This is just silliness. My responses are hardly 'heated', I've merely pointed out your suspicious behavior and faulty reasoning. Resorting to personal attacks never helps your position. And what are you going on about 'stake in it'? Resistance have just as much incentive to win the game as spies.
Well, they give off that impression to me, mostly due to the use of expletives. That said, Resistance players do have an incentive to win, but that does not mean that one has to hold personal stake in it. My conclusions could of course be wrong, and they are obviously made by me so they are subjective.
I would also like to note that debating your actions does not mean attacking your person. I do not see my comments as ad hominem attacks in themselves, though there is admittedly a fine line that must be drawn there. I am making conjectures about your "person" as a character in this game, on the grounds that I have available. If we are going to point out fallacies, then I would like to add that pointing out a fallacy is also a fallacy in itself. But, I shall attempt to be more observant of where the line goes in the future.
That said, there have admittedly been visible gaps in my reasoning, though those mostly have to do with 1) me not reviewing the long posts that I type (a flaw), and 2) forgetting that such and such fact is not obvious to everyone, or 3) leaving out links in my reasoning, either intentionally (such as not wanting to make it visible to people, since that may or may not ruin my plans of trying to lure out potential spies) or accidentally on grounds that do not fit in under 2, and 4) hmm, I forgot that one. Well, I think you can "get the gist" of my train of thought, as people say.
Well they would have no need to respond to your comments, since you're clearing them quite easily, and with little support. While Falc is now clear, he was not when you first said he was, based of inanity that he claimed the team had a spy, when to any resistance off the team, it would be obvious there was. And for my 'jumping to conclusions' you admitted the team was sure to be sabotaged, yet you didn't reject it. That is not something resistance would do. Without any scanning cards, there is no way to check who sabotages, and alxeu and madchemist will surely blame each other. And now once I've pointed that out, you've rejected, acting like that clears you. I'm fairly convinced now that madchemist is your mate, and you're hoping to get on the next team for being 'right' about him as a spy. I hope Falc and alxeu don't fall for it, we're close to victory, now is not the time to stop thinking.
Me rejecting that team has no effect. It neither clears nor implicates me. That said, it was the conclusion of my previous paragraphs of reasoning, which were partly prompted by your comment. What a Resistance does or does not do is what a Resistance does or does not do. I did admit to being certain that it was sabotaged, but as said I have provided my reasons for debating. I would also like to point out that I do not know what a Resistance does or does not do, and one could point it out as being a fallacious argument in the style of "No True Scotsman". That said, I will not use said fact as a counter-argument, for that would be a fallacy. I would just like to note that that reasoning isn't convincing; everything that someone who is a Resistance player does is something that a Resistance player does. It is quite a wide category, and that is my actual counter-argument.
I would also like to counter your counter-point to my statistically-based hypothesis in regards to Falc: That team was made up of three people. It is likely that at least one of them was a spy, but not as likely as you seem to think. It is, really, a 50/50 throw of the die. I would not dare take that risk, for if it backfires ... then it is game over.
I think though that we are at an impasse. It is quite obvious that we will not be able to convince each other, for why would anyone admit to being a spy? That is absurd. As such, I would like to move over to who the sabotager of two of our missions is. It can be alxeu or mc, no one else, for those are the only two who were on both. As alxeu did not lie about Falc, then he is likely to be innocent as well. As such, my conclusion is the same as before the mission: Mc is a spy. That said, one could consider it strange in light of the fact that he was being truthful on alxeu ... or was he? Hmm. I think he was, since it was the perfect opportunity to shift blame onto me. I mean, really. I propose a team including me, mc and alxeu. Those latter two had already been on a mission—which was a success, but that proves nothing as it is likely for a spy to not sabotage on the first mission that he or she is on. They gain more trust that way. As such, both of them are suspicious. Then, the mission is sabotaged and mc shifts blame to me—the unknown third party—on the grounds that alxeu was clean, since he can't accuse himself. Should it be correct that both me and mc are spies ... then alxeu is clean. If only one of us is a spy, then ... er, I lost my train of thought. I'll get back to you on that train later, if I can get it restarted.
That said, my past conclusion still seems valid: Falc and alxeu are clean. Mc is a spy. Aedan is likely a spy.
A note, which I forgot to include earlier and which I now have no idea where to place: Mc has not really made much noise of my allegations against him, either. That said, he holds the public opinion that I am a spy, and as such probably does not listen to my ... tracts.
EDIT:
I think Dyranum and Madchemist are a likely combination for spies. There have been plenty of cases where multiple spies go on a team and only one sabotage comes out. Heck we've had pure spy teams that don't know it's a pure spy team pull off only a single sabotage. It's quite possible, and to ignore that invites disaster. Beyond the teams and sabotage records, look at Dyranums posts. He's saying 'it's only a game', suggesting it shouldn't be taken seriously, and keeps putting out long posts. He's also quite confident in the spies and resistance, based off very little information, and some very warped logic. Put him on the final team and we, the Resistance, will lose.
Er, it
is only a game. It is meant to be played for fun. It is a remark which I tend to do when people seem to act as if they held a personal stake in it. Calm down, take a chill pill, and try to figure things out—that's the attitude that I am going with. Me putting out long posts is simply due to the fact that I find it fun to try and figure things out—it's like a mystery novel!—and I tend to think while I type.
I would not exactly call my logic "warped". It is based on assumptions and analyses of the available information—people's posts and the missions. That said, I haven't studied logic, so I might indeed be committing several errors—according to them, but they believe legal reasoning (and probably other disciplines which similarly have their own methods of reasoning that are not entirely "logical") to be illogical, so, "meh".
That said, I do lose track of what I say in my posts since they are so long and a bit rambling—like much of what I write that is not structured or reviewed. That is definitely true.
