I did even though I did not have to. No big reason.
I’ll admit to not entirely following your argument, but this:
is incorrect. Only Texcat and Storyteller voted to accept my proposed team. Mahaloth, after indicating acceptance, officially voted to reject.
Mr Shine has nominated the following players for mission 2.2:
Mr Shine
Terminus Est
storyteller0910
septimus
Please PM me your accept or reject votes by 10:00 am central time Thursday, November 14. I will continue to phase 3 of the round anytime sometime after 10:00 am tomorrow (Wednesday) if I have received all votes.
Are you planning to share the independent and excellent reasons, or are they secret reasons?
I don’t particularly buy your hypothesis - I mean, it’s possible, but there’s no evidence to suggest that it’s substantially more likely than one spy. If you have some strong and persuasive logic suggesting that there were two, give it. It will make a large difference for me, in particular, since given my own particular information (ie, that I am Resistance) it would identify fully half the spies to me.
@Texcat: I am puzzled by your position and want to understand it better (fair warning: I think you’re a spy and I’m quizzing you to get you to show your hand). Are you particularly suspicious of Mahaloth and me (for reasons apart from the failed Mission), or is this a general reaction of any player who was ever on a failed mission? Suppose you got voted onto a team for Mission 2 and again the mission failed; would you then advocate removing all four of those players from consideration for future teams? If not, why not? What would make those players (in my hypothetical) any different from the two you are rejecting out of hand?
Sorry, you posted while I was writing.
So your first excellent reason to believe that there were two spies on Mission 1 is that if there were not, we can’t win anyway?
I reject that premise outright. It’s a weirdly fatalistic outlook, and I think it’s quite incorrect. Our best chance of winning comes from accurately deducing what happened in Mission 1 and then using that information appropriately going forward… not burying our heads and just blithely assuming the scenario that seems ideal.
Thanks; I missed that. I don’t think it changes much; Mahaloth’s reversal may be cover.
My posts were 9 hours ago. Anyway, see #177 & #179.
So you and Mahaloth suspect TexCat and TexCat suspects you especially. Who do you credit for the latest Failure?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Is it proper etiquette and tactics to ask the upcoming leaders (Sinjin, Hooker, Storyteller) to present their tentative menus? When dining at a restaurant I wait for the server to describe all the Daily Specials before placing my order! 
Isn’t the failed mission sufficient evidence that one of you is a spy? I’m not sure which of you it is, but there are 8 other players to put on a team. You are 1 of 2. Later failed missions might lead to 1 of 4 or 1 of 5 and not so easy to eliminate. I did already talk about who I would suspect if non-approved mission 2.0 had failed.
Would you vote to accept a team that included me? Would you vote to accept a team that included Mahaloth? (These are not rhetorical. I would like to see your answer, especially since you have been nominated.)
I see no reason to approve mission 2.2 and shall vote to reject. From my POV, it has a 50% chance of failure just by including storyteller, before even considering the chances that the other 3 on the mission might be spies.
The only player that I have put in the town column is JBravo. I would like to see him included in future teams.
Brief thoughts before I take a deeper look later this morning.
I find septimus’s theory of two spies plausible. I still think my theory of Johnny Bravo being a spy and setting up a single spy team is plausible as well.
I would be willing to toss out a potential team once I’ve worked out what that team would be. As previously indicated, I’ll be voting no on at least the first two teams this time.
Hmmm.
OK, so I’m not inclined to trust Mr Shine, and obviously there’s a question mark over storyteller too. However, I can’t really see them both being spies now this team is on the table because a) putting two spies on your team is an unnecessary risk and
b) if story is in two teams that fail a mission then that’s pretty much it for trusting him.
Mr Shine, given that you were pulled from a mission because of trust issues, why did you nominate yourself for this one?
Story, if you go on this mission and it fails, how should we treat you?
With relatively large teams being sent on missions, how can we ever have even small confidence a spy is not in the group? I pretty much see straight mission-failures unless we have great luck. One spy is enough to ruin each mission.
There are four spies among us and there were four who voted to accept my proposed team. I think that’s nothing more than a convenient coincidence, but it got me looking closer into voting and team composition.
Of the four who voted to accept my proposal, two (Tex and Story) were on the failed first mission and two (Johnny and sinjin) were nominated for the team. No one outside Team #1 and the putative Team #2 voted to accept. If we presume that there was a spy in my rejected team (which seems likely) it seems probable that a spy from the first mission would vote to accept and the spy in my rejected team voted to accept.
Hence:
[ul]
[li]One or both of {Tex and Story} is a spy.[/li][li]One or both of {sinjin and Johnny} is a spy.[/li][/ul]
Not to say that these are all of our spies. Trusting or otherwise clueless rebels might have voted to accept my proposal and spies in deep cover might have voted to reject.
I’m inclined to reject Mr Shine’s proposal because story is on it. But sinjin is up next, which doesn’t fill me with great confidence either.
What I meant to add here is that neither septimus nor I, who were on the team but voted to reject it, are really off the hook.
Despite that you’re my top Spy candidate, I have to agree with this. This is the point storyteller missed in his response to me: Unless we come up with a hypothesis Townies can believe in and unite behind, it’s very unlikely we will win. I think there’s an excellent chance that my construction is correct, but if someone has an alternate hypothesis, please bring it up for discussion. Town is very heavy underdog; firing semi-randomly with vague hunches will not lead to victory.
I’d have been much happier to see Johnny Bravo on the mission instead of storyteller. BUT, I do think there’s a good chance story is the one Townie in group A (unless all three are Spies! :eek: ) and I will probably support Mr. Shine’s proposal as the best chance possible from here.
Here’s where I get based on septimus’s analysis and assumption that there were two spies on the first mission.
Group A:
Given Mahaloth’s statements that his vote would be success, I think it’s safe to assume he’s spy number 1. So one of Story and Tex is a spy. Unfortunately, looking at their votes to accept Terminus’s mission offers no clues as to which if two is the spy, as they both voted to accept.
I don’t think Mahaloth’s change of vote to reject the proposed team changes the analysis at all. In this scenario, it was Mahaloth seeing the wind change against the team and going along. Outside septimus’s assumption, it could mean anything.
I agree with the analysis that two spies on the first mission means Johnny is clean.
Group A- 3 Spies edition:
If we conclude that Johnny hit a home run in the first mission and conclude that there were three spies, this vote makes sense, but I don’t see that either of them communicated they would play a success. Given the discussion of the meta of spies passing the first mission, it’s possible that they played based on that. Or one picked up on Mahaloth’s statements while the other didn’t. I don’t know which is more likely the spy between the two, but 3 spy Group A also leads to the conclusion that Johnny is clean.
In the 3 spy scenario, the approval votes from Story and Tex make sense if there is a single spy on the next mission, so let’s look at Group B.
Group B:
My analysis of Group B differs from septimus’s. I don’t expect Terminus as a spy, creating the team, then voting against it. My suspicion there is reduced. There are two of what we’ll call “anomalous yes votes” for the approval of Group B on the second mission: Storyteller and Tex. They voted yes when they weren’t on the team.
From the Group A - 2 spies scenario, there is either the split septimus proposes or that the unknown spy from Group A voted to approve a team without a spy. There were four votes to approve the team. Two of those votes came from within the team (**Johnny and sinjin). In this scenario, Johnny isn’t a spy, so there were at most two votes from spies to approve the team. If two spies rejected, it’s likely that sinjin wasn’t the lone spy, so his vote to accept means only one spy voted to approve. If there were two spies on the first mission, I suspect the proposed team was clean. The lack of a spy in Group B implies that there are two spies in Group C.
If that’s wrong, and team has one spy, septimus’s vote against approval and his hitting us with the clue stick about the two spies scenario doesn’t make sense if he’s a spy, meaning sinjin is the spy. This strikes me as unlikely but possible.
Working from the 3 spies in Group A scenario, the approval of two of those spies indicates that there is likely one spy on the proposed team. Again, I conclude that that only sinjin and Stanislaus areis a reasonable candidates for the spy in Group B and there were 3 spies on the first mission, that means Group C (Mr Shine, Stanislaus, and HookerChemical) is clean. This scenario is improbable but plausible.
The Bad Johnny Scenario:
I still think my scenario outlined in Post 120 is plausible. That is, Johnny set up a team with a single spy. However, this scenario leads me to no useful conclusions and no useful propositions. The 2+ spy theory proposed by septimus does lead to theories and we should pursue that path.
If the team proposed by Terminus were proposed again, I would vote for it.
In summary, assuming Group A has two or more spies leads to the only useful information we can work with. If Group A had 2 spies, I think Group B is clean. If Group A had 3 spies, I think Group B has one spy. In both cases, sinjin is the most likely spy. For sinjin to be the spy is improbable but not impossible.
Good grief! I’m not following any of that.
First, I seriously doubt that mission 1 had 2 spies. And I know it didn’t have 3. But if that hypothetical leads you somewhere then OK.
But…
You assume that either Storyteller and/or me is a spy. And there was a spy on mission 2.0 because the two of us approved it. But then you conclude by saying that you think mission 2.0 was clean and you would now vote for it.
I’m just not getting from A to B to C, and have to wonder whose eyes you think you’re pulling the wool over.
I don’t plan to support any team with Hooker or Texcat. My top suspects.
Mahaloth,
So, are you going to support mission 2.2? Since it does has neither Hooker nor me. But does contains storyteller.
Oops, preview is your friend.
I heartily endorse this team and have already sent in an Accept PM. It’s not perfect, but I do think Story may be least likely among Group A to be a Spy. (I’m surprised no one’s agreed with my claim that Mahaloth’s post gave away that he was Spy advising fellow Spy. I’m not sure whether Story’s #77 supports the case for him to be Spy or Town.)
Ignoring Mahaloth’s last minute change, there were five Accepts of Terminus’ team – I think there’s a fair chance 3 of those 5 are Spies. If Terminus’ team was clean, and Group A has only 2 Spies, then Group C has 2 spies including Hooker who is thus blowing smoke with his recent post.
If we Reject Mr. Shine’s proposal, we’re faced with likely-Spy Sinjin, followed by suspicious Hooker, ending up with suspect Story anyway.
Vote Accept!
My name is Septimus G. Stevens VII, and I approve this message.
Yes. I am betting on you being the spy over story, though it is reasonable to call this a guess.