[The Resistance] Game 55 - Aboard the Normandy

[madchemist]

You surely know that the "moving up/down the list" is often how I choose early teams and/or give out cards.

Oh, of course. It could easily be simple bad luck that you handed the card to a spy.

It has me, but also a member of the last failed team.

Anyhow, I'm still a bit wary of MC

I'm a bit amused that both your objections to the team are objections to me.

I'm also at least mildly curious as to whether those objections are related to my pointing out of your possible spyishness, and whether they'd have been expressed had I not pointed out what I did.

Math. This game would be pretty impossible to win mathematically, so we should probably not go down that road further. I just made the calculations cause they seemed easy to do, but mostly I just wanted to prove tamius wrong / my gut feeling right
As the others said we need to take all the other information we have into consideration.

Yeah, this is an exceedingly difficult game for the Resistance to win mathematically. Identifying spies is far more important than working out numbers. But the numbers are undeniably interesting.

If there is anything I learned in my short time in this forum, that would be: always be wary of MC ^^

I believe we've had the misfortune of being on opposite sides in every game so far (hopefully not counting this one). Your reaction is quite understandable.

Tamius does not need to be on the team to use his card. It was theoretically beneficial to have him on the team mission 1, since him making an accusation or not would greatly narrow down the spy teams if he used the card and the team was sabotaged. His failure to use the card thus reflects quite poorly upon him.

Indeed.

 

[Cliges]

I'm a bit amused that both your objections to the team are objections to me.

I'm also at least mildly curious as to whether those objections are related to my pointing out of your possible spyishness, and whether they'd have been expressed had I not pointed out what I did.

No, it's because you come off as a little spyish for jumping straight into your heavy handed bullying. Normal in itself, but before good cause, that's one of your red flags for villainy.

I believe we've had the misfortune of being on opposite sides in every game so far (hopefully not counting this one). Your reaction is quite understandable.

Hey, deflecting the charges by enthusiastically embracing them was one of my tricks!

 

[madchemist]

No, it's because you come off as a little spyish for jumping straight into your heavy handed bullying. Normal in itself, but before good cause, that's one of your red flags for villainy.

But heavy-handed bullying is my stock-in-trade!

Although really, that's a pretty low standard you've got there for heavy-handed bullying. I merely pointed out a possible line of reasoning which might make you marginally more suspicious than some others.

Hey, deflecting the charges by enthusiastically embracing them was one of my tricks!

It's certainly the most fun way to play.

 

[EnvyDemon]

@npstr @Hazbot

 

[npstr]

Reject

 

[Rovsea]

Reject

At least give a reason, please.

 

[npstr]

I don't want neither MC nor tamius on there.

 

[Hazbot]

REJECT

This team is better, but that doesn't mean it's worth my approval.

 

[Rovsea]

I don't want neither MC nor tamius on there.

But you trust aedan? Why?

 

[npstr]

But you trust aedan? Why?

If you can rephrase this in a less suggestive manner I might bother to answer.

 

[madchemist]

I don't want neither MC nor tamius on there.

The double negative indicates that he does want me or tamius on the team.

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet he's right, one way or the other.


Speaking of which, I just realized I haven't even played my trump card yet. Tamius and I are very unlikely spymates. I will leave the logic as an exercise for the reader, but if nobody figures it out in the next 20 minutes or so, I'll provide the solution myself.

 

[EnvyDemon]

The team was rejected Everybody - Rovsea

Rejected: Everyone not named Rovsea

Approved: Rovsea

@npstr it is your turn to propose the third team of mission 2

 

[aedan777]

The double negative indicates that he does want me or tamius on the team.

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet he's right, one way or the other.


Speaking of which, I just realized I haven't even played my trump card yet. Tamius and I are very unlikely spymates. I will leave the logic as an exercise for the reader, but if nobody figures it out in the next 20 minutes or so, I'll provide the solution myself.

Well no one was accusing you and Tamius of being spymates, mostly due to the unlikeliness of multiple spies on mission 1 in general. But in your particular case there'd be the issue of it not being clear by the spy guidelines who would sabotage. I don't view that as a particularly strong argument though, since you are well known for sabotaging often, and could be assumed to do so in absence of other cues. And if Falc or Rovsea was your third spymate then both missions 4 and 5 had two spy mates, so there'd be no way to avoid a team with two spies on it by that point.

 

[madchemist]

Well no one was accusing you and Tamius of being spymates, mostly due to the unlikeliness of multiple spies on mission 1 in general.

I wasn't quite being accused, but npstr not wanting myself or tamius on the team seemed close enough.

But in your particular case there'd be the issue of it not being clear by the spy guidelines who would sabotage.

Ding ding!

I don't view that as a particularly strong argument though, since you are well known for sabotaging often, and could be assumed to do so in absence of other cues.

Meh. I guess. But it'd be more risky than usual.

And if Falc or Rovsea was your third spymate then both missions 4 and 5 had two spy mates, so there'd be no way to avoid a team with two spies on it by that point.

Not sure I get the relevance of that point to my argument.

 

[aedan777]

Not sure I get the relevance of that point to my argument.

It's relevant because it gives an explanation for why the spies would let a two spy team pass. If mission 4 had 2 spies on it, and mission 5 also did, then they wouldn't be able to avoid a two spy team, meaning they'd go for the latter to get Tamius the card distribution.

Not that I think that's the case, but I don't see a madchemist-Tamius spy team any less likely than an Aedan-Tamius spy team, from a neutral perspective.

 

[Rovsea]

If you can rephrase this in a less suggestive manner I might bother to answer.

I would like to know what chain of logic lead you to preferring aedan of Madchemist, specifically, as far as trust goes, because I don't see anything to suggest that one is a better choice than the other. Make sense?

 

[npstr]

The double negative indicates that he does want me or tamius on the team.

What would be the Resistance equivalent of a crovaxian slip be called? You should accuse me of that ^^

the spy guidelines

Is this something like "if two spies get on a mission, the one further top in the roster does the sabotage"?
Also, what is the chain spies rule mentioned in the rules? I must have missed that when I read them at sign up.

I would like to know what chain of logic lead you to preferring aedan of Madchemist, specifically, as far as trust goes, because I don't see anything to suggest that one is a better choice than the other. Make sense?

Thanks, this sounds really constructive and way better than before. Let's concetrate on exchanging information without subliminal slander, of which your previous post was full of.

Here is my thinking: I don't want to exclude all three of them from the player pool of M2, as this means if there was only one spy in M1, M2 would be doomed. So I decided to pick the two more suspicious of them, and these are Tamius (not using card) and MC (personal preference of me, my vestal [does one say this in English?] rule with MC is: If he isn't useful early he is likely a baddie, and he doesn't seem useful to me so far).

So here is my team proposal for M2:

npstr
Falc
aedan777
Rovsea

The grand idea behind this is to use the information we have from M1 and to generally keep a power balance until we have harder evidence of any of the players.
I am excluding Hazbot since he has that leader card. Putting him on a team would be giving even more power to a player that's so far a dark horse. I don't want to go down that path while we have alternatives.
I am also excluding Cliges since if he was a spy he could use the card to 2x approve this team with only a moderate raise of suspicion (since he is on the team) AND get to be the next Leader and receiver of cards. We already know how his last card dealing turned out, a waste. So same reason as Hazbot, I don't want him to be able to have so much power while we have no feasible clues about his disposition.

aedan is on there since he is the least suspicious from my point of view of the M1 crew. Reasons are further up.
With Hazbot and Cliges barred for reasons of power accumulation this leaves us with Rovsea and Falc (and also my humble self), of which none strike me as an obvious bad choice.


Appove

 

[aedan777]

Is this something like "if two spies get on a mission, the one further top in the roster does the sabotage"?
Also, what is the chain spies rule mentioned in the rules? I must have missed that when I read them at sign up.

The main spy guidelines are "proposing spy sabotages" and "If a spy has sabotaged previously, they continue sabotaging teams they are on". The latter trumps the former if both are invoked. Chain spy rules aren't in effect this game, but if they were then each spy would only know one other spymate, who would not know the spy who knows them (A knows B, but not C, while B knows C, but not A).

As for the team, I have no obvious complaints. It has me on it, and Cliges and Hazbot have been giving me more mild spy vibes from their votes and behaviors than npstr, Falc, and Rovsea. Tamius seems the most likely spy from team 1, but I'm not confident enough in that to prefer taking a risk on Madchemist. All the same, I'm not much of a fan for npstr's selection method regarding excluding Cliges and Hazbot. A proposal should be finding the most likely team to succeed, or failing that the team that reveals the most information. Choosing teams based on limiting the power of other players strikes me as less of a resistance move at this stage. I did consider this the "best" team, or at least the one I'd choose if given a chance to do so. But now I'm less sure. If I reject this, there needs to be a clearly superior team to push for instead, otherwise it's just taking a gamble that someone later down the leader order might be better.

Hmmm.

Voting by PM

 

[Rovsea]

This is a really interesting scenario. I'm not sure I trust aedan over MC, although I suppose it's still possible for both to be resistance (but then why would Tamius not use his card? Why would a resistance member not use his card?). Hmmm, I'm interested to see some reactions on this one first.

 

[Cliges]

Reject

I want on the team and this doesn't feature me.

Though I'm not holding out too much hope of getting a team passed. Having the card apparently makes me look power mad and suspicious or something here.