Not really. I only considered the probability of the new guy being a spy if Bricker and I are both clean. If you think either of us are spies then of course you’d be right to reject the team. Even if you believe Bricker and I are rebels, it’s still a good idea to reject the team on the basis that the new guy is more than 50% likely to be a spy. On the gripping hand, a team with any three random players is more than 80% likely to contain at least one spy.
I know! If **any **two people are both clean, the probability of third being a spy is much higher. I could make exactly the same argument about me and Mahaloth, leaving **you **more likely to be a Spy. Your hypothetical is only of value if we have any reason to accept the premise.
- Why should we consider you might be clean?
- Why should we consider Bricker might be clean?
(Spoiler warning: Given that Spies can let missions succeed, and likely **would **let a two-person mission succeed, “Because the first mission succeeded” is not a reason I will find persuasive.)
Bricker, much as I love the idea of leaving the tyrants, fascists and lickspittles of the Central Committee fumbling in the dark, I’m probably going to reject your team. Three reasons:
- I’m not on it, and I’m the only one I trust to do a job like this.
- I can’t trust anyone else until I’ve seen them talk, and discussing different teams is a way to get people to talk.
- I have a strategy I would like to propose:
The great thing about a 2-person mission is that any Spies on it would be likely to let it succeed, as the exposure from failing was too great. We can win if we can continually construct teams that have no Spies; we can also win if we can create teams that can survive despite having Spies on them. Given the odds against picking clean teams consistently, I think we should at least consider the latter.
If you think you and Terminus are clean (incidentally, why do you think Terminus is clean?), try picking from the rest of us. The chances are good that you’ll make a team with two Spies. (This was Johnny Bravo’s strategy in the last game, and I think it was smart.) Spies can’t collude, so there’s a good chance that either a) they both vote succeed in which case we have another score, or b) they both vote fail in which case we’ve isolated two of the three spies and increase our odds of picking clean teams in the future.
Spies most certainly can collude; they just have to be more circumspect talking in the open. That being said, hoping to catch two spies in a three-person team has some merit.
Mmm…colluding pies…mmm…
Fair point. This gives another opportunity for catching Spies, as any attempts at collusion will be in plain sight.
That makes a great deal of sense.
The only problem is that the medicine might kill the patient just as the disease does: as we get information we also get failed missions.
So: TexCat, clairobuscr, Stanislaus. How does that look?
That is the trade-off. And if we do consistently pick clean teams, we don’t need information. But failing that, we should construct the teams so that failure maximises our information gain. As we’re 1-0 up right now, we’ve got some room to play with.
Hmm. From the perspective of having a reliable person on it (me) it looks good. From the perspective of having two Spies on it, including me makes this less likely. So if that’s the goal you’re trying to achieve, I’d suggest sinjin, Mahaloth and TexCat, as the players who have been playing their cards closest to their chests:
sinjin has hardly said anything, to the point that I forget he’s in the game.
Mahaloth has confirmed his presence, and chipped in about editing and play schedules.
TexCat has posted more than the others, but mainly to go along with what has already been suggested.
I would suggest Terminus, Bricker, and someone else and would vote to accept anyone in that third slot. Especially me. 
Unfortunately, I can’t quite go along with the assumption that you’re a reliable person. You know if you are or aren’t, of course, but… a government spy would say just what you’ve said.
And if you’re loyal to the Resistance, I hope you’ll recognize that we have no way of assuring your bona fides and be unoffended by this point.
Any other comments concerning the notional team of TexCat, clairobuscr, Stanislaus, for Mission Two (Central Committee Blackout)?
Stanislaus is making me nervous. I liked your first proposal better.
If your first proposal was clean, wouldn’t the spies be throwing out alternate suggestions in the hopes of getting you to change to a team with a spy? Just like Stanislaus did?
Yes, but the underlying logic is sound. The initial strategy might be, “Hope we keep picking a clean team,” but there are four player missions ahead. It’s almost impossible to imagine we’ll be able to reliably pick clean teams across the board, especially since a spy will be the leader at some point..
That’s the spies’ biggest strength. The spies’ biggest weakness is that while they know who each other are, they can’t communicate with each other to coordinate who fails a mission that multiple spies are on.
I wrote a long post, but lost it. So here the short version :
-I keep not trusting Terminus Est. Besides what I already wrote, his inacurate depiction of the odds in case his preference would be approved makes me think he has an agenda, and his complete lack of concern over my accusations bothers me too (he should feel worried by the risk of an innocent suspecting another, especially if the latter is him)
-If he’s guilty, Bricker is probably safe, since presumably Terminus Est wouldn’t want a team including two spies.
-I don’t think that deliberatly creating a team of spies is a good idea, given how few rounds the game will last, unless someone convinces me otherwise. If we chance on a spy-free team, the game is essentially won, since we just have to try to vote the same team in again. As a result, I find Stanislaus, who proposed the idea, suspect.
-I would nevertheless approve the currently proposed team, (Texcat, Stanislaus, Clairobscur), essentially because it includes me, and secondarily because it doesn’t include Terminus Est, whom I’m almost convinced is a spy.
I agree with clair. Just because we fail at trying to pick a clean team is no reason not to try. It’s not as though we can any more reliably pick a team with 2 spies than a team with 0 spies. We might as well aim for a team with 0 spies.
I will not accept a team with clairobscur. He is a spy.
Because…?
Ok, I’ve heard enough.
I am officially nominating Texcat, Stanislaus, Clairobscur. The PM is being sent.
Yeah? How do you know?
I also question the certainty. So far, one mission’s done, he was on it, and it succeeded, which tells us very little one way or the other.
And that’s all we KNOW.
Bricker has nominated a team of TexCat, Stanislaus, and clairobscur. Please send me your approve or reject votes. The deadline is 5:00pm central time on Monday, December the 1st. If I get all votes before then, we will move on to the next phase.