Clair, The idea is that it might be possible to pass information in secret by posting a message for an online fellow spy to see and then editing the post before anyone else sees it.
I don’t think that’s what you were doing certainly, but I have seen it done.
What game was editing used this way? I’m going in 6 years and it has always been downed upon. When did it actually happen?
I don’t really see the point. If I want to pass information in secret, I can just send a PM. I’m certain my accomplice will read it, and I’m certain I won’t be caught. While using this editing method requires that he reads the message within 5 minutes (since after that you can’t edit it anymore), which is very unlikely, and that nobody else will. Seems to be the most awkward way to cheat there is.
Except that if you aren’t a spy, you should have no way to know that Bricker is innocent, either.
I’m an optimist. 
Seriously, I know there’s a 50% chance that Bricker is a good guy. The odds of any additional team members being a spy are better than even.
clairobscur, please do not edit your posts again. I am not that concerned that anyone is cheating.
I do not want players realizing that they may have provided information that they did not mean to and then going back and editing it out. In face-to-face games, you can not take back what you have said (like my son the other day saying “they only need one more point to win”, giving away the fact that he was a spy). In this version, you already have the advantage of being able to proofread your post before submitting. I don’t want players retracting errors after the fact, especially when a subset of the other players may have seen it.
If you make typos or grammatical errors, just live with it. If you want to add something, just make a new post.
I am a good guy. 
And I obviously favor this first mission staffing – a fact I made clear before I was even picked.
Hmmm… Sorry, I didn’t pay attention to the fact that I edited it again. :smack: It might seem weird on a post about not editing posts, but it wasn’t on purpose. I edit almost all my posts, writing, posting, rereading, editing, reposting. It’s just second nature.
Here are the votes in random order:
Mahaloth - accept
TexCat - accept
clairobscur - accept
Terminus Est - accept
sinjin - accept
Stanislaus - accept
Bricker - accept
So, the mission has been accepted. The team of Terminus Est and Bricker 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 11:30 am central time tomorrow (Tuesday, November 25th) with whether you want the mission to succeed or fail.
Did the mission succeed?
(The mission was to sabotage the government radio tower, cutting off their bland, ceaseless propaganda. We were also trying to plant a remotely activated relay so that we can cut in on a future broadcast even after they effect repairs when/if we want to draw public attention to another of our missions’ success).
1st attempted mission is over. Mission votes are:
succeed
succeed
The mission succeeds.
Current score:
Resistance: 1 Spies: 0
Bricker you need to nominate a team of 3 players for mission 2.
Since the game will go on hiatus after tonight, I am setting the deadline for nominating the next team to 5:00 pm central time on Monday, December 1. If I receive the nomination before tonight, however, I will move the round on to phase 2.
If folks agree by tonight, would it be possible to continue the game during the holiday? I actually have more time, not less.
I don’t mind, but it would be on a “whenever I can get to it basis.”
I’m not on holiday, so happy to go with the group decision.
Now, were one up. What have we learnt?
I think that’s the objective facts. As for deduction, supposition, gut instinct etc.:
Terminus Est’s logic behind picking himself and Bricker was fairly sound. It was already unlikely that any Spy would fail a two person mission, but picking the next leader put extra pressure on, as being leader is a massive benefit for Spies. However, I disagree with Terminus on the conclusions that he’d like to draw from this result, viz that he and Bricker should be shoo-ins for the next team, and that people who are not Bricker are less likely to be Resistance than Bricker is. If you pick any player, that person has 3/6 chances of being a Spy. If you assume/decide they are Resistance then subsequent players have 3/5 chances of being a Spy. But there’s no particular reason to give Bricker the privilege of being the first person considered. As a Spy picked on a two person team just before his turn as leader, he would have every incentive to vote succeed first time round.
Terminus pushed quite hard the idea that the next team should be him, Bricker and X with X the most likely to be a Spy in the event of failure. If Terminus is a Spy, that would set him up to fail a mission and have a patsy waiting to take the fall. Ditto if Bricker is a Spy, although he’d be taking advantage of Terminus’ plan in that case.
But this is all shadow boxing. The good thing about the first mission is that we were always likely to get a score on the board regardless of the team alignment. But we didn’t learn much from the voting process, and as we need to pick bigger and bigger teams, we won’t be in that position again. So, for what it’s worth Bricker, I’d like to see a new team proposed and hear what people have to say for and against. Rejecting a team or two will leave more of an information trail.
We had talked at one time about hearing about what the other choices would be for teams.
I am up after Bricker and would probably propose the team of Terminus, Bricker, and me. Of course, I would only be up this round if Bricker’s team is rejected.
It seems like a Terminus, Bricker, X team is the most likely to succeed, and if it did succeed we’d have a core of people would could mostly trust.
I’ll be around this weekend and looking for ways to [del]waste my time[/del] [del]keep myself occupied[/del] do anything except clean the kitchen or watch football.
I’m fine with it. Not being on holyday, I’d like the game to progress, even at a slow pace.
How comes I begin to suspect anybody who talks? 
Anyway, I’m still not very willing to let Terminus Est go on the second mission. My suspicions about his statements might be flimsy, but it’s still better than the nothing I have about other players.
As leader, I now propose that we target the electrical substation that controls power to the Central Committee’s offices. Our three person team will enter, plant remote-controlled explosives, and leave. These can be later detonated to shut off power during another operation to deny the Central Committee members the chance to make quick decisions.
The three people should be me, Terminus Est, and TexCat. While I suspect the “cat,” part, I am hoping that this is the only deceptive thing about TexCat.
This is informal, in that I haven’t yet sent the PM. I am willing to hear arguments: tell me why this is a bad idea.
I will allow the game to continue during the holiday weekend, but I won’t set any deadlines before Monday. If we actually have a mission, I will ask everyone involved to send me succeed or fail votes so I know that they are participating and I will wait at least one fulll day after it starts before revealing the results. Also, updates will occur whenever I can manage them.