How should I know? I express my opinion, which basically Leonard will reveal anyway. If you see the problem, feel free to enlighten me.

I'm not the one suggesting or implying that if 3 players went on a failed mission (let's call them the 3 Stooges for now)they should all be given blanket treatment A.

Implying anyone would find it appropriate if A = "let's send the 3 Stooges right out again, plus find them a new sidekick" is funny. Ha ha.

The actual point I'm making is some of you are pretty much implying that A should be benching the 3 Stooges.
Without any consideration (until now) that picking people exclusively from the non Stooges group is no better than picking people (note the lack of the word "all") from inside the Stooges.

That's what the 2:1 ratio proves, and you sure have not disproved that.

So back to my question. What do you guys find so appealing about the "let's bench them all" thinking?
Becase if you did not imply the "all", then I'd like to hear more about why bench player 1 instead of player 2 or whatever the case may be. And by "hear more" I mean - see your votes on later team proposals.

But whatever. Mission 1 actually passed. So this is just killing time.

Need to run now.

I'm sorry, is A a person or a treatment? I am a bit confused.

And no, the 2:1 ratio is not necessarily constant. A mission that has failed had at least one spy in it, and as many as three. Which means the other 6 players contain between 0 and 2 spies. So the "three stooges" has up to 2:1 ratio, while the "not three stooges" has at least 2:1 ratio. The most likely scenario would be that both groups have exactly a 2:1 ratio of resistance to spies, but not necessarily true. So benching the stooges would not be detrimental to resistance (assuming only one spy in the group), and it might be beneficial (assuming more than one spy in the group).

Remember that if the fifth mission in a row is rejected the Resistance automatically loses. Since everyone would vote "yes" anyway, it's just a time saver.

As much positioning and discussion and everything that has gone on about this mission team, I think it makes sense to accept it and see what result we get. Not super-confident about anyone (cept maybe cristi), but we've got a lot to go on with all of this, so it just makes sense to accept.

voting yes


cristi, I wouldn't worry about your mind not being here, it's not as heavy/involved as mafia and you're all good as far as I can see (you participated wonderfully), even if you can't participate much, just a "hey all, I'm alive" msg once every 24 hrs. and I think you'd be fine/serve us fine.

Well, I may be too trusting. But in any case I trust HijacK and Dessimu more than I trust you from what they have written so far and from what you have written. You come over as quite manipulative. True, you write a lot - but in spite of all that quantity it isn't all that helpful. I would have expected more from the most experienced player around. For example that you actually answer to questions concerning the game. Which you didn't. So I'll repeat Dessimu's question: where do you see the damage in announcing one's votes? They will be revealed nonetheless by Leonard. So lying about it is out of the question anyhow. Sure, one can keep it 'secret' until it is revealed, but I think it would be more helpful if we required everyone to state what (s)he voted right away. Then one could see who hesitates to cast a vote. Generally the Resistance needs all the information it can get to try to find spys. So why do you imply that withholding information would be good?

"Hey third spy, second spy is on the mission already, and I approved of the list. So you can coyly vote "No" and cover your ass because this list is getting passed. *Wink*"

Hmmm. Interesting. You know. This actually makes sense to a degree. However, isn't it more confusing when everyone is in agreement and there is no conflict to be found, yet a problem arises, i.e. a mission fails?

I can see the logic behind this, but I think it's limiting to think only in this way.

Perhaps it was a bit of an overstatement, but even just by glossing over the last 2 pages (20 posts per page type) you can see that not everyone is in agreement regarding her.

Checking in before finishing the day. Tired beats verbose this time.

Ok. Since I actually have very little or even no issue with Cristi I found your statement puzzling. And I don't really recall many folks saying anything bad about her. Would appreciate if you or anyone pointed them out.

For example. Even worse. "Hej spies, there's enough Resistance voting to trust your buddy already."
Spy signaling buddies is smart play but should be risky.
Resistance giving info or camouflage unnecessarily is not smart play, and is rather tragic.

See above. As to answering Dess, I needed to run out right after answering JMich. Answering JMich is tricky, because he's good with numbers and at misdirection. My wife was practically screaming at me already. So yeah, no. I'll be getting to Dess eventually.... going from the bottom this time.

Lying about votes is far from out of the question. You can headfake spies by pretending to trust people. Or whatever... don't have the brainpower right now to think of less typical scenarios.

As to being manipulative. Every one of you should be doing the same. That's precisely the point. The spies try to manipulate the Resistance, the Resistance tries to manipulate the spies. Both are difficult in somewhat different ways.

Finally, if we seating around a table you would be able to see who is hesitating about voting. Like this, you don't.
There is nothing in the rules actually saying one needs to tell the others they voted. Since you are telling me I'm not helpful, go see who was the first person to announce they had voted. Leading by example is something that exists - but you need to look.

This crowd is unconventional though. Also slips can always happen. And if special roles were in play some interesting bluffing possibilities open up. That said with how slow this is going and vanilla roles I'm more thankful than I'm letting on. It's a small change to adapt to. No biggie ;)

Are you really?

A is a blanket treatment throughout. I don't think I made a mistake, but as mentioned I hit post under pressure.

As to the ratio, you're not wrong, but you're alarming me more and more by being this disingenuous.
I said the ratios were equivalent, and therefore the blanket approach of benching everyone somewhat ill considered in post 223 which includes this neat explicit sentence: "3 go out, one sabotages".

I never posited anything about the ratios if spy distros were other.
And I'll point out that was following on (among others) your post 219 where you mention explicitly "that would leave ... 2 spies ... for the next missions"

See also my post 69 on related topic. I'm being consistent.

You're also being consistent, in kind of trying to put words in my mouth at least. That's good play of sorts. I hope you're not fooling any of my 5 buddies though. And that you're not one of those 5 yourself.

See above, and sorry I didn't tell you earlier.
In fairness, any possible harm was already done. And we're only Mission 2 so there will be more votes.

Also, see post 126 where I'm explicitly refusing to confirm to Drealmer how I voted.
Consider how I've been signposting no votes but leaving room for doubt with comments such as "I like this team"
And I announced in advance only when I was jumping on Hijack's mistake - to highlight it the more strongly.

I mean, I haven't been succesful convincing / influencing / manipulating you all into being less trusting. Despite having exposed myself hugely, by the way.
You'll forgive me for leaving the "Do not announce votes but reveal simultaneously" as a lower priority I'm sure.


OK. Think that's everyone. Night all.

Sigh. Let's go again.
Mission 1. 3 people go in. Let's see best plays for spy to resistance cases.
3 resistances. Mission passes without issues.
2 resistances, 1 spy. Best play is for the spy to fail the mission.
1 resistance, 2 spies. Best play is for the spies pass the mission.
3 spies. Best play is (again) to pass the mission.

For the mission to fail, it means that at least one spy was on the mission (again, first mission, 3 people, one fail required). The only time it makes sense for spies to fail the mission is if there's only one spy in it. If there are more spies in it, benching the three players costs much more to the spies than they gain. But you don't always have players that understand the best play, nor is it reasonable to expect them to be able to communicate effectively. So it is possible, even if unlikely, that the spies will fail the first mission with more than one spy in it.

So, if they do the best play, benching the three players and working with vote preferences to try and identify the one leaves the resistance with the 2:1 ratio, same as if they didn't bench them. If there's not a best play scenario, then benching the three players leave the resistance with a 5:1 or even better ratio. At no point does not benching the players give a better ratio than 2:1.

So yes, assuming best play and the first mission failing with 1 fail, then the ratios are most likely equivalent. But if you are not sure about the players' understanding of the game rules, the best play may not be the one that happens.

Either way, theorycrafting atm, since the first mission passed without any issues.

Got it, understood it, I can only thank you for giving such advice. I am not entirely sure how resistance can cooperate in various sneaky and manipulative ways like you know. So I do what feels right, the way it feels right.

Maybe I'm just tired, but all this talk of spy ratios is going right over my head.

Which is weird. Since I'm in math.

Regardless, who are we waiting on?

Yes I did!

In one case, you are looking to identify one (or better yet, two people), leaving a single possible spy as an available choice. In the other case, you are looking to identify two (or better yet, three people), making it a bit harder to do correctly. While the ratios may be the same, the number of people you are looking for and at is not.

I always assume my fellow players are at least as intelligent as I am. I do also like to give my thoughts, so those more intelligent than me can point out the flaws in my logic.

This is my first resistance game, and I haven't looked at how to play it. So I go with what my gut tells me, yet your experience says I'm going at it wrong. I can't say I'd have thought of the votes as that important, at least not until you mentioned those, yet your votes and thoughts on them do make me question your motives. I don't really think I'll be enjoying the next resistance games that much though, since I do now see them as flipless mafia games, aka no way of knowing if you guessed correctly or not :/