The Resistance 3.5 (0-3, Spies) - SPIES WIN

For your simulated organized crime needs.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby VectorZero » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:54 pm UTC

Bah, triple post.

Forgot to point out, two auto-rejects. Don't make a mountain out of my reject swinging the decision. Two people didn't vote: it was *this* close to being accepted.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.
User avatar
VectorZero
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Darwin

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby roband » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:11 pm UTC

Misnomer wrote:Assuming that doesn't provoke a response, Adam and me are now both confirmed town. :D

Now we just need to find a third man for the team.


I can see the logic with you two being town. And my thoughts on AdamH were mainly because he annoyed me.

Also, if he is scum, he's already won. So, he might as well go on the team.
Therefore, Misnomer might as well also go on the team.
And I'm always going to put myself on the team.

And as VZ said the following:
VectorZero wrote:So, my suggestion would be adamH, misnomer, (VZ|lorenz|roband, in that order)


I think I'll propose it. There's no point pissing about...

The current team leader is: roband
The proposed mission is: 1.

Proposed Team Member 1: AdamH
Proposed Team Member 2: Misnomer
Proposed Team Member 3: roband


Obviously, I

ACCEPT
User avatar
roband
One Letter From A Gunslinger
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby jayhsu » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:18 pm UTC

Vote within 24 hours!
-Jay
User avatar
jayhsu
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:38 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Lorenz » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:42 pm UTC

Adam: I used to think the exact same thing from VZ, until I realized that he was simply not trusting that just one of BF/Webby are scum. That makes him look much better if you reread his posts.
Also, good job on claiming you would not NC, and that you would accept (is that right? I can't find the post but I remember you saying that for some reason), but rejecting.
I am much confident that there's scum in the previous mission proposal, If that's true, we got lucky that BF or GoP didn't accept. If so (And assuming scum thought they had enough to accept the mission), VZ and me are town, and there's 3 spies out of
roband/mpolo/Dotproduct/webby and 1 spy out of GoP/BF.
I'm very confident this is the case.

I still don't have the slightest trust of roband, so I really think this should go over to Adam.
User avatar
Lorenz
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Lorenz » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:47 pm UTC

Also, I understand roband may have been tired of this mission being dragged out so much but they really didn't give time for discussion. If roband is town, putting himself in the mission is the worst possible scenario, as we have to trust him rather than someone else. If he had proposed someone else who he thinks is towny, and the mission passed, then we would also have a towny roband. As scum, it makes perfect sense to put himself on the team so fast.
User avatar
Lorenz
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby dotproduct » Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:01 pm UTC

So, Adam/Misnomer ?
Do we accept or reject?
(If neither of you answer or you disagree, I'm going to let it default to reject.)


Also,

FoS: roband

for not getting the third team member from Adam/Misnomer .
dotproduct
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Lorenz » Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:06 pm UTC

Seriously, this must be rejected. If this is not rejected Adam will have to decide wether to use his NC or not, and it could be a better use later. Even if the final team being proposed is the same, there's no reason to risk adam using his NC here.
User avatar
Lorenz
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Misnomer » Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:15 pm UTC

Graaargggh - Roband, there was no need to propose it so quickly. Fortunately for you, this post puts you in a good light.


Ok, so in a completely out of character move for me, I decided to have a look at the odds of people being spies. If all we knew is that 4 out of 8 players were spies, then we'd have 70 different possible teams. I then narrowed these down using the following conditions:
- The spy team needs at least one of VZ/BF/GoP/Webby on it
- The spy team needs at least two of VZ/BF/Webby/Mpolo on it
- If mpolo is on the spy team, then Webby and GoP must also be on it
- Roband and BF cannot both be on the spy team

Subject to these conditions, I narrowed the teams down as follows:
resistance.png
Spy teams - impossible teams in Red


Next, I look at how many possible teams each player was in. Here's the scores:
Roband: 4
mpolo: 5
GoP: 13
VZ: 13
Webby: 16
BF: 10
Lorenz: 9
DP: 9

So as you can see - based on the odds, Roband is most likely to be town.


As such, unless anyone spots any glaring errors I've made, I think I'm going to back this team.
User avatar
Misnomer
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Adam H » Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

VectorZero wrote:As for the FoS I agreed with ... I now assume you think that's some sort of trap for me? I don't get it.
No it wasn't a trap. It was just added evidence that you really don't like BF.

VectorZero wrote:If mpolo is scum (i.e. the two scum from mpolo/misnomer/webby/VZ/boomfrog in mission 2 are, not counting me, eliminating the now 'confirmed' misnomer and hoping BF is town) mpolo and webby), webby and GoP are also scum. This is looking increasingly likely (from my PoV).
OK, seriously, you're not thinking about this (or I'm just an idiot, which could definitely be the case). If you are town, webby MUST MUST MUST be spy. No way around it (at least not now that misnomer is clear). Therefore, the only possible reason you should suspect BF in the least is if you think he accused a fellow spy. I think that's a whacky assumption, considering that the spies have lost all 3 previous games - while I haven't looked at how they went, it seems like the spies wouldn't do anything whacky in this game if they were up 2-0 and basically assured of a win. And the fact that you've never said "webby is 100% spy" is also whacky. There's too much whack here!

I am new to the forums so I don't know if BF is gutsy enough to accuse a fellow spy. But if he's good enough to pull it off, then how could he be bad enough so that VZ would say, "his play has been really bad"?! It just doesn't make sense to me.

Lorenz, I think it's oversimplification to say that those who rejected are town and those who accepted are spies. If there was a spy, it would almost certainly be webby, and if spy-VZ accepted a mission with webby on it he'd better be absolutely sure that mission would be going through (not NC'd or rejected), or else we'd know webby and VZ were both spies.

And now there's lots of ninja posts to go over... fun stuff misnomer.
-Adam
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Lorenz » Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

Misnomer: Those probabilities are completely skewed towards the people that we have more information about! Of course anyone who you impose more conditions will show less possible combinations.

Given the first 2 conditions, it's obvious the third and fourth condition will greatly bring the combinations for mpolo and roband down.
I think were past the point were we take decisions solely on probabilities also. Yes, they help, but you really have to ask yourself what is it that you trust.
User avatar
Lorenz
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Adam H » Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:58 pm UTC

misnomer-

I will agree with your conclusion, that roband and mpolo are the safest. However, I disagree that roband and BF cannot both be spies, and I also would (subjectively) decrease the probability that BF and webby are on the same team. The end result is that roband goes up a couple points and mpolo goes down half a point or so. Also, if I eliminate all the spy teams without VZ on it, mpolo goes to ONE (roband is at 3). So yeah, I'd prefer mpolo on the team.

I sort of disagree with lorenz - yes the probabilities are skewed towards those that we have information about, but that just means that the methodology is correct... And I think the list of groups is handy.

I'm rejecting, but not NCing. I don't want to drag this out, and if you all think roband is innocent, then I'll go with that and just add mpolo for the next 4 man team.
-Adam
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Gopher of Pern » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Sorry for not being around guys. Just got back to work after holidays, so have been crazy busy.

Glad that team didn't get through, as I was not confident in it. Webby and boomfrog should not be in the next team.

This team is better, but I think I would still prefer mpolo, as they are confirmed town (for me anyway). I think I will reject, and let adam propose his team.
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy
User avatar
Gopher of Pern
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Misnomer » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:20 pm UTC

@Lorenz: Obviously we have an incomplete set of information, but that's no reason to ignore it. The odds aren't everything of course, but they are significant. And with my gut feelings having been consistently proven wrong this game, I'm happy to rely on the odds.

@Adam: Bussing and distancing are common tactics - I don't think we can assume that scum wouldn't out other scum. As for Roband/BF - if they are both scum, then Roband has played shockingly badly...
User avatar
Misnomer
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Lorenz » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:32 pm UTC

I'm thinking of more things that should be added to that spreadsheet. Will post them as I come along.

At least one of BF/VZ must be on the spy team.
User avatar
Lorenz
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Lorenz » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:33 pm UTC

ARGGG... I meant BF/webby. sorry
User avatar
Lorenz
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Misnomer » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:33 pm UTC

Lorenz wrote:At least one of BF/VZ must be on the spy team.

Reasoning?
User avatar
Misnomer
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Lorenz » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:34 pm UTC

And they all fit that. my bad.
User avatar
Lorenz
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Misnomer » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:37 pm UTC

Ah right, that makes more sense.

And yeah they do, freakishly enough. :shock:
User avatar
Misnomer
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Adam H » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:47 pm UTC

Misnomer wrote:Bussing and distancing are common tactics - I don't think we can assume that scum wouldn't out other scum.
Well, yes, they are common tactics, but not if there's no point. And I don't see any point - it's not like we're going to lynch one which would falsely confirm the other. With spies up 2-0, I don't see what spy-BF and spy-webby would gain by making us suspect at least one of them. We probably won't send either on a mission for the rest of the game, so spy-BF must have thought that the other 2 spies would seem less scummy if he bussed webby... How? Can't think of anything...

The only thing I can think of is if they're screwing with us.

Misnomer wrote:As for Roband/BF - if they are both scum, then Roband has played shockingly badly...
I've already shown how not NCing spy-BF's proposal would be the right spy-roband thing to do. Assuming roband and BF are both scum, what other bad plays were there?

Misnomer wrote:And yeah they do, freakishly enough. :shock:
Haha yeah it's because "The spy team needs at least two of VZ/BF/Webby/Mpolo on it", so if neither BF or Webby are on it then mpolo must be on it... without webby... you see the problem here...
-Adam
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby VectorZero » Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:16 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:OK, seriously, you're not thinking about this (or I'm just an idiot, which could definitely be the case). If you are town, webby MUST MUST MUST be spy. No way around it (at least not now that misnomer is clear). Therefore, the only possible reason you should suspect BF in the least is if you think he accused a fellow spy. I think that's a whacky assumption, considering that the spies have lost all 3 previous games - while I haven't looked at how they went, it seems like the spies wouldn't do anything whacky in this game if they were up 2-0 and basically assured of a win. And the fact that you've never said "webby is 100% spy" is also whacky. There's too much whack here!

I am new to the forums so I don't know if BF is gutsy enough to accuse a fellow spy. But if he's good enough to pull it off, then how could he be bad enough so that VZ would say, "his play has been really bad"?! It just doesn't make sense to me.
You're repeating yourself, AdamH. Your argument boils down to 'you can't possibly think that [boom frog would bus webby] since I think it's really unlikely that [boomfrog would bus webby]. I get your point. There's no need to waste breath over it. But it's not enough for me to risk putting boom frog on a team at this point.

As to webby, yes, I'm pretty sure he's scum and have consistently voted against him and have used that as my reasoning. I don't see an issue here.

As for boomfrog being 'good' or 'bad' ... I don't think you have to be a puppetmaster to bus someone. His about-face on webby shows a flaw in the argument somewhere, at least. I'm not saying he's a bad player, I'm saying some of his arguments have been questionable at best.

Misnomer: that looks...interesting. Further filtering it, excluding teams with me in, puts roband in only 1 team. Nice tactic.

I'm happy to follow Adam for this vote.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.
User avatar
VectorZero
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Darwin

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby dotproduct » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:05 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:And the fact that you've never said "webby is 100% spy" is also whacky.

VectorZero wrote:As to webby, yes, I'm pretty sure he's scum and have consistently voted against him and have used that as my reasoning. I don't see an issue here.

The issue is that, as of the above quote from you, a resistance member from your PoV would be _absolutely certain_ that webby was a spy, and not just "pretty sure he's scum".


VectorZero wrote:Misnomer: that looks...interesting. Further filtering it, excluding teams with me in, puts roband in only 1 team. Nice tactic.

I'm happy to follow Adam for this vote.

Does anyone else notice a disconnect here?

FoS: VectorZero


Since Adam H and Misnomer disagree, and Adam seems like he'll chose mpolo,
I'm going with my own conclusion and will intentionally default to reject.



Adam H, with roband and BF possibly both being spies and your probability decrease, I get:


player, # of lower probability teams they're on, # of higher probability teams they're on

roband, 4, 7
mpolo, 1, 4
Gopher of Pern, 5, 10
VectorZero, 4, 13
webby, 11, 10
BoomFrog, 11, 6
Lorenz, 4, 7
dotproduct, 4, 7


Python 3 code
Spoiler:
replace each % with a space


import%itertools

def%possible(spies):
%if%len(set(['Gopher%of%Pern','VectorZero','webby','BoomFrog']).intersection(spies))%<%1:
%%return%False
%if%len(set(['mpolo','VectorZero','webby','BoomFrog']).intersection(spies))%<%2:
%%return%False
%if%'mpolo'%in%spies:
%%if%('Gopher%of%Pern'%in%spies%and%'webby'%in%spies):
%%%return%True
%%return%False
%return%True

maybes%=%['roband','mpolo','Gopher%of%Pern','VectorZero','webby','BoomFrog','Lorenz','dotproduct']
high%=%[]
low%=%[]
for%spies%in%filter(possible,itertools.combinations(maybes,4)):
%if%('webby'%in%spies%and%'BoomFrog'%in%spies):
%%low.append(spies)
%else:
%%high.append(spies)
for%player%in%maybes:
%l%=%sum(map(lambda%x:%(player%in%x),low))
%h%=%sum(map(lambda%x:%(player%in%x),high))
%print([player,l,h])
dotproduct
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby BoomFrog » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:21 am UTC

Adam wrote:Well, I don't think many people remembered that I had a NC, and if Roband didn't remember that I had an NC, he would have no reason to NC if you both were spies. So I think it is reasonable that town-webby should trust roband. On the other hand, it's not really reasonable that spy-webby should care what we think of spy-roband... so I think that if webby "wants to have a reason to find roband towny", then it doesn't imply that webby and roband are both spies...
I think it's a bit of a leap to go from Webby forgot you have NC to Roband forgot you have NC. I certainly remembered that you had an NC but I suppose that might be because I gave it out.

Adam H wrote:We would need one of them (roband and webby) ONLY if they were both town, which BF knows is not the case. So... FoS: BF.
I was attempting to speak objectively. As in, even people who are not me should not be accepting a mission with both of them on it, there is no reason for anyone to do it.

Trying to convince other people of something using evidence that only I know is solid isn't very convincing generally.

Lorenz wrote:GoP HAD to reject it, no matter what, because the other 3 persons on m1 were on it. If he hadn't rejected it it would have made him look VERY suspicious.
That's a good point, I wish I had know that before I gave GoP an Overhear :( [/wine]

jayhsu wrote:8. BoomFrog - REJECT (A)
Not really an (A) since my last vote instructions PM still said to reject any team by Cjdrum. Feeling better about Lorenz for his reject of this team.

VectorZero wrote:As to webby, yes, I'm pretty sure he's scum and have consistently voted against him and have used that as my reasoning. I don't see an issue here.

VectorZero just last page wrote:In other words, I'd prefer neither webby nor boomfrog weren't on a mission at this stage. However, I'm certainly leaning towards boomfrog being the townier.
I have to agree with AdamH VZ is 99% spy here. "Leaning" towards BF being the townier is a far cry from, "I'm 100% sure that webby is spy from deduction but still suspicious of BF." This makes me sad because my gut was telling me he is town.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos
User avatar
BoomFrog
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby VectorZero » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:25 am UTC

Christ. Pedants, the lot of you.

Webby is scum. This doesn't clear boom frog. Neither should be in this mission.

I'm happy to follow Adam SO THAT HE DOESN'T USE THE NC AND THEN FORCE US TO VOTE FOR WHATEVER HE WANTS NEXT ROUND ANYWAY. Jesus.

Seriously, I didn't think I had to spell either of those out so explicitly.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.
User avatar
VectorZero
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Darwin

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby BoomFrog » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:26 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:
dotproduct wrote:This is because I noticed that it could have been better and could not have
been worse for BoomFrog to have used KaCEoY on VectorZero or Misnomer.
Could you explain this to me I don't understand how you arrived at this conclusion.
DP: could you still explain this to me, I haven't figured it out yet. For the record my logic was, "Webby's acting suddenly suspicious with this team proposal, he's most likely a spy, catching a spy is better then confirming a (probably)town. Therefore Keep an Eye on Webby."

Also still Mpolo: Why do you trust Webby and Roband?
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos
User avatar
BoomFrog
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby VectorZero » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:44 am UTC

Adam H wrote:misnomer-

I will agree with your conclusion, that roband and mpolo are the safest. However, I disagree that roband and BF cannot both be spies, and I also would (subjectively) decrease the probability that BF and webby are on the same team. The end result is that roband goes up a couple points and mpolo goes down half a point or so. Also, if I eliminate all the spy teams without VZ on it, mpolo goes to ONE (roband is at 3). So yeah, I'd prefer mpolo on the team.

I sort of disagree with lorenz - yes the probabilities are skewed towards those that we have information about, but that just means that the methodology is correct... And I think the list of groups is handy.

I'm rejecting, but not NCing. I don't want to drag this out, and if you all think roband is innocent, then I'll go with that and just add mpolo for the next 4 man team.
EBWOP: oops, I completely missed this post by Adam H. Which explains dot product thinking ive posted a disconnect. Sorry, your point is taken.

I thinking if you are convinced I'm scum, the best thing I can do now is shut up and avoid spilling wine... However I'm very worried about this plan to go for mpolo next mission regardless. pretty sure he's scum.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.
User avatar
VectorZero
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Darwin

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby webby » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:05 am UTC

Well at least that makes things pretty clear for me:

Spies:
Boomfrog, VectorZero

Scummy:
GoP, Lorenz

Probable townies:
dotproduct, roband

Confirmed townies:
mpolo, Adam H, Misnomer, (webby)

So it should be pretty obvious from now on which teams I'm going to accept and reject.
User avatar
webby
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby dotproduct » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:03 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:
BoomFrog wrote:
dotproduct wrote:This is because I noticed that it could have been better and could not have
been worse for BoomFrog to have used KaCEoY on VectorZero or Misnomer.
Could you explain this to me I don't understand how you arrived at this conclusion.
DP: could you still explain this to me, I haven't figured it out yet. For the record my logic was, "Webby's acting suddenly suspicious with this team proposal, he's most likely a spy, catching a spy is better then confirming a (probably)town. Therefore Keep an Eye on Webby."



Mission 2: PV,P1,P2,P3,P4

P1 has claimed resistance on P2
PV holds KaCEoY

repetitive analysis
Spoiler:
If P1 and P2 fail it, then:
watching P1 reveals P1 as a spy
watching P3 reveals P1 as a spy and gives that one of P2/P4 is a spy

If P1 and P3 fail it, then:
watching P1 reveals P1 as a spy
watching P3 reveals P3 as a spy and gives that one of P1/P4 is a spy

If P1 and P4 fail it, then:
watching P1 reveals P1 as a spy
watching P3 reveals P1 as a spy and gives that one of P2/P4 is a spy

If P2 and P3 fail it, then:
watching P1 gives that two of [P1&P2]/P3/P4 are spies
watching P3 reveals P3 as a spy and gives that one of P1/P4 is a spy

If P2 and P4 fail it, then:
watching P1 gives that two of [P1&P2]/P3/P4 are spies
watching P3 reveals P1 as a spy and gives that one of P1/P4 is a spy

If P3 and P4 fail it, then:
watching P1 gives that two of [P1&P2]/P3/P4 are spies
watching P3 reveals P3 as a spy and gives that one of P1/P4 is a spy

In each case, either

watching P3 reveals a spy and watching P1 doesn't
or
they both reveal a spy, watching P3 additionally gives a non-TownTown pair and watching P1 doesn't
dotproduct
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby BoomFrog » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:42 am UTC

Damn your totally correct. :(

My only defense is that I didn't have time to do any sort of analysis and made an imperfect decision, but you can see why my gut reaction was to watch webby? Since you're a replacement I will reiterate that I was on a vacation/road-trip/daughter was sick/lost power twice for pretty much the entirety of last month. Just after Webby made his team proposal is when all that started so I sent in instructions to the mod. My instructions were:
I'm going to have difficulty attending the game for a bit so here's my instructions.

Approve any team including Me and Mpolo.

If I go on M1 with Mpolo, Webby, BoomFrog then do not use Eye.

If I go on M4 then I use Eye on Webby>Misnomer>the second player listed besides me.

If any other mission happens not covered above then use Eye on the first player listed who is not me.

"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos
User avatar
BoomFrog
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby mpolo » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:06 am UTC

Sorry for being scarce yesterday. With my leaving tomorrow, work that I can't ignore has been piling up quite rapidly.

I guess I trust webby because of his having cleared me. And I realize now that that's kind of a weak reason -- if he's scum, he'd have no real reason to try to label a townie as a spy when there are so many possibilities for it to backfire.

On roband, I haven't seen a lot of truly anti-town behavior from him. There was some waffly confusion with the NC early on, but I was pretty convinced that this was an honest mistake, and reflects as poorly on BoomFrog as on roband, so I have been kind of leaving this grain of suspicion suspended.

It seems like the consensus is building to just trust AdamH on this by rejecting. I hope that this isn't suicide on our part. But I think that I will reject, as Adam seems mostly trustworthy -- at least he has less of a cloud over him than roband does.

I am only online for about 24 hours by now, so I guess I will send in some appropriate "what if" scenarios to jayhsu to cover until (if) he can find a replacement.
Image <-- Evil experiment
User avatar
mpolo
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby roband » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:08 am UTC

Christ guys, where did all these posts come from?

Adam, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say to your point that "using the NC was the perfect thing for spy-roband to do".
Urm, really? I only used the NC BECAUSE THE DAMN MAJORITY AGREED... I really don't know how you don't get that by now.

I've nothing else to add. This game is dragging now, and it wasn't much fun before.
User avatar
roband
One Letter From A Gunslinger
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby dotproduct » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:31 am UTC

mpolo wrote:It seems like the consensus is building to just trust AdamH on this by rejecting. I hope that this isn't suicide on our part.

Can you elaborate on this?



roband wrote:Adam, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say to your point that "using the NC was the perfect thing for spy-roband to do".

First, that's not a quote from Adam; second, that's not what he was getting at either.

(bold added)
Adam H wrote:I've already shown how not NCing spy-BF's proposal would be the right spy-roband thing to do.
dotproduct
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby roband » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:32 am UTC

Oh. Bleh.

My last point in that post still stands. Just reject my team already
User avatar
roband
One Letter From A Gunslinger
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby BoomFrog » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:41 am UTC

mpolo wrote:and reflects as poorly on BoomFrog as on roband,
I don't follow this logic? If he is a spy then I am definitely town (as the team was me and two now confirmed town), but if he is town, I may or may not be town.

It seems like the consensus is building to just trust AdamH on this by rejecting. I hope that this isn't suicide on our part. But I think that I will reject, as Adam seems mostly trustworthy -- at least he has less of a cloud over him than roband does.

I am only online for about 24 hours by now, so I guess I will send in some appropriate "what if" scenarios to jayhsu to cover until (if) he can find a replacement.
AdamH has a NC so we would have already lost if he was a spy therefore he and Misnomer are 100% really confirmed town. Your away instructions should be to approve any team proposed by AdamH or Misnomer, the other details I leave to you.

Anyway, on to my main point I came online to say: I know this is a bit of a whiny argument coming from me, but I think VZ's reluctance to name me as town should indicate that I actually am town. Also Roband's hasty team proposal pushes him squarely past incompetent to very likely spy. Therefore with only one spy left Mpolo can't be a spy so I heartily approve of him as the 3rd man of Adam's team. It's going to be hard to decide between GoP, Dotproduct, and Lorenz for next mission (unless Misnomer decides to trust me, unlikely since he loves "the odds" so much more then gut.) I'm liking Lorenz, all my distrust for him was early for his baseless trust of Misnomer, but obviously I can't hold that against him now.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos
User avatar
BoomFrog
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby roband » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:44 am UTC

Well don't bother defaulting to reject, just do it ASAP, yeah?

Bored of messing around.
User avatar
roband
One Letter From A Gunslinger
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby mpolo » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:58 am UTC

dotproduct wrote:
mpolo wrote:It seems like the consensus is building to just trust AdamH on this by rejecting. I hope that this isn't suicide on our part.

Can you elaborate on this?





If we reject and AdamH is scum, then we lose, because of the 5 rejections rule. (We lose if we reject, and we lose if he puts a scum on the team.) However, since he has a NC, he can essentially force that situation anyway. I sent in a reject because that seemed to be consensus, but I presume that I can change that still if it's not.
Image <-- Evil experiment
User avatar
mpolo
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby VectorZero » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:05 pm UTC

As I said earlier, I'm following Adam and rejecting.

However ... Please do not include mpolo. Your arguments reducing him to the most likely to be town are based on a fallacy: that I should have known that webby must be scum once misnomer was cleared, and thus when saying boom frog was the townier implied webby could've been notscum. (I'm on mobile net, too hard to quote directly sorry.)

That was not my point. I was trying to argue that boom frog was not cleared by webby being scummy (you can make your own determination on that). That is all. I was not trying to comment on webbys scumminess - after mission 2 he was always too scummy for me to consider approving a team with him on board.

Try not to let that comment blind you. If you think boom frog is town, remember I gave him KaCEOY. Remember the suggestion to soak up the NCs by requesting the holders use them early was my idea.

If you make deductions assuming I'm scum, we are going to lose.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.
User avatar
VectorZero
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Darwin

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Adam H » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:56 pm UTC

dotproduct wrote:that's not what he was getting at either.

(bold added)
Adam H wrote:I've already shown how not NCing spy-BF's proposal would be the right spy-roband thing to do.
AHHH I actually did mean that YES NCing spy-BF's proposal is the right spy-roband thing to do! I'll elaborate again since no one called me out on my typo and therefore it's not obvious.

A smart spy would know that I had an NC, and would also have known that if they did not NC but I did, then it would incriminate them. If I waited until the last minute to NC, then roband and BF would be confirmed spies, and misnomer and I would be confirmed town, period. There is absolutely no way they could have wiggled out of it. Therefore, if they were both spies, Roband should have NC'd. So we can't rule out the possibility that BF and roband are both spies.
roband wrote:Adam, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say to your point that "using the NC was the perfect thing for spy-roband to do".
Haha you saw through my typo but still misunderstood me. IF you and BF are both spy, then you made the right choice. And IF you are town, then you also made the right choice. I'm just not ruling out that you can't both be spies.

I think if BF is spy, you would be slightly more suspicious than webby. I'm not sure why we're ruling one scenario out but not the other. Please misnomer or anyone, tell me how roband and BF cannot both be spies...


DP: your analysis would have been helpful a few weeks ago! You and cjdrum are like night and day... :D However, the fact that you had to do that means that the decision wasn't obvious, and I therefore don't think we should hold BF accountable for making the suboptimal decision. His instructions to the mod make me feel better about him, although I would be interested in knowing why he didn't target VZ.


And yeah I feel bad that you guys (maybe just mpolo) think there's a possibility I'm an obnoxious trolling spy. I'm not! Well, not a spy at least, and I'm not a troll either, so that just leaves obnoxious...
-Adam
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 - Third Mission Setup

Postby jayhsu » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:21 pm UTC

Quick note: BoomFrog did not automatically REJECT the previous team proposal. This has been edited.

The current team leader is: Roband
The proposed mission is: 1.


Proposed Team Member 1: AdamH
Proposed Team Member 2: Misnomer
Proposed Team Member 3: Roband

Votes:

1. roband - ACCEPT
2. Adam H - REJECT
3. Misnomer - ACCEPT
4. mpolo - REJECT
5. Gopher of Pern - REJECT
6. VectorZero - REJECT
7. webby - REJECT (A)
8. BoomFrog - REJECT
9. Lorenz - REJECT
10. dotproduct - REJECT (A)

Consecutive rejected teams: 3/5

The proposed team has been REJECTED.


The current team leader is: AdamH
The proposed mission is: 1/3


Proposed Team Member 1:
Proposed Team Member 2:
Proposed Team Member 3:
Proposed Team Member 4:
[More as necessary]


Consecutive rejected teams: 4/5

3 days to deadline.
Last edited by jayhsu on Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
-Jay
User avatar
jayhsu
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:38 am UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby Adam H » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:09 pm UTC

Alright everyone, roband or mpolo? I'm leaning toward roband now since the spies didn't try to get that last proposal accepted. And mpolo has said some odd things lately. I bet they're both resistance, so w/e.

I think everyone wants a team proposed sooner rather than later, so I'll check back in just a couple hours and do it. Speak now or forever hold your peace!
-Adam
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: The Resistance 3.5 (0-2, Spies) - Third Mission Setup

Postby dotproduct » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:30 pm UTC

mpolo wrote:...

If we reject and AdamH is scum, then we lose, because of the 5 rejections rule. (We lose if we reject, and we lose if he puts a scum on the team.) However, since he has a NC, he can essentially force that situation anyway. I sent in a reject because that seemed to be consensus, but I presume that I can change that still if it's not.

If Adam H was scum, we'd already lost by that point.
He wouldn't even have needed the NC, since roband had already proposed a team with Adam H on it.


@ Adam H

The spies might have thought you were lying about withholding your NC.
mpolo worrying about you after that team proposal makes me worried about mpolo,
so I nonetheless very weakly support roband over mpolo.
(Obviously, I would prefer myself over either of them, but ...)
Also, you should at least let Misnomer comment before you propose a team.
dotproduct
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:39 am UTC

PreviousNext

Return to Mafia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests