Right, I forgot to actually vote. I was hoping to get some response to my last post before voting, and then I never came back on. I really didn't know what to vote, so I don't mind having out be no.

To head off the question:

I voted yes because I knew this group had at least one White Hat (me), and because I really didn't want group selection for this mission to fall to Mouse or bentz.

Wow, quiet day...

I guess I'll provide the answer to the most obvious discussion topic then.
Yeah, I rejected my own mission. I said that not inviting myself is something I think is a terrible idea, and I still stand by that. However, since my mission would likely be accepted either way, I could at least choose the one that feasibly provides some amount of information. Maybe it could fire off? Sure, cool, whatever. Let it do that. But since I already put my trust in RM and bentz by putting them on the mission, I'd at least give them the option of having some more to go by when they put out their proposals. And like the last time, I don't really see the X.5 proposal as such a big deal, other than as a game mechanic to prevent too much stalling.

I propose me, bentz, seTiny and altimis.

I'd like to hear bentz alternative before committing to an alternative.

Sorry - lost track of time!

Recap

Overall Score:
Resistance = 0
Spies = 1

Mission 1: The Metaboard -- Failure


Mission 2 - MTG


Turn Order


48 hours to vote on RM's team!

Proposal 4
Leader: Roaring Mouse
Team: mouse // bentz // seTiny // altimis

well, this team looks bad to me still with alt, but I also would like to see bentz's proposal first.

This is the first team in a while that I can like.
Razor isn't on it, squinty isn't on it, and Aaarrrgh isn't on it.
Those are the most suspicious folks to me. I don't see what I've done to earn such distrust to razorborne which makes me more skeptical of why he keeps jumping on me. That and he keeps trying to reinforce the possibility that there was one spy on mission one; this is bad if we there were actually two of them and we didn't know it when we needed to pick from those three.
squinty seems very thrown off by the fact that I'm not playing suspiciously this game, my guess is he was hoping to hide behind the "altimis shield" like most people do.
I personally don't know who that last spy slot would go to, by first pick is Aaarrrgh because he made the first mission and it failed.

I don't have any particular qualms about any of these people except maybe bentz. That's more a hunch than anything, but it leaves me to wonder. I would prefer to have zherog in his place.

From what I've understood, primarily rejecting the first proposal. I lost track at some point, but afaik it's 50/50 with you and Zherog, so I assume that is the reason.

Wait, what thread have you been reading.

It is still open for discussion.
My original plan was to repeat squinty offer, but now I see that:



It is probably a mistake by Neo, but if not it makes me question squinty.
See, for this mission to be good, we need the spies to be squinty+Zherog. Why would squinty vote 'yes' for it if there wasn't a spy in?

So let's look at the squinty+zherog are spies theory:
proposal 1.1 - zherog votes no, squinty voted yes - to me it looks more likely that an experience player would vote 'no' for a one spy mission, and non experience player would vote 'yes' - here it is the other way around, still doesn't mean a lot.

proposal 2.1 - Zherog took a 2 spies mission with squinty, to which they both voted 'yes'
proposal 2.2 - squinty went with what is probably a one spy mission, to which Zherog voted 'no'
proposal 2.3 - Mown chose a one spy mission, squinty had to say 'no', Zherog said 'yes'


If the mission is a success, We can stick to the line up, and we would still have one try.
If it fails though. What would we know?
first mission group - probably one spy out of three.
second mission group - probably one spy out of four, but less likely.
not on a mission - probably one spy out of the two, but just if we assume that missions 1+2 had one spy.

I tend to vote 'no' for this proposal - because Zherog+squinty is too big of a guess (only 1 out of 10 possibilities), unless someone will give me a very good option how to continue if this mission fails.

I want to take Roaring Mouse+razorborne on my proposal, not sure who will be the fourth (I might take a democratic vote together with them).

So, hey, crazy idea - how about we figure out RM's proposal and whether or not we like it before we go and ask bentz to put together a group that we more or less have to approve.

What thread have you been reading?

Razor keeps trying to point out that there was probably only one spy on mission one. We're both using statistics to base our arfuments on, but razor kept saying my nnumbers were off when they were technically more accurate than his because of what he was choosing to leave out.
So, you're right, he's not "trying to reinforce the possibility that there was one spy on mission one"; but he's certainly arguing over trivial things regarding it.

That gives spies more information on whether they should vote yes or no as well though.
I want to know bentz proposal because 1) I'm going to vote according to which proposal I like more and 2) It gives bentz less freedom to do whatever he wants with the mission if I know what he's going to do. If he does a 180 then it's going to look very suspect.

In both of the two posts you linked, raz is talking entirely from a statistical perspective, which doesn't represent his personal theory. If you, you know, had actually read the thread, you could deduce that the reason he's suspecting you as a spy is linked to how he assumed that aaarrrgh and I are both spies, and we both went on the first mission, did we not?
Such as.... This quote.

Not to mention that the first post you linked is an exchange in which I'm trying to tell razorborne to assume there is only one spy, instead of two.

So again, what thread have you been reading?

Sorry for the absence. I've yesterday I had one of those days where you come in and everything hits the fan. Spent most of the day and night yesterday getting things under control. Today will be busy with fixing problems, I hope to have some time tonight to actually read and post.

OH MY GOSH YOU'RE TOTALLY RIGHT WHAT THREAD HAVE I BEEN READING THIS ENTIRE TIME???

If you actually read my post, you'd see that I mentioned we were both talking about statistics. Now get your ego out of your stats and start actually reading. You know very well that I was talking about the posts regarding statistics, the one where he keeps trying to tell me its safer to put a person from a failed mission onto a new mission, than another person.
Going off of razor's posts, he's been circling, looking for the weakest link. First, aaarrrgh, then you, then squinty, then me. You'd notice that if you, you know, read the thread. And beyond the words on the screen.
If you look at the post you quoted, there is no proof, nor real evidence nor reason that I should be suspected as a spy.

I voted no.

Whoopdefreakin'doo. Next time, I'll vote yes when my strategy tells me otherwise. Until then, I'll do what I think is best for my team. Such as calling out this BS and pointing out illogical or un-rebel plays.

I voted no because I wanted a few more team proposals, at least one. But you're not going to believe this because, see below:

If you go by what people say in this game... good for you. Let me know how that helps the rebellion at all. As far as I know, people lie; spies lie, rebels probably tell the truth, but if they did, we wouldn't know it because everybody is going to say the same thing. Thus my statement above is useless to anyone besides myself having at least said it.

Stop nitpicking grammar and start looking for actual spies.

So my proposal will be:
bentz,razorborne,roaring mouse,?

? will be selected as follows: if roaring mouse&razorborne can decide between themselves on a name - this will be the name.
if not, each will propose a name to me, I will choose between their offers.

FYI - the vote from Squinty is totally a mistake by me. I've been leaving the codes in for yes and no, since I'm just doing a copy/paste from notepad, and, I took out the no vote, but left the yes one in.
Squinty has not voted, in fact, I've not gotten a single vote for this proposal yet.

I've updated my TXT file to move the "yes" and "no" templates (just color/bold) somewhere else, it was originally from the first vote on mission one, since Z and SE were the top two, and had one no and one yes vote.

So, carry on!

It wasn't.


So what?
By the way, all of your links were identical, so it's a little hard to follow what specific part you're talking about. All I see is "I don't see it that way." (It's also a little difficult when you filtered out everyone else, but I can solve that myself.)

And in the context of the discussion, he's not making any mistakes from a purely mathematical perspective that I can see.
Your numbers doesn't make any sense though. I don't understand where you get 10% from, and much less a single 15% one, given that everyone from team 1.1 should have at least 33%, and everyone else, excluding yourself, should be identical.

Uh, sure, I'll take your word for it.

I guess that's why he calls it a theory.
Saying there's no reason requires you to actually dispute it in some way.


It's plausible that a spy would vote no on a mission with two spies on it.


Sure I will, because I rejected it for the same reason. razorborne's theory more or less revolves entirely around the theory that I'm a spy to work.


If you don't go by what people say, how would you ever intend to win a game of traditional mafia?
People slip up, forge alliances, contradict each other.


I'm just bringing you up to speed.

By the way, razorborne, I assume you already will, but feel free to tell me if I'm putting words into your mouth.

No, you're not. You are creating a wall for people to hide behind.

1) I didn't know you asking me what thread I've been reading wasn't sarcasm. I've been reading this thread.
2) So what?
3) He IS making mistakes by ignoring the possibilities that there were more than one spy on the team. His numbers don't account for a varying number of spies on mission one. My numbers, based off of spy combinations, doesn't need to account for that because it looks for the team as a whole not the individual.
4) Don't. Look it up.
5) I did. Saying I'm a spy simply because I voted no is ridiculous. It's teh same reason I don't keep brining up my theory about spies voting no; because it's weak.
6) It's plausible a rebel would vote yes to a mission with one spy on it.
7) Wasn't specified to you, but to everyone in general.
8) "People slip up, forge alliances, contradict each other." Yes, but those are actions that go beyond the words. I can say I ally with BLANK, but then when I don't people take notice. You don't go by, AAA said he is allied with BBB. You go by, AAA said he is allied with BBB, but he just stabbed him in the back.
9) Again, you're nitpicking, you aren't scumhunting. Nitpicking is detrimental to the rebellion.

I refuse to set up a wall for people to hide behind.