Snike Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Damn. On the bright side, we know that at least 20% of our team was contaminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 ##Give plans to: Paper, zorbees, Psych, RD, Kay I still don't trust anyone who voted yes on Team 1.4 when they weren't on said team, especially Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 ##Give plans to: Paper, zorbees, Psych, RD, Kay I still don't trust anyone who voted yes on Team 1.4 when they weren't on said team, especially Kevin Because of RD and paper i will say no. After all they were on the failed mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 That's pretty sketchy reasoning, unless you are suggesting we only approve a mission if none of the people on it were on that mission, which would be pretty awkward on the likely chance that there were 2 or less spies on Mission 2.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant Dragon Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Because of RD and paper i will say no. After all they were on the failed mission. You were also on the failed mission. Does that make you a Spy? Edit: Wait, no you weren't. My bad. Double Edit: Wait, yes you were. I was looking at Paper's proposal. Edited September 7, 2011 by Radiant Kitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 That's pretty sketchy reasoning, unless you are suggesting we only approve a mission if none of the people on it were on that mission, which would be pretty awkward on the likely chance that there were 2 or less spies on Mission 2.5 No, and you have all the reason to trust yourself, however i find it pretty odd that the first proposal includes two people that were on the previous mission, which failed. You were also on the failed mission. Does that make you a Spy?Edit: Wait, no you weren't. My bad. Double Edit: Wait, yes you were. I was looking at Paper's proposal. Not necessarily, but it doesn't make me trusted among you, after all i was the one to chose the people. I was at the failed proposal, and i'm not suggesting that you are necessarily a spy, in fact that can easily be used against me and anyone else in the mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriemhild Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Because of RD and paper i will say no. After all they were on the failed mission. We know that there was only ONE Spy among those five people. If there were more than one, I find it highly unlikely that the others would cooperate with the mission. So if you have one Spy out of five people, that means you'd have three more Spies with the remaining six people. So if you don't include ANY of the five that went to 2.5, there MUST be a Spy included. Even if you include only one person from 2.5, the presence of a Spy in the mission will be guaranteed. Is that really what you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 We actually don't know if there was only one spy, because it's possible one collab'd, although IIRC spies can't talk to each other outside the thread so it's likely there was only one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 We know that there was only ONE Spy among those five people. If there were more than one, I find it highly unlikely that the others would cooperate with the mission. So if you have one Spy out of five people, that means you'd have three more Spies with the remaining six people. So if you don't include ANY of the five that went to 2.5, there MUST be a Spy included. Even if you include only one person from 2.5, the presence of a Spy in the mission will be guaranteed. Is that really what you want? I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriemhild Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 We actually don't know if there was only one spy, because it's possible one collab'd, although IIRC spies can't talk to each other outside the thread so it's likely there was only one. They can't talk outside the thread and we would know exactly how many people attempted to sabotage. If there were two Spies, only an idiot Spy would cooperate with the mission in the hope that the other Spy would sabotage it instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 While I agree it's likely/possible they'd both sabotage just to be safe, I wouldn't say so with certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant Dragon Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) They can't talk outside the thread and we would know exactly how many people attempted to sabotage. If there were two Spies, only an idiot Spy would cooperate with the mission in the hope that the other Spy would sabotage it instead. An idiot Spy would vote no hoping the other would vote yes. An average Spy would vote yes just to be sure. A smart Spy would vote no knowing an average Spy would vote yes. I think. And so the WIFOM begins. Like Paper, I don't want to assume there was only one Spy, but I also acknowledge that that is the most likely scenario... What was JB's reasoning behind supporting proposal 2.2, or did he give any before he left? Edited September 7, 2011 by Radiant Kitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant Dragon Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Also: I want Spykor to do something or I want him subbed out. When was his last post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybee Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 IDK if I'm permitted to answer since I'm subbed out, and obv Snike doesn't know the reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriemhild Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 IDK if I'm permitted to answer since I'm subbed out, and obv Snike doesn't know the reasoning. It's because Snike doesn't know the reasoning that you should be allowed to answer it. But yeah, maybe it's better to wait for I Eat Tables Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant Dragon Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure... JB giving his reasoning now would be similar to dead Cops giving out investigation results, in my opinion. Obviously there are differences, such as the fact that he was subbed out instead of being dead... I don't know. That said, Slayer and Snike are my two top suspects for last mission sabotage, so I'm glad to see them unincluded here. However, what has Psych done so far? Edited September 7, 2011 by Radiant Kitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I'd also like to point out that several people downvoted 2.4, which imo means there were either too many spies (see above discussion for why multiple spies on a mission is bad for spies) or there were none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I included Psych because he downvoted 1.4 but tbh that isn't really a great reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant Dragon Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Two of the people that downvoted 2.4 were inactive though, and I believe we can assume the two were Darros and Snike, so looking at those two won't give us a lot of info. Edited September 7, 2011 by Radiant Kitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zorbees Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Don't really like the mission, but I will be voting Yes since Idk if 5 others will vote yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant Dragon Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Also Paperblade, what's your reasoning for thinking Kevin is scum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I voted yes on 2.4 because I really hate having to force-accept missions. Hmmm. . .seems we'll hit Mission 4 no matter what. Mission 4 requires two spies to sabotage in order to fail. I think we should use this mission to help weed out the bad apple in the previous one. I'm not particularly suspicious of Paper or RD. . .oh wait a minute, Psych. . .the hell has he been doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 @RD: While inactivity fucks with the theory, it's basically as follows Less than 4 people voted yes on 2.4, meaning that imo the spies did not upvote it. This means A. There were too many spies and they didn't want to suffer from the above mentioned issue with overlapping sabotages B. There were no spies, which is obviously bad for them Now, if I were a spy and had a spy leader coming up as the fifth mission, I would definitely downvote a prior mission if it wasn't "perfect" (read: exactly one spy). Obviously, this is a bit conspiracy theory, but this is the mafia forum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tables Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 I'm looking for a substitute for Darros. Can I ask who Kay is? I don't recognise the username immediately and don't want to check everyone's name history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Pariah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.