My only concern is that I feel there is a greater chance of spies being on this mission than the last one.
I can understand why squinty wuodl trust razor, but right now I feel its most beneficial to start with an entirely different team. It lessens the chance of picking a spy slightly more than if we included one of the first three.
I won't go and explain the numbers behind it because I know squinty will call it 50/50 anyways

I don't typically point out my reasons until I have the information I'm looking for, otherwise people can tailor their answer to best fit it.
That being said, in this particular case I have nothing but a hunch.

I'm just looking at why you voted no, and what you have to say for yourself against being a spy?

Sure, I wouldn't intentionally take two spies with me. But, like everybody else who wears a White Hat, I have no idea who the spies are. So I could be an unlucky SOB and have two of the three people I picked to join me wearing Black Hats.

I don't hate this team, but I don't love it either. Bentz and RM are big unknowns at the moment (as am I) due to not having much to say yet. Razor has the issue of being associated with the first mission. (I think there can be some benefits, though, of taking somebody from the first mission along as a way of trying to find the Black Hat among those three. But doing that is, of course, dangerous.)

I haven't voted yet. (Neo, how much time left?) I'm leaning toward No, but the next three proposals will come from Mown, RM, and Bentz. Mown has the same "taint" of the first mission as Razor, and then RM and Bentz are two big unknowns. In addition, Bentz gets the "hammer" team, in that if we get down to his team we more or less have to accept it since rejecting that team would result in a point for the Black Hats.

Time to think, and hopefully not hurt myself while doing so...

I wouldn't trust an almost silent player to build the last team. Not because he must be a Spy, but because his comment:

I think it could hurt us more having someone just guess than make a team that has the ability to be evaluated based on conversation.

~SE++

I would be willing to see Mown's team as I think less suspiciously of him than of razorborne or Aaarrrgh. I just really don't like this team because the chance of having a spy on it is greater.
On top of that, supposing only razorborne was a spy, the chances we lose on mission 4 is VERY high. Like razorborne, however, I won't explain how, just that it is very possible.

I don't mind having Roaring Mouse make a team as he's not exactly under suspicion (again it was a hunch and he is 50/50 with Aaarrrgh).

I am against going to mission five for certain, not because of bentz, but because that's bad for rebels to begin with.

why I voted no? I explained that about a hundred times. I have a theory as to the layout of the spy team, and that theory heavily implies that either Zherog or you are scum. since both of you were on the team, I was fairly certain the mission would fail.

what I have to say against me being a spy? basically nothing. I think it's likely that a) Mown is a spy, and b) he wasn't the only spy on mission 1, and while the explanation relying on human agency (Aaargh was a spy and added another one) is more plausible than the one relying on random chance (I'm a spy and Aaargh accidentally put two on his team) both are possible. although I don't see why I would've voted yes in that case, but that goes down the WIFOM hole pretty fast.

You keep saying this but I don't see your reason for why other than that you're not on the team.



Why am I just as suspicious as someone who was on a failed mission?

I'm still undecided on this team right now. Squinty and razorborne seem to be genuinely trying to uncover the spies which makes them look like Resistance. bentz is quiet but so am I so there's not much I can't say about that. I'm leaning toward yes on this team.

Also, what's all this about white/black hats? Am I missing something?

in deception games, not talking makes you suspicious.

it's just another way of saying town/scum or resistance/spy. white hats are good guys, black hats are bad guys.

So, obviously, I'm going to reject this, because I think inviting raz is dumb. However, I don't really see squinty in too good of a light either, and I don't think you should either. Why?

Because this sentence is just blatantly and flat out wrong. Starting from this post, where I'm at the bottom of the chart, the only one that put me in somewhat of a negative light was the one made after raz's claim, namely this one. And even though squinty has shown his ineptitude when it comes to probabilities, there's still this post where he puts it in plain English.

Another quote I have qualms with is this one:

I know I'm pretty far off in the pro-team proposals group, but squinty is unnecessarily condescending in shutting down the idea. There's nothing "random" about them as long as you properly control the information flow before the proposals, and even if you have a million proposals before we establish a team (not that this is possible), you still get the same number of actual missions, so it's not a valid argument/counterpoint/comparison/something.

There's also this

Which was probably just misreading of some form, but not irrelevant if it isn't.

I'm on a roll, so I'm just going to be nitpicking now.

So if you didn't think he was scum it wouldn't be deflection? It's not Aaarrrgh's fault that you can't look at it objectively.
And I don't know what evidence you're expecting, given that we've only had one completed mission so far.

And honestly, no offence, but squinty's view on probability is just so flat out wrong that I'm not sure I can chalk it down as anything than a diversion.

Now Squinty looks like altimis usually does; He might be resistance with odd ideas and bad communication, but he really looks like a spy. Either way he's mudding up the waters and making it harder to get correct reads on other people, and it really annoys me.

how is he doing that?

Mostly be encouraging you. Also by drawing attention away from the actual game by bringing up terrible points about statistics, and either misremembering or outright misrepresenting his previous statements, as Mow pointed out. And the worst part is that Mown and I are the only ones who are calling him on it (possibly because we are the most experienced players), which then inadvertently reinforces your terrible theory about him and me both being spies. Also, if he's resistance, and you are too, he's also making you look bad by supporting your (already weak) theory with terrible arguments. Because it can be hard to keep track of exactly who said what in a game like this, it is never good to be associated with a bad argument, even if someone else made the argument in question.

Votes need to be in by Monday afternoon - 1:30 PM EST (17.5 hours or so from now, I believe)

I have gotten 4 votes so far.

squinty has never supported my theory. stop trying to put that on him. he's supported my attempts to scumhunt, but he has never endorsed the actual ideas I put forth. if you have a problem with it, put that on me.

as for the argument, what's the harm, really? like I said to Mown, correct play is the same whether there are one or two people on the first mission, so why are you so obsessed with convincing the town to not even consider the possibility of two? if the correct play was drastically different, then yeah, you could argue I'm distracting the town. but either way we want to find four townies in the not-the-first-mission group right now. that's the goal no matter what. sure, my theory means we have a little more leeway, but that doesn't mean we can or should be any more sloppy about it than we would otherwise.

also, where's your outrage on Mown's "alt and Zherog must be the same alignment" theory, based on the idea that they both voted the same way he did, but somehow he's not necessarily the same alignment as them? or altimis's "all the scum voted no on Zherog's proposal" theory based on "a hunch"? I understand you don't like my theory because it says you're scum, but really, it's not the worst one that people are basing their votes on.

and yeah, for the record, I don't think that, from a generic town perspective, I should really be on this team. I think that was a mistake on his part. I think that we get slightly better information if we leave off everyone from the first team. but I know I'm town, and I sure as hell prefer it to any team Mown's gonna propose, so I'm supporting it anyway.

True, I have been focusing a bit too much on you and Squinty. However, the danger of following your theory is that if the next mission fails (this is based on a mission without you on it) your theory would state that anyone who has not been on a failed mission is completely safe. Which would immediately kill us.

As far as Mown's bad theory goes, he does have the advantage of having actually explained beforehand why he voted against the team, and that him doing so is a clearly established pattern. Also, he is, just like anyone, arguing from the assumption that he is resistance. So I have less problems with him than with you. Still, I am open to the possibility that you are a misguided good guy, I simply don't see where you're coming from with your "2 spies" theory.

And as far as altimis goes, I mostly just disregard anything he says, so that's why I haven't been on his back.

nope. if the next mission fails and it didn't have Zherog or Alt on it, my theory stops making sense at all, so it stops being logical to follow. it's unreasonable to believe that the external spy to the first mission voted yes for a mission with two spies on it.

right, but if we accept that everyone who voted no on mission 1 is probably the same alignment, and Alt, Zherog, and Mown all voted no, then shouldn't Mown's theory be that Alt and Zherog are town? where is the justification for them being scum together when he knows that at least one townie voted no come from?

well that's a great, community-building attitude.

PSST! That's also the reason I specifically named bentz and RM

@Aaarrrgh: Hey, I use numbers and statistics to the best of my ability. People not trusting me isn't my fault.
Okay, I was kidding about that last part with the wording; I mean people not figuring the numbers themselves isn't my fault.

The thing with me is that I'm easily fact-checkable until I get into opinions, which is why I try to clearly state that it's an opinion/hunch when explain my "All three spies voted no to the last proposal". My reason for why I think that, is that:

1) Given the two teams proposed, I feel that the first one had less of a chance of having a spy on it...
1a) / @Roaring Mouse: Yes, having me on it made the chances better that there weren't spies, BUT including razor increases the chances of having spies (even if I was still included which I'm not which is more reason I'm afraid of it)

2) IF the first proposal DIDN'T have a spy on it, I would expect the spies to prevent it from going while still trying to get a spy to vote for it. Given only three people voted yes, and none of them are on my immediate spy radar, I looked elsewhere. This part is really trying to outguess players.

3) I wouldn't mind going back to the last proposal, I would swap out seTiny if anything, but honestly I wouldn't mind last team at all.

My only other theory couuld be that only spies voted yes. It could work but I find it less plausible.

is this because of a specific suspicion of me, or the fact that I was on the first mission? because statistically, if we assume one spy on the first mission like everyone is yelling that we should, a random person from the first mission is exactly as likely to be a spy (1/3) as a person from the second mission (2/6). the reason to not include people from the first mission on the second is to segregate information, making it easier to identify standouts, not because the people on the first mission are more likely to be spies.

*sigh* Let's clear up a few points:

(1) My outlook on probability is a personal point of view. I never said the numbers are perfect, I never said they were superior, I said it's how I view the situation. People nitpicking on them instead of looking at actual posts of mine or others are getting tunnel vision on something that is irrelevant, and I only defend that I view things differently. You guys are the ones bringing it back up, so if you wanna move on, realize I was just explaining how I saw possibilities.

(2) I said it once, razor said it once, and I'll say it again. I do not support razor's claim that there were two Spies / Scum / Black Hats / Jackholes on Mission 1. We discussed what it would mean if there had been, but I have kept my opinion on who I think was scum on Mission 1 incredibly vocal. In fact, I'm one of the only ones saying who they believe is scum. Most are being pretty quiet, which is bugging the crap out of me since we're trying to get discussion from bentz, Roaring Mouse, seTiny and others who are being very quiet.

(3) As far as mudding up things, I really don't think I've done that at all. I've been vocal, laid out my reasoning, and defended my position. I've also done a lot of posting so others can see my thoughts and reasoning, I'm giving people opportunity to ask me about things and responding to the best of my ability with opinions on what is going on, which is more than 60% of the players seem to be doing right now.

------------------------------------------------

Okay with that done:

I'm curious about Mown saying he's rejecting the mission based on razorborne on it, but then you hammer me with comments. Why didn't you actually ask razorborne about anything when you said:



This feels like an incredibly empty statement. What are your reasons on him?

~SE++

From my perspective the numbers are different.