I think Reject is the percentage play, even if only by a tiny margin, for reasons HookerChemical has indicated. From the discussion I’ll guess this mission will be Accepted, so my Reject vote will have no effect except perhaps to draw suspicion to myself. However, I will “vote my conscience.”
Our best hope is that Spies are inexperienced; for that reason some of the discussion here may be pro-Spy.
You’re dictating some sort of “accepted strategy” that isn’t actually an accepted strategy. I still don’t buy that there’s much (if any) benefit to outright rejecting the first mission. And I will be voting for this one, and probably for the next one, too. Does this make me look like a spy? No. Does it make me look like resistance? Also no. It just makes me look like someone who disagrees with your strategy.
And you know what? The more I read this line, the more I feel like you’re talking to them directly. It may as well read:
[Fellow] spies should be thinking “how should I look like Resistance? By rejecting.”
A reminder: If you haven’t voted (or want to change your vote), you need to get that to me by 5:00 pm central time (a little less than two hours from now). I will update the game state as soon as I can after that time. Remember, a non-vote will count as “accept”.
I am not getting why we should reject this group if the next group will be a three person group again:
Mental Guy said:
So it will be like playing ground hog day. Am I missing something crucial? I voted to accept the team.
Here are the votes in random order:
HookerChemical - Reject
septimus - Reject
Terminus Est - Accept
Stanislaus - Accept
sinjin - Accept
Storyteller - Accept
Johnny Bravo - Accept
Mahaloth - Accept
Mr Shine - Accept
TexCat - Accept
So, the mission has been accepted. The team of Storyteller, TexCat, and Mahaloth will go on the mission. Resistance members on the team, you can message me your choice to have the mission succeed if you like, but it is not necessary. Spies, you do need to message me by 10:00 pm tomorrow (Friday, Nov. 7) with whether you want the mission to succeed or fail.
You got it. For each round, we continue to vote on teams until one is accepted to go on a mission. The round number doesn’t change until a team has gone on a mission. Once a team has gone on a mission, whether it succeeds or fails, the next round begins.
In HC’s ideal world, for the first mission, people who are nominated for the mission would vote to accept; if there is a spy nominated for the mission, the other spies would also vote to accept. So anyone who votes to accept the nominated team, who isn’t on the team, is a spy.
I’m going to give HC some credit and say that they expected the spies to know this and therefore the initial nominated teams would be rejected. Which brings up the next complication: If we reject a nominated team five times in a row, the spies win. As I said before, HC is the fifth player and they may have been trying to arrange things so that we’d be forced to accept whichever team they nominated for the first mission.
The whole point is moot, as the team’s been accepted and they’re going on the first mission.
Given the above, can I strongly suggest we don’t have any discussion at all about how the vote might go?
Yup.
Ack! I missed that this game was being run, I wish I’d seen it…we play it a lot. Nonetheless, this thread has already made for some entertaining reading.
One SDMB-specific rule I’d suggest for this and future versions: Non-players are kindly requested to refrain from commenting on the game while it is being run. I think kibitzing could screw some of this up and also convolute the thread unnecessarily.
What else are we going to talk about? I don’t think silent Resistance would be very fun.
Anything that doesn’t lead to conversations about how spies might co-ordinate in the open!
We do need people talking, because that and votes are the only two ways to work out who we trust - and votes are only useful if they’re based on discussion.
So here’s something that struck me: Hooker said openly that Spies should reject in order to look Resistance - in the very next post, septimus voted Reject. But no one else did.
And a thought I’ve been having: should we publicly announce our votes (as septimus and Hooker did) at the time as well as having MentalGuy report them. I think so, as it means people can’t sit on the fence. (I think I was pretty explicit about my voting intentions, but I didn’t declare an actual vote). I think it’s especially important if people are going to change their mind - otherwise Spies can wait to see which way the wind is blowing and discreetly follow it.
We can talk about voting teams up or down without giving too much away to spies.
Publicly announcing votes that will shortly be public is a personal strategic call. TT, I typically talk a lot to get others to talk more and give information up (knowing all the time that I could be doing the same). Others I play with are virtually silent the whole game. They’re crazy hard to read, which is why watching their votes more important. There are even reasons to lie until the votes are locked in, but not this early. Usually, it’s because you know a team is poison and you want spies to think you’ve swallowed to draw out their “approve” votes.
I’d also like to point out to those of you concerned that I would have proposed the fifth team that I’d already indicated that I typically vote to approve the fourth unless I strongly suspect it’s poison, and that the group has the power to vote any team forward prior to my being the leader.
I don’t understand this. If we keep quiet about our accept/reject votes, then the spies won’t know which way the wind is blowing. But it looks like you are advocating for announcing our votes?
I think the idea is to get people on record early.The problem is that nine others will have to voice their opinions before the tenth, so somebody will always see which way the wind blows. The thing is, though, that the statement in thread isn’t your PM’ed vote, so it’s possible to lie.
Stating your intentions will at least allow for discussion and gathering of information. I like to see reasons people are voting one way or another. Otherwise, it will be a very boring game with little more than the posts from MentalGuy.
I’m all for not giving the spies any more ideas. But where do you draw the line? Anything you say could be misconstrued as being spy-talk. If you put too many restrictions on talking, you’ll also hamper our ability to root out the traitors in our midst. This isn’t like a face-to-face game where you can show disagreement by simply shaking your head. (And physical tells are a huge part of the F2F game.) You have to make your opinion be known.
1st attempted mission is over. Mission votes in random order:
succeed
fail
succeed
The mission fails.
Current score:
Resistance: 0 Spies: 1
Terminus Est you need to nominate a team of 4 players for mission 2.
I would set the deadline for tomorrow at 10 pm, but in reality if I do not receive the nominations until then, it will likely be Sunday afternoon before I can do anything. So, I will make the deadline Sunday, Nov. 9 at 2 pm central time. If you wish to send me nominations earlier on Saturday, I should be able to proceed on to phase 2 of the round then.
I’ve not played in any Mafia PBP threads. How are things handled there? I’m for discussion, but with caution.
Well carp. I guess I’ve gone on my last mission. I know that I shant approve any mission with story or mahaloth.
That’s the worst possible outcome. I had hoped that my discussion of the meta of not failing the first mission would carry the day. It seems to me that a likely series of events is that JBravo is a spy. He set up a team with a single spy, so there would be no possibility of a double fail. He’s also leveled rather dubious charges at me that I’ve let go until now due to the lack of evidence.
Terminus, I will be voting against any possible mission you propose. I want information, and we are largely in the dark. I will have the 4th opportunity to propose a mission, but I’d be willing to approve the 3rd (proposed by sinjin) if it seems reasonable. I’d be very hesitant to allow the leadership to pass to Storyteller for the fifth proposed team, as he was on the failed mission.