I am not hasty to accept a Mission 4 with both wam and Tim.
I think I have a way to guarantee we make it to Mission 5. I might have missed something, but here's my train of thought as best I can organize it:
>At least one person on Mission 3 was a spy.
>I am resistance, therefor trineroks, Snark, or both are spies.
>If both were spies, I would expect two sabotage votes for the mission, since spies can't chat and wouldn't have been able to decide among themselves who would fail and who would pass.
>If Snark was a spy and trineroks was not, then on Mission 2 Snark would have lied and said trineroks was a spy.
>If trineroks is a spy and Snark is not, he could have voted pass on Mission 2, knowing that he was under surveillance by Snark and allowing one of his fellow spies (Tim/ChickenFish or RaceBandit) to fail the mission reliably. This outcome would have been easily accomplished even without spy chat, especially if RaceBandit was a spy since he was not under surveillance.
>Therefor I conclude that Snark is resistance and trineroks is a spy.
That explains what happened on Mission 3. Now to take that into context with Mission 2. I realize this involves a bit of circular reasoning (determining from Mission 3 that trineroks is a spy based on what happened in Mission 2, I am now going to determine who was a spy in Mission 2 by simply stating that trineroks is a spy).
>trineroks is a spy
>Snark is resistance
>If trineroks was the only spy on Mission 2, Snark would have reported that he cast a fail vote. Therefor, there must have been more than one spy on Mission 2
>If RaceBandit was the other spy, trineroks would have safely been able to vote PASS, knowing that he was under surveillance (I just stated that above)
>If Tim/ChickenFish was the other spy, trineroks would have only been able to safely vote PASS if wam was also a spy, or if he expected Tim/ChickenFish to also vote PASS and saw that as acceptable, or if he wanted Tim/ChickenFish to vote FAIL and have (resistance) wam tell everyone.
Now my proposed spy teams are these:
1)trineroks, RaceBandit, wingedocelot. This combination explains everything. Mission 2 failed with one vote because trineroks was under surveillance, but RaceBandit failed the mission because he wasn't being watched. Snark didn't get a fail result in Mission 2 because of that. Also, wam reported a PASS from Tim/ChickenFish because Tim is resistance. What I can't explain is Mission 1. Nobody offered a word of protest, even though the spy team must have known that their only choice was to allow the mission to pass. Maybe that's what happened, because it was such a solid strategy.
2)trineroks, Tim, wam. This explains everything. Mission 1 passed because there were no spies. Mission 2 had one fail vote because trineroks voted to pass, knowing that (resistance) Snark would have reported him, and Tim/ChickenFish safely voted FAIL, knowing wam wouldn't report him. All blame conveniently went to RaceBandit. The only thing this setup doesn't explain is RaceBandit's suspicious REJECT vote on Mission 3.
3)trineroks, RaceBandit, wam. This explains everything. It's just like the example above, except Tim/ChickenFish is replaced by RaceBandit. wam attempted to use KACEOY on RaceBandit before Snark reminded him to use it on Tim/ChickenFish, because wam was trying to pull the same ploy I described in the example above, but trying to shift blame to Tim/ChickenFish instead.
Now, I think I can guarantee that we make it to Mission 5 if we have a team consisting of:
Since Snark and I are both resistance, and wam and wingedocelot are unlikely to both be spies, this ensures that only one or zero spies are on Mission 4. I know it isn't perfect, and I do hope someone has a better plan. If wam and wingedocelot are both spies, we lose. If we pass Mission 4, I don't know how we'll pass Mission 5, since I don't see how we can get any information out of this mission no matter what we do. This is the most logical way I can think to pass Mission 4, and even taking a stab in the dark on Mission 5 is better than giving up.