Got the PM.
I’m up first. I intend to nominate myself and Bricker. Bricker because he’s up next and myself because who can be more trustworthy than I? 
Makes sense to me. I’m willing to approve the mission unless someone comes up with an objection.
I see no reason not to accept, in spite of my vote on Bricker.
I accept the first team as well.
accept too
That’s sufficient nominal support for the team, so I’ve sent my formal nomination to MentalGuy.
My thinking is:
[ol]
[li]If the mission succeeds, Bricker could nominate himself, me and one other. However, if Bricker and I are both clean then the probability of the new guy being a spy is high so we might want to think long and hard about whoever the new guy might be.[/li][li]If the mission fails, then we’d be justified in rejecting whatever team Bricker nominates. We’d then have four more chances to get a successful team together.[/li][/ol]
I go to sleep with the game not started, I wake up and we’re in full flow. Excellent!
I don’t see any way Spies would fail a two person mission, so I’m happy to go ahead and get a score on the board.
Terminus Est has nominated the following team for mission 1.1:
Terminus Est
Bricker
You may PM your accept or reject votes anytime before 10:00 am, Monday Nov. 24th. I will move on to the next phase when all players have voted. If you wish to change your vote, that is ok. I will consider the last vote you send me your official vote. Your accept-reject votes will be made public when the result is announced.
My thinking is…hmmm…quite different.
-A success doesn’t prove that yourself and Bricker are clean. Failing the first mission with only two guys in it would be a risked move, making both of you very suspicious and unlikely to ever be picked again by a non-spy.
-Maybe a bit far-fetched, but even though Bricker was second on the list, the possibility that you’re both spies can’t be excluded since almost half of us are. While a failed first mission (if you’re a spy) would be a bad move (see my point above), you’d be better off not failing it and using it as an evidence of your innocence. Which is exactly what you’re doing here.
-Why would you want to think long and hard about picking the new guy? At this point, there will be no indication about the other players, any of us is as likely to be a spy, so there’s no obvious reason to pick one rather than another. Unless, again, you’re a spy and know who is who. And have to think “long and hard” to justify picking the one you want (rather than the next one on the list, for instance).
-Your message can certainly be read as “Bricker, let’s not fail this mission so that we’ll look innocent. Next turn you’ll pick a convenient team”.
-The only thing that runs against my suspicion is that it wouldn’t be a good idea, if you were both spies, to include you both in the next team and risk having two “fail” out of three, or no fail at all. So, alternatively, the message (to an innocent Bricker this time) could be “pick me again next turn (so that I can fail the next mission) and listen to my advice about whom to pick next (so that I can make sure you don’t pick another spy)”.
[QUOTE]
[li]If the mission fails, then we’d be justified in rejecting whatever team Bricker nominates. We’d then have four more chances to get a successful team together.[/li][/QUOTE]
I have a different proposal : if the mission fail, we exclude both Terminus Est and Bricker from future missions, and we’ll be sure to have excluded one spy, and possibly two, on the first round.
If it succeeds, we’ve scored one mission out of three, which is nice too. I’ll still stay very suspicious of Terminus Est and somewhat suspicious of Bricker.
Terminus Est whole message just reeks of treason to me. I’m still willing to vote in favour of his team because it seems to me that it will be advantageous either way, but I’m also willing to reject it and let Bricker makes his pick instead if people feel the same bad vibes I get from Terminus Est and think it would be tactically better.
If the first mission fails I fully expect neither Bricker nor I to be picked for future missions. But Bricker is going to be nominating the next team regardless of mission success or failure. On mission failure we’d be silly to simply accept the team the Bricker nominates. Yes, I could be the spy, but I’m not going to be nominating any teams for futue missions for a while.
clairobscur seems very quick to accuse me of suspicious behavior on very little evidence. We don’t even know if this team will be accepted yet, let alone whether the mission succeeds.
Your whole message just doesn’t feel right (like arguing that success means you’re clean, and it looking a lot like a message). But what raises my suspicion more than anything else is :
There’s no reason to do such a thing when we’ll have absolutely no indication about anybody besides you and Bricker. Any pick for the new guy is as good as any other. Only a spy would have a reason to want to choose someone or avoid someone in particular.
And obviously, I’m going to voice my suspicion before the team is accepted. The point is to ask other people if we shouldn’t pass you over and switch to Bricker.
Where did I say that mission success means I’m clean? I said that IF the mission succeeds and IF Bricker and I are clean, then we’d want to examine the new guy more closely.
You’re perfectly free to reject my proposal, just like I’m perfectly free to reject your proposal when your turn comes.
Obviously, we’ll know if the mission succeeds. How will we know if Bricker and you are clean?
We won’t, of course. Failing the mission is such an obviously bad move that success will imply nothing.
It’s a great team, because it will succeed regardless of alignment. But the converse of that is, it won’t tell us anything.
The “if Bricker and I are clean” is the part we’ll never know. And “examine the new guy” (again) is the part I have a problem with. What will there be to examine? “Texcat should be excluded because his catiness is in doubt”? Even if you’re clean, you’ll admit it sounds like you want to pick/exclude specific people despite having (supposedly) no objective reason to do so.
I had already approved the team before I read your second message, I’m not going to change unless other players agree that it wouldn’t be a good idea to let you participate.
Sorry if you happen to be clean (doubly so because accusing you wrongly will make the spies rejoice) but I’m still suspicious. And in fact, call me paranoid, but your “like I’m perfectly free to reject your proposal” again makes me think of a preemptive excuse to do so later.
I know it’s a bit early to cast suspicions, but it’s not like we have dozens of turns to figure out who’s who. I’m of course willing to change my mind depending on the results, but again, you will admit that your insisting on carefully choosing the next guy is weird if you’re innocent.
Claire, I’m not sure if you know that editing your posts is definitely frowned upon. Please don’t do it.
Huh? Since when?
Yes, it is standard in games of this type that players should not edit their posts. Sometimes, it is allowed in mafia, since players can deal with the person doing it within the game. However, in this game, I am asking players not to edit their posts.
NETA: Sometimes players will use this NETA tag to indicate something they meant to put in their previous post, but forgot. It stands for “not edited to add”.
Sorry, I didn’t pay attention to that. However what is the logic behind this rule?
There are three spies in this seven player game; any random player has a 3/7 chance of being a spy. If I’m innocent, which I know I am, then the probability of another player being a spy increases to 3/6. If Bricker is also innocent, then the probability of a new guy being a spy increases to 3/5. You can damn well bet I’m going to treat any new guy with suspicion. What type of evidence will we have to examine the new guy? Exactly the same type of evidence you, clairobscur, are using to cast suspicion on me. The same type of evidence that I’m using to cast suspicion upon you.
I don’t fully understand it myself, but I think in a quick-moving Mafia game you can use a quick edit to catch out lying scum. Or something like that.