Why couldn’t Stanislaus be the spy, Stanislaus?
Well, as far as your concerned, of course I could. But I’m not going to ignore the one solid piece of knowledge I have when deciding how to vote, nor when explaining my reasoning.
Even from a public knowledge perspective, I am astonished that so many people were unconcerned at the 2 in 3 chance that that team involved a spy in creation or execution. Didn’t it give you a little pause?
You’re! Bloody hellfire.
Fair enough, although I think there’s value in highlighting the difference between what you personally know and what we all know.
I know I’m not a spy.
The problem is: that’s just what a spy would say. 
Well sure. So let me ask again:
As far as you were concerned, there was a 2 in 3 chance that TexCat’s or clairobscur was a Spy. So why did you accept a team proposed by one and containing the other? What did you weigh against that risk?
Sorry again for the delay. Had a rather hectic evening yesterday.
Here are the votes in random order:
Mahaloth - accept
Terminus Est - reject
TexCat - approve
sinjin - approve
Bricker - reject
Stanislaus - approve
clairobscur - approve
So, mission 4.1 has been accepted. The team of TexCat, clairobscur, Stanislaus 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 am central time tomorrow (Thursday, December 11th) with whether you want the mission to succeed or fail.
Sinjin, did you change your mind? I thought you were going to reject?
So at least one spy liked the mission, for sure.
I voted to reject, so from my knowledge TWO spies liked the mission.
This does not bode well for us. The spies can drop their masks and not worry about revealing themselves by multiple fail votes, since a failed mission wins immediately.
I think we lost.
I also think playing this on-line is advantageous to the spies, for reasons I can’t quite articulate.
Everyone on the mission approved. So there’s one spy approval, for sure. But I’d expect that, the spy on the mission wouldn’t give himself away by rejecting. Of the three that weren’t on the mission, Bricker and Terminus both rejected and Sinjin indicated that she was going to reject, but didn’t. Bottom line: I don’t think the approval means that the mission is going to fail.
I played “werewolf”, the functional equivalent of Mafia, both IRL and online, but always in real time. Never played “resistance”.
I don’t know if spies are advantaged, but it seems to me there is a lot of luck involved. The first mission seems an automatic win for the resistance, and the second mission seems at first glance to determine everything else : a lucky choice seems to ensure a resistance win for the whole game, a poor choice and the spies win. There’s no much “meat” to make deductions based on votes, with so few rounds, so unless the resistants have some luck at the start, they seem to stay in the dark essentially until the end.
I’m assuming anyway that for all these games, not playing in real time and playing online can only be advantageous for the bad guys. Barring some specific roles, they’re the only ones at risk to betray themselves by an attitude or a hasty statement.
I am such a bad liar and have such a bad poker face that I’m not sure I could play at all in real life. But I think it would be fun to try. 
Yes, from my experience in Mafia, it’s really, really easy to lie online because:
a) You’ve got time to come up with something plausible, rather than having to think on your feet;
b) Text has no tells. Lying face-to-face, I may *say *“Damn. Sorry Bricker, I really thought you were scum when I voted to lynch you” but I can’t necessarily sell the performance. (Close observers may notice a very slight grin). But on screen, those words do all the work for me.
However, I’m not convinced that we’re dead yet. I agree the votes look bad, but I think that Spies might be motivated to pass a one-spy team on this mission. First, it’s going to be quite difficult to get a two-Spy team and the more they try to engineer it, the more exposed they’re going to be. Secondly, one Spy would have every incentive to pass the mission - which would create a little bit of cred as we’d be rightly inclined to lean Resistance on the team generally. The next mission is a lot easier for Spies (essentially, we have to get all four Resistance members on the team, which will be hard) so they might prefer to give us this one and claim credit for voting this team through and/or being on it for mission 5.
Shouldn’t we be back from this mission by now?
On the other hand, at least in mafia, playing online let’s you go back and re-read which might be a real advantage to town. I’m not sure playing IRL if I could remember everything that everyone said on Day 1.
Yes, you should. I do apologize for my tardiness over the last few phases.
4th attempted mission is over. Mission votes are:
fail
succeed
fail
succeed
The mission fails.
Current score:
Resistance: 1 Spies: 3
The spies win. Congratulations to the team of Stanislaus, sinjin, and clairobscur.
I thought Resistance might have a chance when Bricker nominated a two spy team for the second mission. But when all the spies voted to approve it, then managed to only cast one fail vote, I figured they had the game locked up.
I don’t have time now, but I will post more of my thoughts about the game later.
I would love to know how the spies approached this.
My nomination was TexCat (loyal), Stanislaus(spy), and clairobscur(spy).
clairobscur (spy) accepts that team, even though it had two spies
Stanislaus (spy) accepts that team, even though it had two spies
Mahaloth (loyal) rejects
sinjin(spy) accepts that team, even though it had two spies
Bricker(loyal & mission leader) accepts (for the obvious reason that I proposed the team)
Terminus Est (loyal) rejects
TexCat (loyal) reject
So we have the curious effect that all three spies accepted a two-spy mission without presumably knowing which of the two spies should fail it. If both had failed the mission, it would have been a disaster for the spies.
And we have the slightly less curious – but still interesting – effect that all the loyal Resistance members except the leader who proposed the mission vote to reject.
I’m really very curious to hear the spies’ rationale for voting to approve, and the rationale of Stanislaus and clairobscur for deciding whether to fail or succeed the mission. Which of you did it?
Yeah, I still don’t get how Resistance can win with anything other than absolute luck.
removes mask It was me. The second post after Mental Guy officially opened the voting on your team was mine:
Bolding in original, italics added now.
I was really nervous about this post. I dressed it up in as much strategy as I could while still trying to signpost to my fellow Spy that this was a message for him. It was hard to know if I had been, in fact, both clear and obscure. Because I got this post in early, it gave the signal to accept the mission as well as indicating who would handle the voting. However, I panicked a little when I saw the results of the vote - we were too unanimous in accepting and exposed ourselves as a result.
Well duh. :smack: Is this Stanislaus telling Clairobscur to pass the mission while he fails it?
Well played, really brilliant. And it didn’t expose you: since the actual loyal members voted to reject, it camouflaged you!
Ninja’d and I lost a post in there.
Congrats spies. Well done.