@dessi - your suggestion about picking all suspects makes my head hurt (that's not necessarily bad). Thinking through the implications.

@hijack - two questions: Is this your first game? What do you make of Ixam voting NO on the mission 1 team proposal and YES on the mission 2 team proposal?

@all - what is your take on a HijacK/JMich spy pairing mentioned here?

Too much heavy stuff today (not game related). Pulled the fall asleep on the couch again. I need some real sleep to clear my head.

Resistance? Yeah. I've never played this before. It's all a learning experience.

I'm going to draw the conclusion he distrusted the team picks, but ultimately voted yes the second time in order to check the possibility of all the players being resistance. Which actually may have not been a bad idea. Honestly, I started thinking agent's proposition wasn't too bad after Leo posted the results. It could have told us something based on the result.

Remember with great power comes great current x squared resistance. sorry had to say it... with everything mentioning resistance.

Assumption 1) A spy captain would not choose a team with two spies for mission 1. I already explained the reasoning, and a fail on the first mission would bench all 3 players.
Assumption 2) A single spy on the first mission would fail it, thus benching himself and two resistance members.
Assumption 3) Since the first mission didn't fail, that means either that resistance Lift lucked out and picked two spies, who both agreed to go on the mission with him, or that resistance Lift picked two resistance members, thus no one to fail the mission.
From the above, I do believe Lift to be resistance. Knowing my alignment, I can also discard the possibility of two spies being picked for the mission. So I do believe all 3 members of the first mission to have been resistance.

Now, mission 2, team 1 proposal. You suggested that knowing who everyone favors for missions is beneficial, thus that it's best to have as many proposals as possible. Then you said that the team (M2P1) is a logical choice, yet you don't trust it, thus you voted no for it. At this point, I am again drawn towards the Liar's Dice rules. So I do choose to ignore your advice on how to play the game, since I now see it more as manipulation instead of advice, and go with my gut, which says we should have additional new people to see if we can figure out their alignment.

Back to waiting for the team proposal to come.

Thanks I like this and intend to use it as often as I can in my daily conversations - curious of the ratio of blank stares to groans.

I think I'm finally starting to see how this game works! It's about the mission votes - but it seems like it takes a while to get rolling / start getting a lot of information. Really slowly "builds" - interesting!

Surprised there were so few yes votes last go around!

I trust you more than Ix and most others here so far. Just basic reads, nothing major.

I had space sickness!

Brasas is coming off verrry peculiar, I keep getting hard pings in both directions.

Brasas, can you tell us why you suspect JMich and HijacK so much?

I don't discount the possibility but it seems more to me that brasas is trying to paint them in a bad light more than is actually there.

Paranoia is a strong thing though. If 2 or 3 spies were on mission 1, eeeeep. But I've got to go with real reads, not fear.

If brasas could do any convincing/make some stronger arguments for why they're spies, I'd be glad to try and listen.

take it easy, cristi

I see problems with all of these assumptions.

1.) A spy captain very well could choose fellow spies for mission 1, he could have even made it all 3 of them knowing they were smart enough to not fail the 1st mission, and that that could fudge Resistance reads for the rest of the game. This is something I would have probably done if I were a spy chosen as captain #1, if I had confident my fellow spies knew how to play it (or I'd have openly communicated such in the thread to my fellow spies: "spies on mission 1 should be passing it if they're smart.")

2.) what if this spy has little confidence in the abilities of their team mate and thinks benching themselves could be a bad move? what if they simply don't want to bench themselves this early in the game and prefered to try a harder ploy of passing the first mission as the solo spy on it and seeing if they could sabotage inthe future? This assumption just has wayyy too many holes.

ooo liar's dice, I just learned how to play that several months ago. I actually prefer it with 2players only.

Ix's last post totally tone-reads scum to me.

It was more me kind of realizing what the game was about - I'd never played before and I have to admit, at least initially it seemed like all we did was sit here, wait for a captain list, get a list, wait, see votes then wait.

After a few missions, the game is starting to get a bit more interesting / I kind of "get" what we're supposed to be doing now. Not that I've someohow unlocked the master key to this game and have it all figured out LOL.

Just that the gameplay loop / what we do is starting to come together as opposed to before where it just seemed like I was PMing votes and waiting for lists / results.

that's good...

what do you make of....anything? :þ

OK. Thanks for answering. I don't agree on drealmer, though. I find him suspicious. But then again I don't have the best track record in reading him...

But you asked for suggestions. So how about that: remove drealmer from the team and put either yourself or me there. Then there are at least 2 from the successful team and only 2 unknown. And if I could choose I would probably also put dessimu on the team instead of one of the others. I think he wrote some quite good arguments and appeared to be genuinely trying to be helpful.

I think at this point what makes most sense is for me to be removed from the mission, which makes me sad, but I feel it could only hurt the overall Resistance if I were put on the mission and it fails, too much heat would be brought to me by some I think, and I know I'm Resistance and so it wouldn't actually help find who are spies it if I were on the mission.

I request to not be put on the mission, actually.

I was surprised by the epic fail that was the last mission list. After basically the same list succeeded the first go, I thought why not send it again? Force any spies that might be in it to either reveal themselves, or keep passing early missions for us.

When it was so resoundingly defeated I thought people REALLY don't trust agentcarr (for whatever reason) or maybe that actually was a pretty fully loaded Resistance team, and so a lot of spies ended up voting it down.

OMFG, I swear, the oppressors fear me and are working against me. ANOTHER post of mine just got sucked into the electronic etherworlds.

I'm going to wait to post this post until 10 minutes are up in case it reappears "magically" just in time to fuck me with an edit or somesuch (fucking oppressors!)

it was something like this:

....

I think my requesting to not be put on the mission may be hasty/overboard, but it is a valid thing to consider at this point I think. It seems there's some doubt around me, and if mission 2 were to fail with me on it, I think too much focus would be given to me and I know I'm Resistance and so it would only distract from actually finding spies.

By all means, if you think you are quite confident to have 4 Resistance picked, send me along and be confident about it, but I think mission 2 of all missions ithe mission that is most likely to fail, statistically/generally in the game of Resistance. Because of that, I think the captain of mission 2 should do everything they can to pick players who have little to no suspicion around them, so that IF the mission does fail, the nit-picking about who could have done it can be that much more refinded. (rather than if me, Ix, and JMich are all on it at this point, you'll have multiple people pointing fingers in multiple directions, obviously, if it fails, and that does Resistance no good.)

I still think it might just be better to remove Ix and add yourself. But again, if it fails still, I'm afraid I'll be the focus of it, and I know I'm not a spy, so that would only hurt Resistance.

So, say the same 3 as M1 +new captain go on M2, and the mission fails, how does that reveal who the spy is? All it has done is give us a pool of 4 people with at least 1 spy among them. That is no incentive to pass the mission, especially considering all the accusing that is bound to go around.

I think it is more likely (just by odds), that there was at least 1 spy on mission 1. If you do the same on mission 2 + 1new, you are just increasing the odds of spies.

I think what makes most sense for captain 2 to do is to pick the person from M1 they think is more likely Resistance, and then themselves, and 2 new others who have the least suspicion around them/least cause for anyone to think they might be a spy.

...

Ooof, I just got distracted by some ferret stuff for a bit, lost train of thought, not sure if I finished it all, but, yeah, anyway. Curious to see what HijacK finally decides and how it goes, certainly!

Heh.

Heh.

Heh.


Do you use Lazarus? You might want to think about it, it's a good fallback.

Yay, Krypsyn's back.

Oh, wait...