The Resistance IV

[Tables]

Also:

Everyone: Vote on the proposal

Proto: Let me know if you want(ed) to use Strong Leader immediately

[Kay]

I'll be voting Yes to this proposal, since Rein and BBM are both as townish as anyone gets and I have no objection to Eli.

[BBM]

Well then, Marth, why did you vote as you did?

[Tables]

Round 2.1: Mission 2.

Team: Elieson, BigBangMeteor, apocalypseArisen,

Yes: Elieson, BigBangMeteor, Kay, Marth,

No: apocalypseArisen, Luster Purge,

Result: Yes - 4, No - 2

Proposal passes

Elieson, BBM, AA: Please tell me how diligently you carry out your subtasks in the mission or otherwise 'accidentally' set off the bomb in the wrong place (Co-operate or Sabotage)

Everyone: Disscussion. We're about to be 40% of the way through the game, and we're still on page 1

[riariadne]

Okay...

I guess I'm alright with this, I just wanted more information again. Guess not.

[BBM]

Marth, you voted No for the first mission and Yes for the second one?

The first had almost no chance of failure. The second one does. If, like Rein, you voted No the first time for more info, why didn't you do so again?

[Kriemhild]

Kay/Marth, why did you vote Yes? If you guys are Resistance, you realize that the ONLY way the mission can be guaranteed a success is if the two Spies are exactly Proto+Marth/Kay? I find it hard to believe that you could have narrowed down the Spies so early into the game. You two will both need a good explanation for this. Marth's decision, in particular, is very suspicious, because he even voted No on Mission 1 without explaining himself. Actually, he hasn't even posted here yet and I'm not sure if he even cares about this game. Tables, do you think you could check if he needs a sub?

Kay is still suspicious.

[Tables]

I'll give him a prod. He's responded to his role PM.

[Kay]

Kay/Marth, why did you vote Yes? If you guys are Resistance, you realize that the ONLY way the mission can be guaranteed a success is if the two Spies are exactly Proto+Marth/Kay? I find it hard to believe that you could have narrowed down the Spies so early into the game. You two will both need a good explanation for this. Marth's decision, in particular, is very suspicious, because he even voted No on Mission 1 without explaining himself. Actually, he hasn't even posted here yet and I'm not sure if he even cares about this game. Tables, do you think you could check if he needs a sub?

Kay is still suspicious.

...okay, that's pretty good reasoning and I was kinda not thinking there. It seemed like a better team than most would be IMO, that's all. So yeah, I don't really have a good explanation for it except that I've already said I'm terrible at this game.

Marth is indeed acting kinda odd.

[Bluedoom]

I dunno, I just said no for the heck of it really.

[Elieson]

Do I pm you, Skitty?

[eclipse]

Elieson, you PM whether you want to cooperate/sabotage/tell Tables how sexy he is.

[Tables]

Yes, you PM me... mechanically in the board game, everyone has two cards, a sabotage and a co-operate, and they choose one to put into the mission and one to discard (face down), then the mission pile is shuffled and revealed, so nobody but the people sabotaging (if any) knows who played the sabotage card(s)

I recommend doing two of "cooperate/sabotage/tell Tables how sexy he is." Since two of those are mutually exclusive...

(In before "coperate/sabotage, and not very")

Edited May 15, 2012 by Tableskitty

[Tables]

Mission 2 results in.

Round 2: Mission 2 Results

Co-operate

Co-operate

Sabotage

Mission fails. Score is now Resistance - 1, Spy - 1

(Leadership/Plot card in a minute)

[Tables]

ApocalypseArisen is the new Leader. AA draws the plot card No Confidence

No Confidence

Give this card to any other player. That player may discard this card after a mission proposal vote has a majority to make that vote count as a failure (the mission does not go ahead and leadership passes, and it counts towards the 5 failures).

AA: Give No Confidence to someone. You can also propose your mission and team.

Everyone else: Hopefully there's something to discuss now. Oh hoh hoh~

[Elieson]

Ah, so AA voted no, and there is only one sabotage in mission 2.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[riariadne]

Okay, let's take a look at things from the proposal for 2.1.

Yes: Elieson, BigBangMeteor, Kay, Marth,

No: apocalypseArisen, Luster Purge,

Now, from my own point of view, giving the card to Eli or BBM would be dumb as fuck. One of the two must have sabotaged. Similarly, Kay approved of the mission, though she approved of the last one too, so I'm not sure what's up with that. Perhaps she thought that getting three people essentially clear would be good, so she simply approved of the mission, as we could then go for the other 3 person mission and win instantly. Marth is even weirder, seeing as he approved of this one but not for 1.1, which is significantly less important of a mission. That doesn't look too good for the guy. From where I'm standing, Proto seems like the most sensible person to give a card, as it's easy to justify his approval for 1.1 as it being 1.1, and he simply didn't like the team this time around, so that's what I'm going to do.

Giving card to Proto.

I'll post more in a bit.

[riariadne]

Ah, so AA voted no, and there is only one sabotage in mission 2.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to imply that this somehow confirms me as a spy.

First things first, it absolutely doesn't. Voting no means I did not, in fact, give the mission the go ahead- you and BBM did. Voting "no" is a sign that I did not approve of the team going on the mission, which I did not. I can understand both you and BBM approving, as you are more likely to be comfortable of a team with yourself on it than one that lacks your own presence, as from your own point of view there's nobody better than you to be on a mission. This isn't always a good idea, however. Just because you trust someone on the mission doesn't mean you should go ahead and approve of it. However, this post gives me the feeling that you are just trying to pin some blame on me because I was not on 1. Mission 1, as is obvious from looking at previous games, doesn't mean jack shit. So I'm thinking you're trying to get away with utterly flawed logic to make me look like a spy.

Let's look at bit more into approvals and lack thereof.

Yes twice: Elieson, BBM, Kay

Yes once, no once: Marth (no to 1.1, yes to 2.1), Proto (yes to 1.1, no to 2.1)

No twice: apocalypseArisen

Again, I could see either of you or BBM just being new to the game and not understanding that just because you're on a team, the team isn't always good. Kay I'm less lenient on, as she's played before and knows this. Furthermore she wasn't actually on either team. Marth's votes are equally weird, especially when his stance was "for the heck of it". The fuck, man? Don't do shit just for the heck of it, do it because you think it's a good idea. Aside from myself, Proto strikes me as outstandingly pro-Resistance, having made that good post earlier, and being the only person who I believe is actually sensible with his votes (I can understand approving mission 1 to get it over with as it matters the least out of all the missions, and he didn't approve of 2.1 because he clearly wasn't comfortable with the team).

I've still not decided on my team yet, as I don't see any reason to be hasty, but those are some thoughts.

[Elieson]

What a defensive position you uphold. All because I put my fingers over my chin and publicly announced my "thought", which is absolutely different from an accusation, which you seem to think I have already jumped to.

at the point of this game, mission 2, I understand that apparently, we know nothing, except for that there is one saboteur. Until voting began, we knew effectively nothing. BBM voting yes on the previous mission, and it succeeding, according to you, still means nothing.

Yet then I can be led to assume that to this point, mission one meant nothing. But in order to win, one side must have 3 successes, right? When given 3 of the 5 chances need to succeed, I'd take them all. It seems silly that BBM would intentionally give himself a handicap, except for the fact that giving away a saboteur identity in mission 1 is risky.

Leaving you, who voted no both times. I could see your argument, who else can you trust but you, but at this point in the game, i would imagine you want to guarentee a success as we all would. Mission 1, you know your identity, but no one elses. You knew it was a goahead anyway, since you are apparently very experienced at these. (not pinning blame, just saying what you said). Mission 2, essentially the same. But new members get involved and boom, a failure. Someone had to vote no. But in order for resistance to win, someone always had to vote yes.

Because no one wants to be caught first.

Wow. As I wrote this, I feel that this could easily be twisted to be said at me.

[BBM]

I voted yes for that mission for two reasons. The first was, as Rein said, because from my perspective, it was the most likely to go through, and if that had gone through, then it would have been an easy win. The second was that if it had failed, I would then be able to narrow it down to 1 out of 2 people to being one of the spies. Since I know that I am not a spy, I know either Rein or Elieson must be.

Now, I propose that whether we choose Mission 3 or 4, we should use the In the Spotlight card on one of the people in the mission, the one we find most suspicious. Most likely 1 of the 3 people in Mission 2. No one with that card on them would sabotage the mission, because then we'd know that they're a spy. So if it still fails, someone else on that team must be the second spy.

We could save our card to finish it off, but in the case that the next mission fails, it becomes useless because even if we pick a spy to reveal their mission card beforehand, we'd lose anyways.

[riariadne]

I want to do the mission with 3 people first. I think it's the more constructive of the two options. I'm not sure who I want between Marth or Kay, though. After some thought, I think Marth might just be newbresistance than a spy trying to put his buddy on the mission that easily, so I'm thinking maybe he might be better. I definitely want myself and Proto, so it's really just the last member. I want to hear from both of them before I decide, though.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get across there, Eli. I voted no for information. Why is that ever such a bad thing? Getting information going is key. We have very little to look at in voting patterns so early, and all we know for sure, about 2/5ths of the way through the game, is that at least 1 of me, you, and BBM is a spy. I fail to see how me voting for more information makes me more likely to be a spy than anyone else, because it doesn't.

[Elieson]

you make a point there Rein, but you alone have objected from the absolute beginning, when we knew nothing anyway.

I don't understand how you can say mission 1 matters the least, and yet, look at some votes for key info and other votes like Marth's and just say "oh it's wierd" and essentially disregard it.

I dunno, I guess it is just odd to me to dig for information at a point in the game (1.1) when really, all you would gain for yourself is more reasons to blindly jump towards conclusions.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Elieson

[riariadne]

The more data points we have to see how people voted in the past (at the moment, currently only 2), the more we can use it to consider who we want on future missions. If someone makes a questionable vote, then we might not want to trust them as much. The more opportunities we have for voting (hint: we wasted a lot of them), the better off we are.

[Elieson]

So kay, bbm and myself voting yes both times, offers a trend that you can use for information?

I do admit marth's voting pattern us erratic, but I just don't see what it could mean, like you are saying.

[Bluedoom]

You know what I suggest?

Put yourself, BBM/Elieson and me for the next mission. Or swap yourself with Proto if you wish. And swap me with Kay but I'd insist you put me on your team.

Elieson/BBM did guarantee success in the first mission(even if it means nothing) and if one of them is spy, we can always try finding out who's the spy through this mission.