The Resistance IV

[Bluedoom]

First off, if you actually read my post, you would be able to tell that from context, I was referring to a double sabotage. And you also may have noticed the part where I mentioned I said *see below*

I see, so this is a confirmation that you were FOR a double sab. Ok

I obviously don't want a single sabotage, but all we would learn from a double sabotage is we learn that 2 of 4 are spies. That isn't conclusive evidence to win the game, but at least it's something. And it's much more than what we'd learn from a single sab.

Hmm, well. Has Kay been on a mission that failed? Nope. Has Kay been on a mission at all? Dare I say, Nope. (Well, at this point, Kay wasn't on a mission as of yet). What sort of conclusive evidence is there? And yes, I know you're gonna say "But Elieson, Kay and I have both not been on a mission. WTF man?" My rebuttal is, that you're suspected by others, which means your in the spotlight. And your logic is obviously deficient.

Ok, so you're saying other suspect me, so I'm likely to be scum? Ok then, let's assume I am a spy. Considering you wanted a double sab, and that in the team of Proto/Rein/Me/BBM, if we don't use ItS, we get a 2 sab that you want. So why did you think of voting no for the first proposal then? Furthermore, you also preferred a single sab of the 3 man mission. WHY DID YOU VOTE YES FOR THE SECOND PROPOSAL? Obviously you should be voting no, because it was still to early to decide anything, and if you tried better, maybe you would've got what you wanted. At least for my defence, I knew a team having me in it would not go through, and hence I accepted the second proposal. You doing that is just unreasonable, however.

One more thing. So what if I was in the spotlight? Just because others think so doesn't mean you should either. Others thought so because of my "whatever" votes, which are still not a great deal in proving I'm spy. You thinking like that makes you look sheepish.

And also, what fucking world do I live in that I somehow telepathically know who are spies in this game? If I knew that Kay was a spy, I wouldn't have wanted her on the team at all. Then also, I wouldn't want the other spy on the team, because I'd like to, you know, not be losing.

Sorry, horrible argument. My problem is that you never thought that Kay could in fact be a spy. Your impressions of the players so far have been what the general consensus has been. Like you're trying to blend in.

If BBM is cleared, and Rein forcibly voted Support for the mission, and there was still a sabotage, then do you know what that means? That means, oh gee, that Rein still isn't cleared from being a spy. It also means that everyone in the game is still under investigation to be a spy. Even me. Even you. I find it rather stupid that with Rein cooperating, and me off the mission, that you automatically deduce me as being a spy. What if Rein cooperated, just to not blow his cover, hmm?

I see your and return to you one :facepalm. Do you realize how stupid this sounds? I bolded the part that you posted that you dissappoint me the most with. There's obviously no secret code involved. And please tell me how you are so quick to dismiss the possibility of one spy voting to support the mission in order to deceive everyone? It's in the rules, you know. Even I figured it out, and I'm pretty noob at this too. I said it many many times. That at most one of P(Now Ec)/K/M COULD be a spy, but at least one of B/R/El could be a spy too.

I admit, I shouldn't have said secret code, sorry. What I mean is being 'cryptic'. Nothing really suggests that BBM and Rein are spies, and I haven't seen a post with any other motives in it yet. Perhaps I'll have to re-read the thread again, and scan for anything with any hidden meanings in it. Also, spies don't have OC, so ITS VERY HARD FOR THAT POSSIBILITY TO OCCUR. Besides, Mission 3 results suggest that it was more of a setup for BBM.

She didn't edit her post, so it would be kind of hard for her to hide that.

You are trying to say?

It is easy to sway opinions. Rein swayed my opinion when he insulted me and BBM for being noobs and voting yes, when we could learn soooooo much from voting patterns. I'm new to this. I'm still learning. I think I understand it hella better though. I read through Resistance III, and learned that the best objective debater in the game is the leader, spy or not, among other things. (We could learn more just from collecting a "Who would you send on X mission" from everyone, rather than voting patterns though, IMO.

And please tell me, again, how BBM isn't a spy? I'd really enjoy reading this over a bowl of Lucky Charms. It actually makes me laugh. I'd probably spew milk out of my nose and make my kids laugh, and that would be worth it.

Yes I agree that looking at voting patterns would be a stupid idea. I'm still not sure why you brought this up though.

Also I'm glad I'm helping helping you make your kids laugh. :)

[eclipse]

Marth. . .did you just. . .

Yes I agree that looking at voting patterns would be a stupid idea. I'm still not sure why you brought this up though.

Let me get this through everyone's collectively thick skulls: VOTING TELLS US WHAT YOU THINK OF OTHER PEOPLE. Justifying why you vote is as important as debating who goes on what team. Seriously, what do you guys have against discussing things, including voting patterns?

[Bluedoom]

Because you managed to vote once with no thought and twice with sheepish reasons. This isn't a good sign, and the fact that you're banking hard on BBM being Resistance is foolish, at best. Stand up for yourself.

For 3.2, it was a lost cause for me if I had voted no. I knew people wouldn't accept me in the mission. So actually, its one vote with no thought and one sheepish vote.

Also I'm banking hard on BBM being resistance because honestly, it feels like a setup atm.

Oh yeah, and I'm surprised you don't find Elieson to be sheepish either. Might I add that I'm appalled that none of you except Rein/I thought of the possibility that Elieson sab'd Mission 2.

Also, I re-read a bit, and god stuff is becoming obvious.

Read his post. He says that a 4-man mission would be best because we have the best shot at catching both spies in the mission. If that is the case, and he finds you suspicious, why wouldn't he have you in his mission?

"Optimal" choosing goes 4 resistance > 2 resistance, 2 spies > 3 resistance, 1 spy. If our mission is sabotaged by only one spy, we have a much smaller chance of figuring out who that spy is than if it is sabotaged by two spies.

BBM's response after I questioned why he had a problem with Kay's post which says I should be outed.

Obv scumteam is obv.

[Bluedoom]

Marth. . .did you just. . .

Let me get this through everyone's collectively thick skulls: VOTING TELLS US WHAT YOU THINK OF OTHER PEOPLE. Justifying why you vote is as important as debating who goes on what team. Seriously, what do you guys have against discussing things, including voting patterns?

I don't have anything against discussion, I see no point in discussing voting trends. Sure sometimes its useful, BUT AT THIS POINT we don't need it. For example, my vote in mission 1 says nothing about how I vote. What info are you gaining from this?

[eclipse]

It's the extreme lack of info, and the unwillingness to obtain info that I'm yelling at the lot of you about. You don't go accepting mission proposals willy-nilly just for the sake of accepting it. You reason out WHY you want/don't want a proposal. Furthermore, you don't accept the first thing that comes around because it looks nice. The longer it takes for a mission proposal to pass, the more time everyone has to talk. Whenever a proposal fails and is passed on to someone else, we can talk about who voted which way and why, while re-examining our stances on people. It highly benefits the Resistance to not accept the first thing, so people have time to both discuss things and think things through. I see an appalling lack of both in this thread; if there's a leader in discussion, that means there's people not doing their job of discussing things. This isn't Assassins in the Palace, where people vote and don't discuss things; this is Resistance.

Eli's trying to form his own opinions, which is far more than what I can say for you.

[BBM]

Well, if the posts I wrote at 2pm didn't make sense, I doubt the ones I write at 2am will, so I'll give my reply in the morning.

I will say one thing, though. When I say things like "If I was Resistance" to make claims, I'm not saying you should believe that- obviously not. What I'm trying to do is show my thought process, because "If I was Resistance" is an assumption I can make.

[eclipse]

I'll take that. Now go to bed so you can post something coherent when you wake up; we've still got a bit of time left.

[BBM]

I'll take that. Now go to bed so you can post something coherent when you wake up; we've still got a bit of time left.

Unfortunately, I need to stay up for another two hours. >_>

[Elieson]

I'm creating a large post, mainly in response to Marth. I'll get to anything else and actually read posts in a minute, when I'm done.

Srry for the wait, all!

[Elieson]

I see, so this is a confirmation that you were FOR a double sab. Ok

For informational purposes, yes. Otherwise, we're still jumping into mission 4 and 5 with our eyes extremely squinted and wearing dark sunglasses.

Ok, so you're saying other suspect me, so I'm likely to be scum? Ok then, let's assume I am a spy. Considering you wanted a double sab, and that in the team of Proto/Rein/Me/BBM, if we don't use ItS, we get a 2 sab that you want. So why did you think of voting no for the first proposal then? Furthermore, you also preferred a single sab of the 3 man mission. WHY DID YOU VOTE YES FOR THE SECOND PROPOSAL? Obviously you should be voting no, because it was still to early to decide anything, and if you tried better, maybe you would've got what you wanted. At least for my defence, I knew a team having me in it would not go through, and hence I accepted the second proposal. You doing that is just unreasonable, however.

One more thing. So what if I was in the spotlight? Just because others think so doesn't mean you should either. Others thought so because of my "whatever" votes, which are still not a great deal in proving I'm spy. You thinking like that makes you look sheepish.

Yes. I am saying I suspect you. I suspect the other 5 people in this game, because I know 2 of them are spies, and the only thing I know, that's 100% confirmed, is that I don't know who either of the 2 spies are. And these voting trends, justifications, and mission outcomes aren't telling me much, except that I have reason to suspect BBM more (for multiple failures), and Rein (for insults then bandwagonning). I guess I could suspect Kay for being on a failed mission too, and not using the card for ITS, when she asked us for the group choice. I could also suspect Proto/Eclipse for inactivity, but that's being resolved. I suspect you for having crappy logic, like Eclipse posted above me, or like the secret code I quoted you on. Now I can suspect Eclipse for controlling the game by controlling the players in an objective way, like Proto did in Res3. Everyone has a reason

Sorry, horrible argument. My problem is that you never thought that Kay could in fact be a spy. Your impressions of the players so far have been what the general consensus has been. Like you're trying to blend in.

[/color]

Wrong. See above.

And ok sure I've been sheeping. That is because up until that point, I was proven to be a supernoob, and needed something to follow while I developed my own train of thought. I'm not trying to blend in on purpose though. I'm trying to find hints and clues in the debacle that is justification, and hope that someone slips up so I can spot it and call someone out on it. I'm not tailored to this sorta thing, so excuse me for not taking charge like Proto and Eclipse and Rein have done.

If BBM is cleared, and Rein forcibly voted Support for the mission, and there was still a sabotage, then do you know what that means? That means, oh gee, that Rein still isn't cleared from being a spy. It also means that everyone in the game is still under investigation to be a spy. Even me. Even you. I find it rather stupid that with Rein cooperating, and me off the mission, that you automatically deduce me as being a spy. What if Rein cooperated, just to not blow his cover, hmm?

Haven't I said that, like, a bunch of times? Maybe switch the BBM and Rein around, then read my text. You'll see that I indeed said that. In fact, you were even so gracious as to include my words in your rebuttal. I bolded them for you. I said it first, so I obviously considered it.

And like I said above, I didn't deduce you as for sure being a spy, i deduced you as a possible spy, just like everyone else. And everyone else has a reason to be considered the spy.

I admit, I shouldn't have said secret code, sorry. What I mean is being 'cryptic'. Nothing really suggests that BBM and Rein are spies, and I haven't seen a post with any other motives in it yet. Perhaps I'll have to re-read the thread again, and scan for anything with any hidden meanings in it. Also, spies don't have OC, so ITS VERY HARD FOR THAT POSSIBILITY TO OCCUR. Besides, Mission 3 results suggest that it was more of a setup for BBM.

The only reasonable thing you said here was the last line. And I agree. It was a setup for BBM. But like I said a few pages back, I misunderstood the ItS card, and thought that it came into affect after their Support/Sabotage vote, not their Yes/No vote.

I apologize for that. I misunderstood that rule.

You are trying to say?

She isn't suspicious for not using the card on herself.

Because.

She asked everyone what she should do.

Which is significantly less suspicious than Kay just using the card in Rein without input from us.

Or did I miss something at the Marth School of Detective Study?

Yes I agree that looking at voting patterns would be a stupid idea. I'm still not sure why you brought this up though.

Also I'm glad I'm helping helping you make your kids laugh. :)

Did you read the whole post, or just the first few lines again. Honestly, if you tell me the truth, I will go buy those crayons and puppets, and actually use them for you.

Here, I'll repost it.

(We could learn more just from collecting a "Who would you send on X mission" from everyone, rather than voting patterns though, IMO.

I'd quote it, but it might confuse you again.

And thanks for the laughter inducement. Your turn, Marthy Boy.

[Elieson]

@Eclipse, does my last bolded statement (that i've now said twice), seem to agree with your previous post above?

Just making sure I follow, because I think that's something that you're getting at.

[eclipse]

Not really, because voting off proposals does two things:

1. Your vote doesn't lie.

2. It extends the phase, which allows more time for discussion, as well as generate discussion regarding the last failed proposal.

Obviously, we don't want to be stuck on Proposal 4 with a suspicious person up for Proposal 5, but I don't like the trend of accepting the first two because you guys don't wanna talk about it.

[Elieson]

Not really, because voting off proposals does two things:

1. Your vote doesn't lie.

2. It extends the phase, which allows more time for discussion, as well as generate discussion regarding the last failed proposal.

Obviously, we don't want to be stuck on Proposal 4 with a suspicious person up for Proposal 5, but I don't like the trend of accepting the first two because you guys don't wanna talk about it.

This.

Just hit me.

In the skull.

Ok, that's a completely valid and pretty much unarguable point. I concede to the no debate (though you can't deny that the two can be effective, when combined)

[Bluedoom]

Ok, so uh, I'll probably reply later, but.

I kindly request Rein to get on here now, because honestly its stupid that we're at the edge of losing and you're not bthered to post. Tables, if he's inactive, ask Psych to just sub in.

[Elieson]

Yes, I do support that decision.

And while we're at it, Eclipse. Do you feel as though you've come towards any conclusions? I'm not asking what they are, but if you've at least formed some ideas as to who you might suggest for the upcoming team?

[eclipse]

New avy~!

Anyway, the team's probably gonna be something along the lines of me/Eli/Kay, unless I see extremely convincing arguments from everyone else. Still haven't decided where my card goes.

[BBM]

What? Clearly, I'm missing something. Can you direct me to what exact post you're talking about?

"Well, I think Proto's a spy because everyone trusts him" is extremely shitty logic. Furthermore I can go "well I know I'm Resistance" and be just as credible. In my case, I'm positive I'm Resistance - Tables remembered to include me in the role PM on time. Since there's no investigation, there's no way of Resistance players knowing each other alliances for certain, so we need to talk. But. . .

Like I said earlier, my point about saying "If I was Resistance" was not to convince other people, but to show my thought processes. And I admit that that wasn't the best logic- I give better logic later on, like how Proto voting no for 3.1 and yes for 3.2 makes sense if he didn't want a chance for a double sabotage, but then saw that the card was going to force Rein to co-operate anyways. And I also think you're acting suspicious.

It also gives everyone more time to discuss things, and another subject to discuss about. Saying people are scummy because of this tells me you're either a Spy, or you are woefully misinformed. Now, what do you have against discussion?

I don't have anything against discussion. No one was discussing anything though. I tried my hardest to provoke discussion- by introducing controversy you've done a better job at it than I have. But I don't think discussion would have been sparked by people summarily voting no. This, right now, is the most active the thread's been, because people who are actually bothering to post are disagreeing. Even earlier when Rein posted and there was some disagreement, he never posted more than a paragraph at a time. IMO, prolonging missions just so that one of the spies might make a slip simply piles on useless information and then makes it more difficult to get at the real stuff.

The answer is "you'd best be damn sure the other three people are Resistance, or you waste a card." In your case, you weren't sure of Proto's alignment, and yet you approved the mission. Come to think of it, you approve everything. I really don't like this, as it looks like you're okay with everyone.

Using the card doesn't need to simply guarantee the success of the mission. Originally, I thought that's what it should be used for. So, originally, I advocated using it on the most suspicious person. Then, I realized it can also be used to confirm a spy if you're sure that two people are Resistance, because the card basically forces a third person to act like Resistance for that mission. So the two people I was sure about were me and Proto. So I voted yes, and then AFTER THAT, stopped being sure that Proto was in fact a Resistance.

And no, I have never been okay with everyone. I was the first person to say anything about Rein, IIRC. I have simply been okay with all the mission proposals, and saw no reason to vote no for a mission I believed would either succeed or give valuable information even if it failed.

Apparently, so does the rest of the game. I'm the only Resistance member because I thought of this. LOVELY~! Though I do agree that Rein needs to start posting; he had enough time for SFMM2!

I even made a post telling Elieson that a mission leader can vote no. Just because you are the mission leader does not mean you have to vote yes, but it doesn't mean you can't either.

BigBangMeteor, on 23 May 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

As for Marth, make up your mind about him. In your post addressing everyone but me, you said while his reasons for voting were trash, he was asking questions, which was good. Then in your last post, you say that Marth and I are the spyteam.

Don't threaten people like this. It's scummy at best and immature at worst.

That was heavyhanded of me. I apologize.

I don't trust you at all, and unless you post some gr9mazig logic, will most likely veto every single mission with you and Marth in it.

See, I'm no longer even as sure that you and Rein are the spyteam. Elieson's looking pretty suspicious right now too. IMO, despite all you and him are saying about Elieson trying to form his own opinions, he's basically sheeping you at this point, so it could be Eclipse + Eli. And I haven't ruled out it being Elieson + Kay or Rein + Kay either. But the way you're playing this, atm, I don't even need to choose. At least one of you/Eli/Kay must be a spy, and so I will vote no for that mission even if I'm not 100% sure who it is, and I think I can say that Marth probably will too.

So, Kay, you haven't posted for a while, and Rein's been even worse. What are your thoughts about all of this?

Finally, guys, keep it in mind that Eclipse has both the No Confidence and Strong Leader cards with him. Seeing as we can't trust him to not be mafia, if we get to 4.4 and mafia!Eclipse still has both those cards with him, we lose the game.

[BBM]

Also, I AM going to sleep now. I'll reply to any replies in the morning/early afternoon EST.

[eclipse]

Got ninja'd.

Umm... everything I've said so far has been when I'm fully coherent. What is it that I've been saying that's doesn't make sense? Assuming I am resistance (which I know I am), Marth is cleared. So any 3-man mission without either of us is doomed to fail because it must include at least one spy. It makes it sound like Marth and I are buddying up, but there is no other way to make it sound like. Marth's logic hasn't been amazing, no. But despite that, I know he has to be resistance.

On a different note, the next two days are going to be a bit hectic for me; I don't know how much I will be able to post. Sorry guys!

You have yet to convince me you're Resistance. Since Marth is following off of you hard, it's logical that I think that he's scummy, too. Also, RL comes first.

What? Clearly, I'm missing something. Can you direct me to what exact post you're talking about?

Which point did you miss?

Like I said earlier, my point about saying "If I was Resistance" was not to convince other people, but to show my thought processes. And I admit that that wasn't the best logic- I give better logic later on, like how Proto voting no for 3.1 and yes for 3.2 makes sense if he didn't want a chance for a double sabotage, but then saw that the card was going to force Rein to co-operate anyways. And I also think you're acting suspicious.

If I knew why Proto voted the way he did during mission 3, I'd post it. I put in the cooperate order for 3.2, because it benefits my win condition of having three missions go by unhindered. He gave no reasoning whatsoever for his vote, which sucks. I can't go off of his role PM to say who he found suspicious/not suspicious, so I'm doing everything myself.

I think you're just mad that I came in here and questioned you. I've noticed that the people you consider scum are those that don't agree with you - something that I find extremely scummy.

Now, convince yourself I'm Resistance. Try. How do things look? In my mind, there is a slight possibility that you have no idea WTF you're doing, so you're playing this game horribly, BUT I'm hardly convinced of it.

I don't have anything against discussion. No one was discussing anything though. I tried my hardest to provoke discussion- by introducing controversy you've done a better job at it than I have. But I don't think discussion would have been sparked by people summarily voting no. This, right now, is the most active the thread's been, because people who are actually bothering to post are disagreeing. Even earlier when Rein posted and there was some disagreement, he never posted more than a paragraph at a time. IMO, prolonging missions just so that one of the spies might make a slip simply piles on useless information and then makes it more difficult to get at the real stuff.

You'll get plenty of discussion and then some from me for yes/no votes I actually do. You also don't know how much discussion there will be until you actually try it. This team has yet to hit a Mission 3; the game changes drastically at that point. . .but either you fail to realize that or don't want to see what happens.

Using the card doesn't need to simply guarantee the success of the mission. Originally, I thought that's what it should be used for. So, originally, I advocated using it on the most suspicious person. Then, I realized it can also be used to confirm a spy if you're sure that two people are Resistance, because the card basically forces a third person to act like Resistance for that mission. So the two people I was sure about were me and Proto. So I voted yes, and then AFTER THAT, stopped being sure that Proto was in fact a Resistance.

At best, this is sloppy; keep notes. At worst, this is a terrible defense.

And no, I have never been okay with everyone. I was the first person to say anything about Rein, IIRC. I have simply been okay with all the mission proposals, and saw no reason to vote no for a mission I believed would either succeed or give valuable information even if it failed.

Here is the crux of the problem; assuming you are Resistance, by saying yes to every single mission, and waffling like mad in discussions (namely, homing in on Rein for being disagreeable), it looks like you're pretending to contribute when you're actually out no information via voting. By your logic, you were okay with every single mission; your votes say that you don't find anyone to be scummy. This, too, is a scumtell; check GSM for a better explanation by Prims.

I even made a post telling Elieson that a mission leader can vote no. Just because you are the mission leader does not mean you have to vote yes, but it doesn't mean you can't either.

Knowing/not knowing this fact doesn't determine alignment, or there's four Spies in the game.

As for Marth, make up your mind about him. In your post addressing everyone but me, you said while his reasons for voting were trash, he was asking questions, which was good. Then in your last post, you say that Marth and I are the spyteam.

Unlike you, I take both the bad and good when it comes to talking about people. In Marth's case, his "bad" is much worse than his "good".

See, I'm no longer even as sure that you and Rein are the spyteam. Elieson's looking pretty suspicious right now too. IMO, despite all you and him are saying about Elieson trying to form his own opinions, he's basically sheeping you at this point, so it could be Eclipse + Eli. And I haven't ruled out it being Elieson + Kay or Rein + Kay either. But the way you're playing this, atm, I don't even need to choose. At least one of you/Eli/Kay must be a spy, and so I will vote no for that mission even if I'm not 100% sure who it is, and I think I can say that Marth probably will too.

OMG PEOPLE ARE DISAGREEING WITH ME THEY MUST BE SCUM! Because that's the vibe I'm getting from your justifications. That puts you as either a terrible Resistance player or a Spy who realized he can't control things anymore.

Finally, guys, keep it in mind that Eclipse has both the No Confidence and Strong Leader cards with him. Seeing as we can't trust him to not be mafia, if we get to 4.4 and mafia!Eclipse still has both those cards with him, we lose the game.

1. I am a she.

2. Finally, let's remember that BBM has been on 2/3 of the failure missions, and one which would be stupid to sabotage. See how silly that sounds? That's how you come across.

I hope you think more clearly when you wake up.

[eclipse]

Whoops. I meant Proposal 3. ;/

[Kay]

Opinions, pre-reading-Marth's-recent-posts:

Elieson - The inverse of BBM. Eli looks okay objectively, but his posts sounded kinda dubious at some points. I'd chalk it up to being new, though, especially since he's started to generally make more sense. Somewhat townish.

BigBangMeteor - I kind of have completely mixed opinions on him. On the one hand, he's making good sense and trying to talk and such, on the other hand, being on both failed missions is not too fantastic. Neutral-ish, leaning scum, I guess?

apocalypseArisen - acted very pro-town during M1, then developed selective mutism. Basically went from trusting him because discussion was the main factor to distrusting him now because of his presence on M2 and time spent online/actual activity ratio. Somewhat scummy.

Luster Purge/eclipse - Proto's two or so posts were all very good and logical, but Proto sounds consistent when he's a spy, too, so that means nothing. Eclipse has apparently promoted herself to town leader and I need to analyze her posts better but she's pretty much neutral.

Marth - No longer reeking of scummy. Looks like he's posting actual thought-out opinions now so that is something. Data-wise, he looks relatively good. Somewhat townish, I'd say?

1.1 is the epitome of RVS - only the spies have information to go off of. Hell, if I'd been in here, I would've voted no, so that we'd get more information. By having people justify their votes as they go on, we see more of their thought process. Why don't you like this?

M1 votes don't mean anything though. The spies would have to be pretty stupid to sabotage it so no one will disagree with the actual team. Any no votes will be for info gathering. Except that information won't mean anything because no one would vote no to a M1 proposal for any reason but to get more information. So all you learn is which players think M1 votes have meaning.

I don't have anything against discussion, I see no point in discussing voting trends. Sure sometimes its useful, BUT AT THIS POINT we don't need it. For example, my vote in mission 1 says nothing about how I vote. What info are you gaining from this?

You didn't say it's unnecessary or less useful at this point. You said it was stupid. A blanket statement, and a dumb one at that. Votes are concrete. This is a good thing. How would your votes say nothing about how you vote?

Marth has officially made himself look scummier than I thought he was a few hours ago. Congratulations, Marth, now please, if you are Resistance, starting making sense so I don't screw up by suspecting you.

[eclipse]

Kay, if things really went my way, there would be no town leader. People would have their ideas flying all over the place, and we'd be able to build relationships based off of how people react and what they say. If there's a leader, it means that there's people who aren't talking as much.

[BBM]

Which point did you miss?

The point that you're talking about, about it being a numbers thing. I read the thread and got an entirely different impression. In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by "It was a numbers thing."

I think you're just mad that I came in here and questioned you. I've noticed that the people you consider scum are those that don't agree with you - something that I find extremely scummy.

If that's how it comes off as I'm sorry, but in my mind, when I see logic that doesn't make sense to me, that makes me both disagree with them and think that they are scummy, unless I have something else saying they're not.

Now, convince yourself I'm Resistance. Try. How do things look? In my mind, there is a slight possibility that you have no idea WTF you're doing, so you're playing this game horribly, BUT I'm hardly convinced of it.

Whenever I've asked anybody to step into my shoes, it's been to look at things in a perfectly objective manner. For example that if I was resistance it is 100% impossible for Marth to be a spy. How am I supposed to know how you subjectively look at things? What you've been interpreting from what's been happening is most likely very different from what I've been interpreting.

Here is the crux of the problem; assuming you are Resistance, by saying yes to every single mission, and waffling like mad in discussions (namely, homing in on Rein for being disagreeable), it looks like you're pretending to contribute when you're actually out no information via voting. By your logic, you were okay with every single mission; your votes say that you don't find anyone to be scummy. This, too, is a scumtell; check GSM for a better explanation by Prims.

Even in traditional mafia, sometimes people who are town say it's better for a townie to be sacrificed if that's get more information. Look at schoolgirl mafia, where the town ordered a vig shot on the Oracle because that would possibly confirm somebody's alignment. Similarly, I was okay with Mission 3 failing if it confirmed a spy.

OMG PEOPLE ARE DISAGREEING WITH ME THEY MUST BE SCUM! Because that's the vibe I'm getting from your justifications. That puts you as either a terrible Resistance player or a Spy who realized he can't control things anymore.

What the hell, that's not what I am saying at all. I just said that I don't even find you as scummy as I did originally, BUT it doesn't matter, because I don't need to determine the exact scumteam to know at least one of them is on an Eclipse/Elieson/Kay mission.

1. I am a she.

2. Finally, let's remember that BBM has been on 2/3 of the failure missions, and one which would be stupid to sabotage. See how silly that sounds? That's how you come across.

1. I knew that.

2. Again, what the hell, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that keep in mind that Eclipse could be mafia, and if she is, we lose if we go into 4.4 and she still has both her cards. I didn't actually say you were mafia. >_>

[BBM]

Even in traditional mafia, sometimes people who are town say it's better for a townie to be sacrificed if that's get more information. Look at schoolgirl mafia, where the town ordered a vig shot on the Oracle because that would possibly confirm somebody's alignment. Similarly, I was okay with Mission 3 failing if it confirmed a spy.

Just to add on to this, like Kay said, Mission 1 isn't really Day 1 RVS. That's Mission 2. Mission 1 is more like Night 0. Nothing really matters. So Mission 1 I voted yes because, like Kay said, I didn't think there was any chance of failure. Mission 2 was more like RVS for me- I thought Rein and Elieson were okay at that point. And then I didn't think Rein was okay, but I voted yes for the mission anyways, for aforementioned reasons.

[eclipse]

Dammit, wrong Resistance. I didn't play in 3. I did sub into 2 (for Rein, IIRC), here. This one featured psychic Spies, and a general numbers imbalance, which helped the Spies to win. Also, our names rocked.

If that's how it comes off as I'm sorry, but in my mind, when I see logic that doesn't make sense to me, that makes me both disagree with them and think that they are scummy, unless I have something else saying they're not.

Here's what I define as scum, in order from worst to eh. This holds across multiple games:

1. Telling the town to shut up/not vote; the less public info the town has to work with, the better for the mafia.

2. Knowing things that aren't public knowledge. An example would be, "So our doctor failed because of a safeguard" when no one has claimed such. Doesn't apply as much to this kind of game.

3. Demanding people vote a certain way with consequences in NOC, unless it's someone refusing to vote for a cleared cop's guilty or something equally clear-cut. Town only has thread info and their own role PM, without the benefit of OC. Perhaps what you see isn't the best course of action.

4. Getting mad when they lose control of the conversation; this tells me that they had some benefit from controlling it in the first place.

5. Having No Opinion On Anything, including votes. Most likely to make sure that "you were tunneling" fails.

6. Following opinions without forming your own. Some people aren't great at self-expression, so that's why I consider this one on a case-by-case basis.

7. Bad logic, but I can't assume that people see things FMPOV.

You hit at least four of these.

Whenever I've asked anybody to step into my shoes, it's been to look at things in a perfectly objective manner. For example that if I was resistance it is 100% impossible for Marth to be a spy. How am I supposed to know how you subjectively look at things? What you've been interpreting from what's been happening is most likely very different from what I've been interpreting.

Because you're objectively wrong. See, if you're Resistance, then the following can be derived:

- One of Rein/Elieson is a spy

- One of me/Kay is a spy

Now, from my POV, 2.1 shouldn't have passed (Proto said he didn't like it 'cause he wasn't in it), and 3.2 was badly played (all we learned was that Rein cooperated when it didn't matter what he did). From what I see, I would've sent a team that had Marth in it, and not say who I'd use the card on until the last minute.

Even in traditional mafia, sometimes people who are town say it's better for a townie to be sacrificed if that's get more information. Look at schoolgirl mafia, where the town ordered a vig shot on the Oracle because that would possibly confirm somebody's alignment. Similarly, I was okay with Mission 3 failing if it confirmed a spy.

Did you miss the part where I yelled at the town for that? By using the card on Rein, all we learned is that the scum teams can't be Rein/Eli or Me/Kay.

What the hell, that's not what I am saying at all. I just said that I don't even find you as scummy as I did originally, BUT it doesn't matter, because I don't need to determine the exact scumteam to know at least one of them is on an Eclipse/Elieson/Kay mission.

The problem is you have yet to convince me you're not a Spy, and I'm the one in charge of the mission.

1. I knew that.

2. Again, what the hell, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that keep in mind that Eclipse could be mafia, and if she is, we lose if we go into 4.4 and she still has both her cards. I didn't actually say you were mafia. >_>

And keep in mind that you could be a Spy because you were on both failed missions. I have to let go of Strong Leader anyway. Your point?