Mission 2

Proposal 2.1

Leader: Mown
Team: Mown, Zinger2099, Garren_Windspear

Garren_Windspear - YES
Zinger2099 - YES
NeoSilk - NO
razorborne - NO
Niklor - YES
Rubik - NO
Mown - YES

Result: Team approved, Mown, Zinger2099 and Garren_Windspear may now PM me their mission cards.

Oh wow, really? I was certain it would tank.

round|nominator|team|Garren|Mown|Neo|Nik|Raz|Rubik|Zinger||Go?|Fails
1.1|Garren|Garren, Raz|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.2|Neo|Neo, Mown|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.3|Nik|Nik, Neo|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.4|Zinger|Zinger, Garren|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes||{color=yellow}yes|{color=green}0
2.1|Mown|Mown, Zinger, Garren|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes||{color=yellow}yes|?

so, vote questions time. Neo and I explained beforehand, and the people on the team make sense for voting yes so I don't really need an explanation from them.

Nik, why the yes? what about this team seemed particularly trustworthy?

Rubik, why the no? your stated policy of voting against anything you're not on only applied day 1, what's going on now?

How can it be sound logic? If everyone follows, no team would ever get approved unless spies force them through (which they are unlikely to do, as it would red-flag them pretty hard.) So now you have 4 pointless rounds and then someone forced through something at round 5, hooray!
Is it only sound logic if other people don't adopt it as well? That doesn't sound very sound. At some point, you're going to have to compromise, or you're just dead weight.


What overreaction?

I would still encourage people to not be entirely transparent in their voting patterns, as long as we are lacking in information. It gives spies more room to maneuver.

It's no longer a policy vote, but the fact remains that a team without me is unlikely to succeed (though it is definitely still possible). If I see a reason to vote for a mission without me, I will, but that's currently not the case.

And while I will certainly be more likely to vote for a mission involving me, I will no longer automatically do so.

First mission passed, so either the scum are keeping their heads down or Zinger and Garren were truly resistance. I'd prefer to think the latter until something is proven otherwise. I could have fervently denied until I got the chance to be the third player, but since that mindset would more or less prevent us from sending out a party since at least 4 people would always not be that third player, I felt I should just vote now and see where it takes us.

The votes are shuffled up, and the results are two Pass and one Fail card!

Leadership passes to Rubik.

Mission 3 requires 3 participants.

The score is now 1:1, so it's anybody's game.

Again, sorry for no formatting, but I don't have a computer at work.

the important bit is "given random selection". it's a foundation to start from. we have additional information like day 1 voting and results (now day 2 as well) but it's still a valuable foundation. for instance, no matter how willing you are to compromise, you should never approve a mission 5 team you're not on because if you're town the odds of there being no spies is 0%. similarly, here, if I'm going to vote for a 3-person mission I'm not on, I want to be at least 4 times more confident than baseline that the mission is all town, because that's the odds I'm looking at. if I approve a 3-person mission I'm not on, then I am saying that I am fairly confident that the exact three other people excluded are the three spies. there's no wiggle room. it doesn't mean those missions don't exist, but it does mean that I'm going to be more careful, and anyone who isn't is shooting themself in the foot.

so, a couple things. first, Neo is merely echoing a sentiment that was floated numerous times day 1, where Garren didn't say anything. why is it suddenly a big deal now? second, drastic hyperbolic reductionism ignoring the actual relativist claim being made ("I guess you shouldn't vote for any missions!") is a pretty serious overreaction to a simple statistical evaluation. Neo is right that the odds are worse bad compromising, and it appears to be their estimation that the fact that Garren and Zinger passed round 1 isn't enough to compensate. (turns out they were right.) you can debate whether that estimation is valid, but attacking the underlying principle of glancing at statistics every once in a while is just absurd.

what? we'll always be lacking information, it's a deception game. but letting people vote without justification gives spies way more room to maneuver than holding people accountable for their decisions. you don't have to dump everything out there, but the only way the odds work in the town's favor is if we can evaluate the intentions behind the actions, and the only way to do that is to get people to disclose those intentions.

Edit: Haven't read your latest post yet razorborne, will get to it.

Well, since mission 1 was a success, that still lets us win if we get a perfect team for the next one. If not, I am skeptical of getting through the last mission, although it's always a possibility. I would have preferred if my first mission didn't actually go through, but I'm just going to look overly suspicious if I keep rejecting teams I'm on, especially the ones I propose myself. In hindsight, I probably should have invited some other people for the purpose of information gathering, but I'm not sure how much that would accomplish in actuality.

I guess the obvious topic of the day (other than use three) is Niklor being in favor of the team. It's certainly a red flag, although it should be mentioned that Shockwave did the same mistake in the first game of Resistance we had, so it's not written in stone or anything, especially since he seemed to lean towards accepting missions during round 1. But, well, it's still suspicious.
razorborne also went from a pattern of accepting every mission, to rejecting this one, which also stands out to some extent. Now, maybe he then would also reject 1.3, but I don't think he would have a very sound argument for shifting gears at that point, before I denied myself.

Garren has said yes to everything, and Zinger said yes to all missions they were on, so it's difficult to extrapolate anything from that right now. I'll have to go back and read some conversations to see if anything sticks out.

So, when does it stop being random selection when everyone uses an objective and predictable method for voting? You are effectively ruining an entire round worth of valuable information, which is more important than ensuring you end up on a mission for that added chance of it succeeding.

And when was that going to happen? Most likely never, unless you get something unreliable like a double fail result. NeoSilk stated "I'm not on this mission, so the chance of there being a spy on it is too high." That would probably not change for the entirety of round 2, and I don't really see it changing for this one either.


Maybe he didn't see the need since someone else (me) addressed it the first time. I think you are the one making a big deal out of it.

eh. That feels more like Garren being Garren, and I haven't even played a game with him. I can see the comment as unnecessary, but I see it more as a snide remark than some strawman argument or whatever, probably because I could be prone to do the same, since I find the proposition ridiculous.


Are you not capable of justifying your actions without telegraphing what you will do for the next five rounds? Votes carry more weight than words to me. If everyone is going around telling people how they will vote, you're more or less saying "this mission is going to go through, so you can safely reject it to look more favorable", "everyone else will reject it, if you accept it you will look scummy when it fails", "this mission is not going through if you help reject it", "the way you vote can make it seem like you are allied with certain people" or whatever other options are out there. Which is why I didn't want to state my agenda before the end of round 1.

voting no is ruining a round's worth of information?

I'm not saying vote no to every team you're not on. I'm saying consider the fact that, when you are not on a team as town, the odds of it being spy-less go way down. that's a really important thing to remember, and jumping down Neo's throat for bringing it up is silly.

I didn't interpret Neo's post as a literal declaration that they wouldn't vote for any team they weren't on (although, again, Rubik made exactly that declaration day 1 and Garren didn't say anything.) just that, given their position, the team looked too likely to be scummy.

I'm sorry, what? I responded briefly to Garren's post, and have answered you when you asked direct questions of me. please don't try to paint me as some zealot here for being willing to respond when you ask me things.

why is it ridiculous? I know you're capable of basic math, so it's not that you don't recognize that a 3-person team you're on as town is four times more likely to be safe than one you're not on. so what's ridiculous about being cautious about teams you're not on?

if words don't matter why are you answering me? if the optimal strategy is victory through sheer vote analysis, what purpose does engaging in discussion have?

the answer is that vote analysis by itself is shoddy. for instance, let's look at day 1. Garren and I always voted yes. were we being yes-men? maybe. but note that either Garren or Neo was included on every one of the missions we voted yes for, so maybe we just wanted them. perhaps the scum team is Garren, Neo, and myself? or perhaps it's Garren and Neo, and I was just being a yes-man? or it could be me, Neo, and Zinger, and Garren was just tagging along. or it could not be Neo, and Garrenscum's votes could be for themself, Nik, and you. or maybe it's me, you, and Nik, and I just voted yes on 1.4 because I'd established a pattern and was stuck in it. all of those are valid theories, and the only way to parse them out is to examine how the involved people interact. we can wait until we have enough votes to really make something, but by that point we'll be buried, so we need to look at people. right now I see you leaping weirdly to Garren's defense, which helps cement my belief that it's the Garren-Mown-Nik trio, especially since Nik's nos on 1.2 and 1.3 were both defaults that they claim were accidents. Garren-Mown-Neo is also a possibility.

and yes I know that oh my god there's no way Mownscum would invite Garrenscum on a mission, but that's bull. as I've said so many times, the double-fail isn't a thing that can actually happen if people play anything close to intelligently, and here they'd even have options to bounce back from it thanks to the third spy and the scapegoat in Zinger. it'd be bad but it wouldn't be game-ending, and, again, it wouldn't actually happen.

anyway I'd prefer Zinger over Neo but this team seems safe enough and if it fails that's a lot of information anyway so I'm voting yes here.

Maybe I am making assumptions, but NeoSilk's post to me looks a lot like "I am not on this mission -> Therefore the possibility of spies on it are too high -> Therefore I will vote no." I've never claimed that you have said so, but to me, it certainly looks like NeoSilk did.


Based on the notion that he was not on it, and seemingly nothing else.


Garren responded briefly to NeoSilk's post. Please don't try to paint him as some kind of zealot here.


I believe I've made that clear on numerous occasions as it is, but I will make clear that I am discussing the notion of "I am not on it, therefore I will reject it", since we appear to have a disconnect on that area. I am perfectly well aware that whether you are included on a mission or not is statistically significant.


Literally when did I ever say that?


I sure hope you wouldn't think so, since there's precedence for me doing it during our previous game. Of course, I rejected it myself and it was at a point where everyone hated me I believe, but the point remains.

right. and with no sufficient mitigating factors indicating otherwise, that should be enough.

Garren blatantly overreacted to Neo's post, throwing up an absurd strawman. different scenario.

you're arguing that people shouldn't discuss their intentions, plans, and suspicions because it lets scum derive strategies. I'm not really sure what else you want us to discuss if those are off-limits.

well, if I recall correctly you didn't put yourself on that mission, which is different in that it still avoids double-fails, but fair point.

And I believe that doing so would delay the onset of sufficient mitigating factors.


I still don't see it as all that, so I guess I'll have to treat it as a subjective thing unless Garren wants to elaborate on it (which I welcome you to.)


Wouldn't that be inherently hypocritical of me?
I am arguing that people shouldn't make the voting process for missions a solvable state for spies. This primarily concerns making blankets statements (in this game, "I will not vote for missions without me", which I also find appalling for other reasons), but I would also prefer if people didn't make their votes clear before they are submitted, unless you deem it important to vocally oppose or support it, for reasons more significant than "I find Mown slightly suspicious" (Especially since I can't remember you actually directly opposing the theory of my actions.)

Oh, right. I just assumed it was a Mown thing to do and looked for a precedent, without considering the possibility that I didn't invite myself, because why would I ever do that.

As an aside, I am curious. Since you seem pretty dead set on me and Garren being spies, what does the current proposal tell you if it fails? (And if you want it to be different, why not reject it, since you are next up?)

It's late, so I'm off to catch some sleep. I hope to see someone else than raz having said something when I wake up.

it's a little hard to take you at your word on that when you voted against all four day 1 proposals.

well, that was sort of my point.

how do we discuss our suspicions without indicating our intentions? how do I say "I think Mown is scum" without saying that I'll probably vote no to teams with Mown on them? I agree that people shouldn't blanket-commit to not voting for teams they're not on, because that's short-sighted, but people should be discussing their votes, if for no other reason than it forces the spies to either discuss theirs or stand out by being the ones who don't. right now they have a huge amount of cover in that very few people have offered any reasoning for the actions beyond vague shruggery, which means that if the spies don't want to say they can just jump in line. it's an extension of the mafia Lynch All Lurkers philosophy: if you let people get away with lurking, scum will lurk. we can't lynch here, so we have to actively push contribution so that the scum can't hide.

that it's Neo who's the third likely spy, or that my model was wrong and it's Rubik. hopefully the former, but we'll see how things shake down.

so that I get to use my nomination day 4. this is pretty close to what I want so why burn my nomination now when odds are on for this mission anyway?

me too, but the way things are going I wouldn't bet on it.

So either mown is scum, or garren is scum, or they are both scum. Either way, I am down for a team that includes neither of them.

What is there to elaborate on? Neo makes a statement I find frankly silly, I call him out on it, Razor goes ballistic. It's pretty much self-explanatory.