that Hulk is a spy, and I severely doubt that a 3-spy team would be assembled without one mistakenly thinking it would be a good idea to sabotage mission 1. So the most likely scenario I see is Hulk being a spy with Konig or Vieira as a second spy, with a less likely chance, but still a possibility, of all three being spies who were wise enough for none to sabotage. I'm ping-ponging back and forth between Konig or Vieira, because both would be good choices by Hulk to assemble in the first team with the hope/intent that a mission 1 two or three spy team wouldn't sabotage at all. My reasoning behind this if I was a spy on mission 1 with another spy or other spies, I wouldn't sabotage because it would put the spies in such a favorable position that they could cite back to mission 1 being sabotage-less and then pinning mission 2's failure on the new fourth guy. Though it would be better for mission 2 to be two of the originals and 2 new guys, in the case that both spies vote to sabotage, which is very possible without communication. Speaking of which, I keep hearing the assumption that the spies can't work together as they can't talk to each other, but if they know who each other then they can predict each other's sabotage choices and what teams would be optimal.

I have indeed gone silent. I agree that that is how a spy might play, though I'm unsure what kind of tactics they would employ and why. Of all reasons thought up, I can see their merit but I can see how they could be countered. I'm biding my time, because I am unsure how to proceed. And while I know I am sure that I could ensure a 25% greater chance of success being on the team than not, I have already been infected by mind games and WIFOM that I am unsure if I actually want to be on the next team, because I have been pretty quiet today. I'm not sure i'd give enough information and I'm not sure I'd be able to argue my case very well (I don't have the energy to do so). So yeah, I agree that I have been quiet today, purely because I was unsure as how to counter your arguments.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Vieria, Xardob and either Hulk or Llandy as the third would be my picks.

Looking back, this makes me suspicious for 2 reasons. Maybe even three! Gasp!

First, you've been quick to denounce Vieira since you spoke in favour of him. Did you suggest him knowing he's a spy, but knowing that as an established Werewolf player he would know enough to not incriminate himself during the first round? It seems like you're trying very hard to point the finger of blame at him... smells a little of reverse psychology.

Similar situation with Xardob. You've previously said:

Because Xardob is the most suspicious to me - which isn't really saying much because everyone's suspicion isn't exactly notable this early - and because Vieira seems the least suspicious to me. I feel as though a lot of that is gut feeling though.

Yet now it seems that it's Vieira who's the most suspicious to you -- and yet you nominated Xardob anyway, knowing that even if he WAS a spy he probably wouldn't be foolish enough to risk exposing himself so early.

This next part of your sentence seems particularly suspicious:

Hulk or Llandy as the third

Why Hulk or Llandy? It makes either of us sound a little superfluous. Perhaps because you know that neither of us is a spy? You picked the other two with a lot of certainty and no hesitation despite your claims that Xardob was acting suspiciously and Vieira not. Why not pick a third with the same sort of certainty? Why leave it as an "either/or"?

 

[Dodes]

It was only after mission 1 that I went back and critically analyzed the posts of everyone. I think you're neglecting everything you're quoting me on was said in the early stages of the game where you don't even have anything to go on besides guesswork. If anything, not radically changing suspicion on day 1 is suspicious.

Yet now it seems that it's Vieira who's the most suspicious to you -- and yet you nominated Xardob anyway, knowing that even if he WAS a spy he probably wouldn't be foolish enough to risk exposing himself so early.

That's the point. If he didn't risk exposing himself, then he wouldn't sabotage, if he didn't sabotage then it's more likely the mission would succeed. You throw suspicion on someone, they become more cautious. I've already pointed out that it's a good strategy for the spies to not sabotage day 1 to avoid detection, which is exactly what I think Hulk and Konig and/or Vieira thought as well.

Why Hulk or Llandy? It makes either of us sound a little superfluous. Perhaps because you know that neither of us is a spy? You picked the other two with a lot of certainty and no hesitation despite your claims that Xardob was acting suspiciously and Vieira not. Why not pick a third with the same sort of certainty? Why leave it as an "either/or"?

Because the only inclinations I had were with Xardob and Vieira, which I now think are actually reverse of what I thought then (well I wouldn't see Xardob as the least suspicious, rather somewhere in the middle or below average). The reason for my 'or' choice was because I was agreeing with you here:

Besides me I'd like to see Hulk, but I don't have an opinion on the third person yet, as I don't trust any of you enough at the moment.

Not that I trust Hulk, but as mission leader it seems sensible that he be on this first mission.

And because I agreed with you and based on how and what you posted I pegged you as less likely to be a spy. Note that it isn't necessarily the points you were making as it was just agreeing with the flow, but because from what I know spies tend to say things differently (as I've pointed out examples with Hulk).

-

Also am I the only one that suspects Hulk, Vieira and Konig? I think the points I'm making are sound here.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I don't have enough experience of these games to suspect anybody solidly yet; I'm trying to keep my mind open so I don't waste my time suspecting genuine resistance members and possibly shooting myself in the foot if I get a chance to be Leader.

That said I do believe we can't have been lucky enough to get away with 0 spies in the first round... so I guess I support the idea of keeping the current team members +1 in order to try and out the spy/spies.

 

[HULKSMASH]

Statistically we had approximately a 17% chance of getting three good guys, which is a fair enough shot. There's no way to be sure that the three of us are not spies, but Dodes' strong reaction to the mission success convinces me that we were lucky enough to get it right.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I'm not convinced, but I'd like to hear some thoughts from others, too. Not everyone's been vocal about the mission.

 

[König]

I'll try and have a longer post up later tonight when I have more time, but for now, I'll throw this team possibility out there for people's thoughts:
König, Hulk, Viera, and Llandy.
This gives the original three members of the team, plus one more.

Like I said, it was a good idea to nominate me from a spy's perspective, seeing as then mission 2's planned sabotage could then be pinned on me.

Or maybe it's because I had doubts that you were a spy and was actually trying my best to make sure there were no spies on the team list.

Also if Konig is a spy, then it makes perfect sense he would be in favor of the mission leaders going on the mission, seeing as then the first two mission leaders would both be spies.

No, it doesn't. Teams aren't set in stone once the mission leader puts them up for a vote, it's always possible the team could get denied and thus past to the next person and so-on. I'd really be shooting myself in the foot by doing that.

You really believe word choice and Freudian slips are worthless in games like this and werewolf?

Freudian slips are always possible, but be careful about trying to read-between-the-lines for something that isn't there.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I'll try and have a longer post up later tonight when I have more time, but for now, I'll throw this team possibility out there for people's thoughts:
König, Hulk, Viera, and Llandy.

I have no problem with that team. As I mentioned before, if there's a spy aboard and they choose to sabotage (as they will have to do to avoid giving us another easy victory), I'll know 1/3 who it is (and if there's more than 1 spy, and they all vote to sabotage, I'll be able to take a more educated guess).

I also think that by the time we reach 2 wins, the spies (however many are on a mission) will have no choice but to vote 'sabotage', because by that point they can't afford to play it safe and sneaky. If we get past the next round clear, then I think we've got a better chance at winning this thing.

 

[Dodes]

Okay if Konig is a spy, then he would never have proposed that team, so that puts my suspects to Hulk and Vieira. I really believe this mission is going to get sabotaged, but then at least there will be proof of my suspicion as I think the spies can only afford to forgo sabotaging the first mission. Could even make the spies mess up as both don't vote to sabotage, thinking the other will, or them both voting to sabotage, making it easier to steer clear for future missions as I'll be all but proven right by my argument made. Two of the three possible outcomes here from that team is going to be favorable - either no spies sabotaging or both.

Though I will voice right now that Llandy is becoming more suspicious here as I don't trust anybody being enthusiastic about being on the team. So if there is only one sabotage it opens up the possibility I was wrong but Llandy as a spy is hoping to utilize that to her advantage for me to get more riled up on Hulk or Vieira.

 

[gaham1]

I'll try and have a longer post up later tonight when I have more time, but for now, I'll throw this team possibility out there for people's thoughts:
König, Hulk, Viera, and Llandy.

I'm fine with that team I think Xarob is one of the spies due to my other statement about him.

 

[Vieira151]

I really believe this mission is going to get sabotaged

Hard not to, considering that 40% of the players are spies who most definitely would prefer to have the score tied at 1-1 instead of being 2-0 down. The only way we can truly tell if one of the original team members is a spy, is if we choose the same players plus one for Mission 2 and two of them vote to sabotage.


I'm almost so sure that this will be sabotaged that I'm not sure I even want to be on the team for this mission. The only thing that is stopping me is that, as I said, 2-0 is a much better position and 1-1.