Apologies if there’s another thread already, but I didn’t see one.
Personally, I don’t care if players read the thread but I know I am relatively unique in that viewpoint, so let good sportsmanship carry the day.
I think JB’s strategy is well-intentioned but pointless. The first mission will succeed regardless of the team makeup. It’s the 4 and 5 person missions where fails will become critical.
I didn’t see an explicit win condition posted. Is it the same as the board game where 3 fails or successes is a win and 5 rejected teams in a row counts as a mission fail?
My take is that Johnny Bravo’s selection should be voted down by nearly anyone who isn’t a spy. It is the first grouping and there is no reason to let it go through without some generation of data.
Vote it down, then start over and have the up and down votes from JB’s proposed mission guide the next attempt.
The data will be meaningless now, but in round 4 it might be very nice to say, Hey! Why did you vote to approve JB’s mission back on round 1?!
HookerChemical seems to be on target and is backing her words up with links!
I think the breakthrough will come when they realize that the issue isn’t optimizing the team at this time, but gathering information about who supports and does not support each team.
For data starved mafia players, they really don’t seem all that interested in gathering data. I will admit that the statement “I’m not a spy and I’m not on the team so I’m rejecting it” is flawed though.
Oh and I’m bemused by the notion that “if we reject team 5 we lose!” as a reason for needing to approve team 1. Someone is too enamored with induction:
We have to accept team 5 or we lose, so if we get to team 4 we have to accept that one.
Since we have to accept team 4 if we get there we have to accept team 3 because if we reject team 3 we have to accept team 4.
Since we have to accept team 3 we have to accept team 2
Since we have to accept team 2 we have to accept team 1… or we’ll have no choice!
I know I brought it up in the thread before the game started but it only applies in a very specific circumstance that doesn’t apply in this particular game since there’s no mission that requires 6 people.
I’m not liking storyteller’s point of view regarding rejection. While on the surface his statement that if all players vote to reject that no information will be gleaned, he is completely ignoring the facts that:
(1) It is unlikely that all players will vote to reject.
(2) accepting the team will 100% not generate more information.
I don’t know if this makes him a spy or not, but I kinda think it does. Why the hurry?
I think that Terminus Est has a good point (well, good by Day 1 standards, at least) about HookerChemical, that his plan would end up with himself being the one to choose the first team. On the other hand, there’s a niggling part of me that thinks it’s too good a point, the sort of thing a Scum would use to try to bus a fellow Scum. So I’m slightly inclined against HookerChemical, but I’m still not sure about Terminus Est.
I didn’t read HookerChemical’s posts as saying that they should reject all teams and go with the 5th team. I didn’t read her link, so maybe it said that there.
Honestly, from a mafia point of view, this is the sort of thing that would scream Town to me. Proposing something that is flawed, perhaps even ‘obviously’ so is not something scum do. If HookerChemical really saw that she was 5th and actually thought that she could convince everyone else that rejecting all the way to the 5th team was a good idea, when she knows it clearly is NOT, I would be so very surprised. Furthermore, that would assume that all four before her were not spies either, which is unlikely.
Another point about wanting to have more teams proposed this round is that the construction of a team gives an indication about the alignment of the leader that proposed that team. As Resistance, its a shot in the dark, but as spies what do you do? Forcing spies to make public decisions that can be inspected later puts them in a difficult position. Putting spies in difficult positions is always good.
Agreed. I feel that people are putting these arbitrary rules in Hooker’s mouth (reject the first 4 teams, reject the first 3 teams) when I thought her point was not to simply accept the first proposed team automatically every time.
I’m not buying what Johnny Bravo is trying to sell.
While I can’t explain HookerChemical’s mistake in stating that there are 6 spies, I can’t reconcile that with her being a spy. If anything, I would think that a spy would be MORE likely to know the correct number of spies.
Also the math is wrong, but in a way that shows that HookerChemical correctly knows there are 6 resistance and 4 spies.
HookerChemical calculated P(safe) = 6/10 * 5/10 * 4/10 = 0.12
The correct math is P(safe) = 6/10 * 5/9 * 4/8 = 0.166
Anyway, HookerChemical misspoke but did her math mostly correct.
Everyone knows the correct number of spies, as the moderator publicly revealed that information. HookerChemical obviously just made a brainfart when she said “6 spies”. The question is just what mental processes were going on that led to that brainfart. Johnny Bravo’s argument is that the mental process was “6 people not on my team” -> “6 spies”. Which does seem plausible.
Oh, and about my earlier comment: It occurs to me that, since alignments are never publicly revealed, there’s a lot less value to busing in this game than in Mafia. Though then we have to ask, do the spies realize that yet?
But that ignores the just as equally likely, if not more so, mental process of writing spy when one meant resistance. Linguistically the two words are very similar. A spy is working against something. Resistance is also working against someone.
Now that I write that out, I’m of the opinion that the naming in this game kinda sucks. Why not something more clearly opposed like “Rebels” and “Empire”?
As I like to say in mafia games: Plausibility is not proof. It isn’t really even evidence.
Looks like game apathy could kill this game too.
MentalGuy’s note that no replies will equal an accept makes for a possibly game breaking problem. If I understand the game correctly, these votes are critical to getting a hint at who is a spy. If too many people don’t vote, then goodbye data.
Also if a spy wanted to accept a shady team he could do so by not voting. A non-vote is more easily defended. That would be unfortunate and poor gamesmanship in my opinion, but I bet it happens.
I don’t think anyone else can tell the difference between “abstain” and “actively vote accept”. This isn’t like Mafia, where the official votes are made publicly-- The votes are all private, and are filtered through the moderator. If someone tries to say “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote”, then everyone else will say “What do you mean, it says right there that you accepted. Why are you trying to dodge responsibility?”.
I do think that at some point someone will be put in the fire and he or she will say, ‘but I didn’t vote to accept, I didn’t vote at all.’ It will be hard to believe at that point, as you say.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this game is very good to watch – pretty much no discussion is happening.
I’m not liking anything that Mahaloth has to say in this game.
(bolding mine)
Mahaloth’s first post rubbed me the wrong way. He sounded way too anxious to make the point that he’s resistance. And he keeps saying it over and over and over again. I don’t think that an actual resistance player would feel the need to do this.
TexCat’s resignation to her fate reads as much more genuine to me. A resistance player knows that they’re under heightened suspicion and have no way of proving their towniness (not even through death!), which has to be discouraging.
I agree with storyteller’s reasoning that discounting the members of the last team outright isn’t necessarily a winning move, but I don’t agree with the motivation that he ascribes to TexCat’s post. He forgets that not everybody sees the game from a strict logical position like he does.
This is what I mentioned above, where he seemed very eager to get that team set in stone.
This is his response to HC’s supposed slip. I really don’t like the quick flip-flop here. It feels opportunistic. I’m not sure that it says much about HC’s alignment though.