The Resistance 2

[Jaybee]

That's even worse than normal.

[Paperblade]

I wonder if there's a group of 4 people who never put each other on a mission.

[Paperblade]

Upon inspection, there does not appear to be, which means in at least one proposal, Spies put other Spies on a mission.

[Paperblade]

I wonder what happens if I disconsider (this is not a word) 1.X

[Paperblade]

Darros, eclipse, and Psych were not on either failed mission.

Assuming 1 spy on each, this means 2 or 3 of them are spies (depending on if RD/Slayer is a spy or if it was a different spy each mission). However, this is a dangerous assumption to make.

[Kay]

Proto, what is Paper supposed to be conspiring with you about?

[Kriemhild]

Proto, what is Paper supposed to be conspiring with you about?

Mission 2.5 - Kirsche, Snikitty, Radiant Kitty, SlayerX, Paperkitty

Mission 3.5 - zorbees, Pariah, SlayerX, Radiant Dragon, Kiku-Ichimonji

We are in a situation where it will very likely be impossible to assure a victory for the Resistance. No matter what happens now, the final outcome cannot be determined. We will have to resort to guesses that are backed up by logic. We can never be absolutely confident about our choices anymore and so, we would simply have to have faith in our decisions. I am saying this so that you guys understand that my logic is not without flaws, and that there are some possibly incorrect assumptions involved.

First of all

I believe that both Missions 2.5 and 3.5 contained only one Spy each. Because, really, I doubt that a Spy would pass up the chance to sabotage a mission in the hope that another Spy would do it instead. Even if two Spies both tried to sabotage a mission, it would not have told us that much more. It's still only 2 Spies from a group of 5 people, while 2 others stay benched. The price of two sabotage attempts in the same mission isn't significant enough for them to risk not sabotaging the mission at all to avoid it.

As I said, we cannot reach a decision that could deflect every single possibility, so I think it is appropriate for me to make the assumption that there was, indeed, only one Spy in each of the failed missions.

So why is this so important? If we go by this (unproven) assumption, then the presence of a singly Spy in either of those missions would clear the other four as Resistance. Four of the members that participated in 2.5 are Resistance. If the Spy is RD/SlayerX, then three more members of 3.5 are also Resistance. If RD and Slayer are both Resistance, then only two more members of 3.5 are Resistane. Either way, this implies that the missions 2.5 and 3.5 both contain six or seven Resistance. So at least two of the three members that were benched in both missions are Spies. These three members are Clipsey!, Psych, and Darros.

I'll post the rest later, after the other logicbots (Paper and zorbees) post their side.

[Kriemhild]

Paper, I know that I haven't actually released my end yet, but you and zorbees haven't either, so I'll save mine for a little later.

[Paperblade]

Ignoring 1.X

Kevin and Darros have not put each other on missions

Kevin and Proto have not put each other on missions

Kevin and eclipse have not put each other on missions

eclipse was put on a mission by Darros, but Darros did not put himself. Darros has not been put on a mission by eclipse

Proto was put on a mission by eclipse, but eclipse did not put herself. eclipse has not been put on a mission by Proto

Proto and Darros have not put each other on missions

eclipse/Rein was on 1.4, which was forced through by Darros, Kevin, and Proto, who were all not on the mission. Rein idled, and the mission succeeded.

Kevin was on 2.5, none of the other members were.

Proto was on 3.5, none of the other members were.

[Paperblade]

I'll see if there is another situation like that.

I'm not sure how the fuck Resistance is supposed to win this game when played in real time, btw.

[Kriemhild]

...did that logic just imply that me and Kevin are both Spies?

In any case, thank you, Paper. Now I am just going to wait for zorbees. Kay and Clipsey! were supposed to be the fourth and fifth but Kay seems too quiet and Clipsey! is... well, y'know...

[Paperblade]

The main flaw with this theory is that Kevin upvoted 3.4

[Kriemhild]

Then it doesn't work. I'm sure there must be a pair that can fit all the pieces together.

[Kriemhild]

Hmmm, I think this looks better

  DS SN ZB KY KE RD CL KI SX PA PS     YES
DS O  O                 O     O         1/11 (KI)
SN    O     O                 O  O      3/11 (KI, ZB, CL)
ZB          O  O  O        O            1/11 (KI)
KY       O  O        O     O            7/11 (DS, SN, ZB, KY, KE, KI, SX)

KE       O     O  O        O  O         1/11 (KY)
RD O        O  O  O           O         1/11 (SN)
CL       O  O     O     O     O         2/11 (SX, PA)
KI    O  O  O           O  O            3/11 (KY, RD, CL)
SX    O        O  O        O  O         AUTO

PA       O  O     O           O  O      3/11 (ZB, RD, KI)
PS          O  O  O           O  O      1/11 (KI)
DS    O              O     O  O  O      0/11 
SN    O  O  O     O              O      2/11 (KE, RD)
ZB       O  O     O     O  O            AUTO
  DS SN ZB KY KE RD CL KI SX PA PS

...I am really wasting my time here...

[eclipse]

Will you stop going off the logic that Rein acted like a weirdo, and therefore must be a spy? If you factor that in, how does that change things?

(sorry, it's morning, and I need to run off to work in a bit)

[Tables]

I'll see if there is another situation like that.

I'm not sure how the fuck Resistance is supposed to win this game when played in real time, btw.

It's slanted somewhat towards the spies, certainly. I'd say it's around a 60/40 spy win rate. One important thing is that this game is particularly large in terms of number of players, and in retrospect the mission sizes I chose probably tilted things slightly more towards the spies, which certainly hasn't helped. Next time I'll stop trying to be clever and cap at 10 players as the rules are written for :P. Also scumtells help and you get more of them in real time.

Honestly, I've heard in games I've played both 'How are the resistance ever supposed to win?' and 'How are the spies ever supposed to win?' be said by different players :P.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Tableskitty

[Zkirsche]

I believe that both Missions 2.5 and 3.5 contained only one Spy each. Because, really, I doubt that a Spy would pass up the chance to sabotage a mission in the hope that another Spy would do it instead. Even if two Spies both tried to sabotage a mission, it would not have told us that much more. It's still only 2 Spies from a group of 5 people, while 2 others stay benched. The price of two sabotage attempts in the same mission isn't significant enough for them to risk not sabotaging the mission at all to avoid it.

I'd just like to point out that in the strategy links tables posted at the start, it said that two spies putting in a sabotage vote is very bad, so spies may be put off from doing so because of that.

[Paperblade]

At this point in time I suspect about half the players, which puts this game clearly in "paranoid conspiracy theory" tier as far as scumhunting goes.

[Radiant Dragon]

Oh boy... That's a lot of discussion that happened while I was gone.

[Radiant Dragon]

Are Psych and Paper the only ones who've never voted Yes?

[Radiant Dragon]

1. Do you agree that earlier proposals (such as those for Mission 1) are less important due to lack of information?

Definitely. There seems to be a lot of voting No simply due to the fact that there was little information. 1.4 seems to have a lot of Yes votes simply because it was .4.

2. Do you agree that voting habits in earlier proposals are less important due to lack of information?

Yes, since voting patterns seemed to be dependent on the proposal and Bal's plan rather than the merits of those on the proposals.

3. On another note, do you agree that voting habits in early proposals within a missions (such as x.1) are less important? If so, why?

While I'm sure there were people simply voting No early to see more proposals, I believe that looking at voting patterns of the earlier proposals is still important.

Ignoring 1.X

Kevin and Darros have not put each other on missions

Kevin and Proto have not put each other on missions

Kevin and eclipse have not put each other on missions

eclipse was put on a mission by Darros, but Darros did not put himself. Darros has not been put on a mission by eclipse

Proto was put on a mission by eclipse, but eclipse did not put herself. eclipse has not been put on a mission by Proto

Proto and Darros have not put each other on missions

eclipse/Rein was on 1.4, which was forced through by Darros, Kevin, and Proto, who were all not on the mission. Rein idled, and the mission succeeded.

Kevin was on 2.5, none of the other members were.

Proto was on 3.5, none of the other members were.

As has been said, this scumteam is unlikely due to Kevin voting Yes on 3.4 when none of the others were on it. I wonder though, what we can see if we replace Proto with zorbees...

[Zanarkin]

Read all this... BRB, responding to questions.

[Zanarkin]

1. Do you agree that earlier proposals (such as those for Mission 1) are less important due to lack of information?

Yes, there was barely any information, and i don't think the 1.x proposers should be suspected for odd choices at that point. Specially since at that time there weren't enough people active to make scumtells.

2. Do you agree that voting habits in earlier proposals are less important due to lack of information?

Yes, specially since everyone was just voting no.

3. On another note, do you agree that voting habits in early proposals within a missions (such as x.1) are less important? If so, why?

I'm unsure on this one.

[zorbees]

holy shit, can someone post a tl;dr version addressed at me specifically?

EDIT: I really respect paper though for putting in all this effort, which makes me read town on him. Need to re-read everything else though.

EDIT: For my 3.1 vote reasoning, it was basically a futile attempt at seeing if any spies would upvote it with me, but still fall short of the 6 yes vote threshold. I suppose I didn't explain it too well at the time, but it made sense to me, and no one brought up anything about it iirc. Radiant Kitty did upvote it as well (and Proto who upvotes a lot), and iirc had expressed support in it, so I was hoping maybe some spies would be eager about getting a failed mission 3.

EDIT: Regarding 1.4, I never said or even thought that all 4 downvoters were spies. I am just not going to assume that all 4 who downvoted are resistance. I still believe that a smart spy would have sabotaged, as we only had to get mission 2 OR 3 correct after mission one passed, to ensure a pass in the next mission. This leads me to two trains of thought:

1. The spy on the mission wasn't very smart

2. There were multiple spies on the mission, hoping the other would sabotage.

Regarding point 1, SlayerX and Balcerzak seemed fairly smart to me, but I don't know much about Lightning, due to being new around here. If point 2 were true, it would certainly make sense if Slayer was a spy, but I honestly don't know how likely this scenario is.

EDIT: Regarding 1.4 again, there still could have been no spies on it, but the spies upvoted thinking no one else would, but I find this unlikely.

Edited September 19, 2011 by zorbees

[Radiant Dragon]

I feel really bad for asking for a sub so late again, especially when there aren't any ready, but I simply will not be able to participate any further.