The Resistance III

[Tables]

Right Christmas is over, time to step back into gear. Got a few more votes for this needed.

[Tables]

Well, this is an interesting one.

Mission Prop 1.2

Team: Kay, Link,

Yes: Kay, Cap'n Flint, Kiku-Ichimonji,

No: Link, Dave Strider, Kirsche,

Result: Yes - 3, No - 3

Proposal Fails. Link is the new leader

Edited December 27, 2011 by Tableskitty

[riariadne]

Mission Prop 1.2 Team: Kay

Yes: Kiku-Ichimonji

expected/10

[Zanarkin]

lol even split...

[Kriemhild]

Alright, I still have no idea what you guys think you're doing, voting No for Mission 1 when it's very obvious that the mission won't fail no matter who gets sent, Spy or no Spy. This is just wasting time. There is absolutely no reason why you should vote for No in Mission 1.

Also, I'm voting no on this mission.

I don't like how blitz is looking rigth now. Sure mission has me and there probably won't be any spy dumb enough to cancel the mission. but yeah... no.

If there is a Spy and they don't sabotage the mission => We learn nothing because the mission would have succeeded if there was no Spy

If there is a Spy and they sabotage the mission => Alright, we can now be sure that one of the Spies is among a selected group of two people, making it a whole lot easier to keep going.

I really don't see how your suspicions towards the players being sent on Mission 1 should influence your decision to support the proposal or not.

I already explained I didn't vote yes because I wanted more time to discuss things and see team trends.

THIS is exactly why we lost Resistance II. Well, okay, YOU won, but w/e. It's because we were wasting time trying to discuss team trends and whatnot when they didn't even have any meaning. zak had this idea that five people should fix their vote to No in the first three proposals of a mission. The odds of each of those proposals going through were really low, and it was extremely unlikely that the Spies would force it to succeed. The result was that nobody from the first three proposals of any mission (except the final one) actually chose their teams seriously. Because it wasn't going to go through ANYWAY. Furthermore, the vote patterns were generally in the form of nearly everybody voting No with me sometimes voting Yes, and people were like "Ignore Proto, he upvotes everything". Seriously, what was the point of having those three proposals in the first place???

In the end, it was only the fourth and the fifth proposals which actually mattered. Those were the only proposals worth discussing about, because those were the only proposals where the teams and votes were sent completely seriously. The other proposals told us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You can go back and try to analyze patterns from them if you want and all you'll get are stuff like "Proto is scum because he votes Yes on certain teams where everyone votes No". Declaring that you'll downvote a certain proposal for the sake of increasing the amount of discussion will end up decreasing the amount of stuff that we can even discuss.

Let's take this mission as an example. We see Reinfleche and Slayer voting No. What are their reasons? Slayer's logic made no sense because it would be really bad for a Spy to sabotage this mission anyway. Reinfleche voted No because he wanted more discussion. In other words, he voted No, so that the mission will fail, so that we have more vote patterns to discuss. And the reasoning behind these vote patterns revolve around meaningless stuff like Reinfleche's desire for more discussion in the first place! In other words, we are wasting time by prolonging Mission 1 and any attempt at analyzing these vote patterns will get us nowhere.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, we should stop wasting time under the excuse of "needs more discussion" because the only thing to discuss now are vote patterns, which are meaningless. Trying to repeat the tactic in Resistance II will lead to the same result as in Resistance II: defeat. Besides, this whole thing was zak's idea, who was a Spy in Resistance II. I still don't think Resistance II was unbalanced, but rather, we ended up playing it the wrong way. And now some people want to make the same mistakes again...

What we should do, is to take each and every single mission seriously. Even if it's one of the first three proposals of a mission. We should treat them as if they're Proposal 4s. Teams and votes need to be chosen completely seriously based on the opinions of the players involved and not simply "rejecting for the sake of increasing time for discussion". Only then can we have true solid team+vote patterns that we can analyze properly. Yes, this means we won't have as many proposals as we did before, but the proposals that we DO have will all provide good information unlike in Resistance II, where ONLY Proposals 4 and 5 had meaning. To wait for Proposal 4 automatically makes the first three proposals a complete waste of time, severely limiting the number of revelant proposals. The reason why we are allowed five proposals instead of one is so that we can reject proposals when the majority genuinely are not happy with the team. It's not because we can have fun for three proposals and then treat Proposal 4 as the real thing, which is exactly what we did in Resistance II, and which is what I believe to be the reason why we didn't have enough information to secure our victory.

tl;dr teams and votes should be taken very seriously, even for proposals 1 to 3, in order for the resistance to have any hope of winning. No more downvoting for the fun of it or for increasing the time for discussion (which is another way of saying you want to prolong the game just because you can, because there's absolutely nothing to be gained). We will not have anything to discuss unless the teams/votes are made completely seriously based on the actual opinions that the players' hold for the teams with respect to the success of the mission.

[Kriemhild]

...spotted a few grammatical errors, bah

[Zanarkin]

Proto i understand what you are saying, i have even said them before (although probably not as clear). In any case, i voted no just because blitz was making me mad. Plus i didn't trust him yada yada yada. Now my poposal comes which is kind of a bad thing for me but eh.

[Zanarkin]

I'll be sending Proto (because he will likely not sabotage the mission even if he is a spy), and some other lets see...

[Zanarkin]

##Give plans to: Proto, link

[Blitz]

alright, I think I am back (at least I hope I am).

so, do you have anything to say about what Proto said Rein??

or will you keep being the biggest hypocrite here?

and once again my vote will be yes to Slayer's team

[Zanarkin]

I voted yes to that team because proto is right. There is no point in waiting for other proposals if we are not going to take it seriously or even discuss the team overall.

[Zkirsche]

The other proposals told us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

They told us who those people would choose to go on a mission. This is not "vote patterns" but "player choice".

As you have missed the point again, ignoring you and voting no.

[riariadne]

Alright, I still have no idea what you guys think you're doing, voting No for Mission 1 when it's very obvious that the mission won't fail no matter who gets sent, Spy or no Spy. This is just wasting time. There is absolutely no reason why you should vote for No in Mission 1.

Yes, what a beautiful idea. Let's go into Mission 2 with no solid patterns on anyone whatsoever. Recklessly pushing ahead is going to result in failing missions quickly. Mission 1 is not a trivial thing to do as quickly as possible. It's something we need to put some thought into, risk or no.

[Kriemhild]

They told us who those people would choose to go on a mission. This is not "vote patterns" but "player choice".

As you have missed the point again, ignoring you and voting no.

How many people were actually serious about the teams they were choosing in those other proposals? For example, I noticed that in proposal 3.2 of Resistance II, Psych decided to send in two Spies. This is obviously very risky for the Spies and yet, he proposed such a team. Because EVERYBODY knew that the first three proposals would fail anyways. Spies weren't sending who they genuinely wanted on their mission, they were simply just picking teams that would look good to the other players when being analyzed in the future. Since they can't sabotage in a failed proposal, their teams were designed to mislead us.

If you really want to know player choices, you might as well ask every player in the game to present their own preferred team, like what some people did in the fifth proposals. Resistance members would be honest when posting their choices, just like they would be if they were making their own proposals. Spies might lie to misguide us, just as they would do if they were making one of the first three proposals of a mission, which would be rejected anyways. Asking people to post their preferred team is also more informative, since we don't have to actually wait for people to be in charge of the proposals to find out what team they would prefer.

Basically, "player choices" don't have to be discovered by proposals, and can easily be known by discussing it in the thread. But "vote patterns" can only come from proposals that are taken seriously, so restricting ourselves to ONLY Proposals 4 and 5 like we did in Resistance II seems like a really bad idea to me.

Yes, what a beautiful idea. Let's go into Mission 2 with no solid patterns on anyone whatsoever. Recklessly pushing ahead is going to result in failing missions quickly. Mission 1 is not a trivial thing to do as quickly as possible. It's something we need to put some thought into, risk or no.

Solid patterns? How do you expect to find any solid patterns in Mission 1? Is it from the player choices, which mean nothing because nobody cares if there's a Spy or not? Or is it in the vote patterns, where people like you and Kirsche give stupid reasons to justify your votes? If we want solid patterns, we have to take the teams and the votes completely seriously. As if it were Proposal 4. If you're going to wait until Proposal 4 to start picking teams and voting based on actual opinions, then the first three proposals automatically become completely meaningless. I don't see how we can gain anything by this approach.

[Tables]

Mission Prop 1.3

Team: Link, Kiku-Ichimonji,

Yes: Kay, Cap'n Flint, Link, Kiku-Ichimonji,

No: Dave Strider, Kirsche,

Result: Yes - 4, No - 2

Proposal passes. Link, Kiku-Ichimonji, please send me your co-operate/sabotage orders.

[Tables]

Oh and I don't really object to people editing within a few minutes of posts being made. I probably won't be closely monitoring edits anyway.

[riariadne]

Team: Kiku-Ichimonji

Yes: Kay

expected

out

of

ten

[riariadne]

also

Solid patterns? How do you expect to find any solid patterns in Mission 1? Is it from the player choices, which mean nothing because nobody cares if there's a Spy or not? Or is it in the vote patterns, where people like you and Kirsche give stupid reasons to justify your votes? If we want solid patterns, we have to take the teams and the votes completely seriously. As if it were Proposal 4. If you're going to wait until Proposal 4 to start picking teams and voting based on actual opinions, then the first three proposals automatically become completely meaningless. I don't see how we can gain anything by this approach.

It's about votes, the proposals themselves (which people aren't taking seriously), and reasoning. Of course we don't get anything out of bad or no reasons for votes, which is unfortunately what is happening right now. Patterns might not emerge yet when people are haphazardly approving every mission. The point of this is to get information. If you don't think information is important, I suppose I'm never going to convince you otherwise and this is one of the many things that nobody is ever going to agree upon, but I happen to think we should learn as much as we can when we have the opportunity. That's an opportunity which we had, and then chose not to use very well. Mission 1 is serious. Getting it over with to get it over with completely defeats the point. Applying the same mindset of "who cares what the team is, let's finish the mission" is the first mistake. Let's do that for every mission! Let's get completely wrecked by the spies because we don't care and just want to finish the mission, and whether or not we finish it in success or failure doesn't matter! Isn't this fun? No, that's just stupid. Mission 1 should be taken as seriously as every other mission. It's too late now since everyone recklessly approved, but finishing for the sake of finishing is bullshit reasoning.

[Blitz]

also

It's about votes, the proposals themselves (which people aren't taking seriously), and reasoning. Of course we don't get anything out of bad or no reasons for votes, which is unfortunately what is happening right now. Patterns might not emerge yet when people are haphazardly approving every mission. The point of this is to get information. If you don't think information is important, I suppose I'm never going to convince you otherwise and this is one of the many things that nobody is ever going to agree upon, but I happen to think we should learn as much as we can when we have the opportunity. That's an opportunity which we had, and then chose not to use very well. Mission 1 is serious. Getting it over with to get it over with completely defeats the point. Applying the same mindset of "who cares what the team is, let's finish the mission" is the first mistake. Let's do that for every mission! Let's get completely wrecked by the spies because we don't care and just want to finish the mission, and whether or not we finish it in success or failure doesn't matter! Isn't this fun? No, that's just stupid. Mission 1 should be taken as seriously as every other mission. It's too late now since everyone recklessly approved, but finishing for the sake of finishing is bullshit reasoning.

that was well said,but the only problem is that you yourself weren't taking it seriously.

and just so you know, I said my vote will be yes for every team for the first mission only(mainly cause if the mission fails, we will get an upper hand(at least statistically due to having a higher probability of finding scum)

[Kriemhild]

also

It's about votes, the proposals themselves (which people aren't taking seriously), and reasoning. Of course we don't get anything out of bad or no reasons for votes, which is unfortunately what is happening right now.

Indeed, we don't get anything out of bad or no reasons. What qualifies as a good reason then? If somebody votes no because they think X is suspicious and possibly a Spy, and therefore would prefer that X isn't there to sabotage the mission, that's good. It is unfortunate that it does not apply here, because with only two people, nobody really cares if a Spy is included or not. So yes, I agree with you in that it is very unfortunate that people like Reinfleche are voting No for stupid reasons like "needs moar discussion".

Patterns might not emerge yet when people are haphazardly approving every mission. The point of this is to get information.

I don't expect any patterns to be relevant in a mission which is guaranteed to be a success. By my reasoning, it doesn't matter who gets sent since the mission will succeed anyway. If other people agree with my logic, I expect them to approve of it as well. If they disagree with my logic for whatever reason and disapprove of the mission because of their own separate logic, that's good. But if YOU agree with my logic that the mission will succeed and still vote No, I find that to be an extremely uninformative vote.

If you don't think information is important, I suppose I'm never going to convince you otherwise and this is one of the many things that nobody is ever going to agree upon, but I happen to think we should learn as much as we can when we have the opportunity.

We can't do anything without information. And in a game with no deaths, our only sources of information are team choices, votes, and discussion.

That's an opportunity which we had, and then chose not to use very well. Mission 1 is serious.

I don't think we ever had that opportunity. Gaining information on a mission where everyone believes that it will succeed anyway. No, I don't believe team choices and votes will tell us anything. We can only gain info from discussion, which is always there.

Getting it over with to get it over with completely defeats the point. Applying the same mindset of "who cares what the team is, let's finish the mission" is the first mistake.

I don't see it as a mistake. It can only be considered a mistake by people that actually think that it matters who gets sent in this mission. And I have yet to find a single person who thinks there's a considerable chance of this mission being sabotaged. So, really, I don't see how not caring about what the team is here is a mistake...

Let's do that for every mission! Let's get completely wrecked by the spies because we don't care and just want to finish the mission, and whether or not we finish it in success or failure doesn't matter! Isn't this fun? No, that's just stupid.

I agree, it is completely stupid. Because from Mission 2 onwards, we will have to start worrying about spies, which is when we have to pay close attention to the teams being proposed.

Mission 1 should be taken as seriously as every other mission. It's too late now since everyone recklessly approved, but finishing for the sake of finishing is bullshit reasoning.

You have yet to provide any conceivable way in which we gain information in Mission 1 through vote patterns and team choices. Discussion is our only source over here.

In any case, my main point is that, Reinfleche, regardless of what you thought or felt about Mission 1, please do not simply vote No for reasons that have nothing to do with the team being sent. We need information, and we can't gain much information from proposals if people think it's smart to vote No just to make sure we have more proposals to deal with. These votes will tell us nothing about players' actual opinion of the team, and therefore, these proposals will all be wasted until Proposal 4, when you guys are gonna start getting serious. Let's not repeat the disaster of Resistance II, kay?

Edited December 29, 2011 by Kiku-Ichimonji

[Tables]

Mission 1 result

Co-operate

Co-operate

Mission succeeds. Score is now Resistance - 1, Spy - 0

Proto is the new leader. Mission 2 requires 3 operatives.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Tableskitty

[Kriemhild]

Alright, before I make my team, I want every single player here to post a list of the six players that are playing this game, in the order based on who you want participating on the mission the most to the least, with your reasons. Please be honest. For me, it would be:

Proto (lol, everyone would put themselves at the top)

Blitzy/Capn Flint (seems very Townish, quite active, and thinks logically)

Slayer/Link (also seems townish, and is active too)

Kay (needs to contribute more)

Kirsche (seems to like the idea of voting No for reasons completely unrelated to the teams, thus encouraging us to waste time and analyze proposals with misleading vote patterns)

Reinfleche (same as Kirsche, but seems to be more adamant about it)

Rather than just send in my top three for this mission, I want to see what everyone else thinks first before deciding on a team.

[Zanarkin]

Slayer/Link Probably won't have to explain this to anyone.

Proto He seems townish. His reasons for not voting no every 3 proposals makes sense. I have good vibes from him.

From here on, i can't tell you much aside from behaviours...

Kirsche + Reinfleche these two seem keen on wanting to know more team patterns as has been previously stated, eventhough Proto makes a good argument against it. I do not think they have bad intentions. Even if one of them is a spy i doubt both spies would team up on the same topic.

Kay You need to post more, kay. Also, I don't like your unconditional (or atleast what seems unconditional you seriously need to post more) trusting of proto... If Proto was as spy it just bad for the resistance.

Blitzy/Capn Flint Our earlier rather annoying encounter which made no sense, makes me not trust him. Partly because it irritated me, the other half because he seemed to be putting words in my mouth, a weird manipulation of the conversation, and his reluctance to answer questions.

[riariadne]

Me You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see why I trust myself the most.

Slayer I think Slayer has solid opinions on a lot of things that are going on, and seems like he is trying to help out overall.

Blitz I think at the very least Blitz is trying to be helpful. Some of the stuff he wanted to discuss really didn't get anywhere, but I think he's putting forth the effort to get things going at the very least, and that reflects on him pretty well to me.

Kirsche He has a lot of good ideas about team patterns that I also think will prove helpful. He's a bit quiet for my liking, however, and I would like to hear from him some more because I think he can hep out- what he has posted is sound.

Proto Discouraging analysis of teams, which is silly. Is contributing, but I think a few points he is making are totally irrelevant and a waste of time.

and one person I can't fit on here

Kay I have no idea where to put Kay. I haven't really gotten a solid opinion on her due to how little she's said so far (asked for opinions on the mission, sent the mission, said she had a good reason for the mission, explaining that she missed the deadline). I don't want to place her anywhere until she speaks more.

As of now, I don't think I would outright accuse anyone of seeming completely Spy-ish because we simply haven't learned much at this point.

[Blitz]

Damn you Proto, you stole the idea I stole from you

First of all, I know I am a resistance member so this bit is obvious for me

Secondly I would say Proto, because he has been contributing a whole lot unlike Kay and Kevin(I would like to say Rein, but at least he started talking)

Thirdly, I would like to say Kay, but she has been really inactive(but she is always inactive, so I don't know what to think)

the other competitor for this spot is Rein,because just started talking,but until he continues it, I am not sure if he should get this position or not

so I think Rein should be fourth(also in FE 4 mafia, Rein did nothing where he could have easily helped the town, so in a way, he could just be being himself, not sure about this though) because he has been talking about dicussions but he never started any

at Fifth place should be Slayer because I suspect him and he blames me for not answering some question I cannot even find,seriously dude, what is the question? iirc,Slayer has a bad habit of forcing suspicion on to people when he is scum

(I would like to say he is last, but Kevin is far worse than Slayer cause Slayer at the least uses some logic)

and finally there is Kevin, who hasn't really done much and tried to prolong the phase like Rein, but hasn't posted something useful like Rein did)