The Resistance (Blue Game) OVER!

[mastermind]

Based on the response that we have, there are already 5 votes against the plan so it's a failure. I prematurely voted yes in case I wasn't available, but that was before yabba made the rule that only your first vote counts.

Neither of you address either of the important differences between random and Drench-random - that he did it wrong and that he put himself on the list.

Technically Drench didn't do it wrong if he first didn't count himself and then counted 2, which lead to me, and then counted an additional 7, which leads to RealityFan. I think people were just assuming Drench was using the same random system that I was by assigning people a number.

I think a help in deciding who's town and scum is by looking at the reactions before and after the nominations take place. Fishy already said this but obviously townspeople are going to be happy that they are nominated because that is less of a chance that a person who is scum is nominated (meaning that they are most likely going to vote yes unless something drastic comes up). However, this also applies to scum when only 1 scum is nominated. The key is when either 0 or more than 1 scum are nominated because then the scum will want to vote against the plan and persuade others to vote no.

I'd like to say that it should be 2 and 7 (ie. Moospiker and mastermind), not 2 and 9 (mastermind and RealityFan).

I get the fact that he was trying to call a mistake by Drench (though I already stated why Drench could have not made a mistake), but the "I'd like to say that it should be" part is throwing huge alerts. It seems as though Moospiker is wanting a Drench, mastermind, Moospiker plan rather than a Drench, mastermind, RealityFan plan. Why? If Moospiker is scum, this leads me to believe that Drench and RealityFan are town and there are no scum nominated. It doesn't make sense that a scum wishes to be nominated unless there are no scum nominated. Then again, this also applies to town and I could just be over-analyzing this and Moospiker is town calling out Drench. However, I do agree with Fishy's statement about Moospiker saying that Drench is a little off to be odd.

[Fishythefish]

@mastermind: if Drench was using that system (Drench?), then we should vote it down. Both because it's an unusual system which he didn't explain beforehand, and because it's not random in a fair way (9 is much more likely to come up than 2; either can come up on the first roll, but 9 has 4 ways of coming up on the second, compared with just 1 for 2).

[Drench]

I think that's what I get for looking at the total rather than the second number. x.x

Uhh, in the interests of parity and fairness and whatnot I'm not opposed to shooting this down and re-randomizing it. Well, except for the fact that we have no way of knowing who'll control it next round, but hey.

So yeah.

[yabbaguy]

You have less than 24 hours to PM your votes.

Due to reasonable player requests, the next vote in this game and the first vote round in Orange will permit votes to be changed infinitely.

[redtail896]

I'm going to repeat my original question: Why not just use Mastermind's original random choice? I say this not because I'm in that set of three (although I am), but because it was a fair random selection that seems to have been blatantly ignored. Drench: did you ignore it because you wanted to be on the plan?

Also, I think that examining what people claim to have voted is going to run into the major problem that it's way too easy to lie. If person X is empire, all they have to say is "i voted yes" when they're on the plan, and we'll assume that they're alright. Sure, when the vote totals come up, the numbers will be off, but that will be hard to track down. Thoughts?

[Drench]

Votes are public, IIRC.

My reasoning was that I am Resistance, therefore me having plans is better. Now, from your point of view, that is a horrible excuse. I get that. But I cannot in good faith hand three plans to three untested people when we can reduce that number to two. I am playing to win, see, and winning involves getting these plans supported by all planners. I've only got one choice if I receive a plan, which just leaves two choices to be made. And I think that's better than three choices. Yeah, I get that my reasoning is as weak as piss, but I'm sure that if you were the leader and you're Resistance that it would make sense to you in that situation as well.

Soo yeah.

[Mysterious Mystery Man]

mastermind looks to be covering Drench's behind. I'd say we found a couple Empire spies.

[redtail896]

mastermind looks to be covering Drench's behind. I'd say we found a couple Empire spies.

Defending somebody else is not a scumtell.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but while the final tallies are public, who voted for what is

not

public.

[yabbaguy]

Votes are public, although PM'd at first. The decision to sabotage is somewhat anonymous.

Re-posted the rules on the front page of the game.

[Pittbunny]

But I cannot in good faith hand three plans to three untested people when we can reduce that number to two. I am playing to win
Soo yeah.

Disagree. Playing to win means cooperation in some fashion. I find the act of disagreeing with a random allotment in favor of throwing yourself on for a different plan, while a stronger play from Drench-town point of view, is really not that much better than random in regards to town as a whole. That is to say, it's far too soon to try and be selfish. I'm of the opinion that a mutual, random cooperation D1 would yield more results than your form of cherrypicking. Then again, discussion yields the best results, but as a base model I disagree with your intentions.

[StrangerCoug]

Looks like Drench is in trouble...

[Drench]

But I cannot in good faith hand three plans to three untested people when we can reduce that number to two. I am playing to win
Soo yeah.

Disagree. Playing to win means cooperation in some fashion. I find the act of disagreeing with a random allotment in favor of throwing yourself on for a different plan, while a stronger play from Drench-town point of view, is really not that much better than random in regards to town as a whole. That is to say, it's far too soon to try and be selfish. I'm of the opinion that a mutual, random cooperation D1 would yield more results than your form of cherrypicking. Then again, discussion yields the best results, but as a base model I disagree with your intentions.

So, you're criticizing me for what you admit is a 'stronger play'? [paulinehanson]Please explain.[/paulinehanson]

And yes, discussion is excellent in these things. To be honest, I'm a bit thankful there's a furore: it gives much more information than a bunch of THIS PROPOSAL FEELS NICE I THINK I SHALL SUPPORT IT

[Drench]

EBWOP: forgot this gem!

Looks like Drench is in trouble...

Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion whatsoever! :3

[Moospiker]

EBWOP: forgot this gem!

Looks like Drench is in trouble...

Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion whatsoever! :3

QFT

Moospiker is empire. Also, probably, MMM. The plans are currently going to the Resistance, and these scum types aren't happy.

Drench seeming "a little off" is a really weird thing to say when Drench has done something pretty concrete - gone for random, and then done it wrong/rigged it.

Okay, so this is a baseless accusation about how I worded my post. Fishy has to understand that Drench hadn't done that much wrong at that point.

Yes, he wanted himself on the list.

But thats understandable when, like the rest of us, he's in the dark and can only trust himself. But why isn't it understandable to fishy? Maybe he's not in the dark.

Although it's not a good idea to put yourself on the list I could see where he was coming from, and that's why he is only a little off.

[Fishythefish]

@Moo: what did you mean by Drench being "a little off", exactly?

You misunderstand me, I'm not actually criticising Drench. I'm saying that Drench had done a couple of things that may have been worth commenting on, and given that it's strange that you just say he's "a little off" without expanding or explaining at all.

Re: your accusation: in what way have I implied I don't understand why Drench selected himself? It seems pretty horrible that you change your stance from Drench's play being "off" to it being "understandable" so you can take a cheap shot at me over something I haven't done.

[yabbaguy]

I will now reveal the votes. You need at least 6 of the 10 players to say YES in order for the plan to be put in motion. If a player voted YES, a blue light will come on by their name. Unlit names voted NO.

Lowell and MMM's NO votes were counted this time. Again, PM votes next time.

5 YES votes will not do it. Please stand by.

[yabbaguy]

Base 1: Plan Delegation 2/5

Your first delegation did not sit well with half the Resistance, Drench. StrangerCoug, now you have to nominate 3 people you think will be loyal to the mission.

See that X? With every failed vote, the passage of time is marked by that green X, representing the green Imperial Spies. If 5 consecutive Vote phases result in a failed vote, the Empire will be victorious.

Time is crucial. You have 120 hours to delegate your 3 Plans, Leader.

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP: forgot this gem!

Looks like Drench is in trouble...

Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion whatsoever! :3

I must admit that I've been a bit inattentive to the thread, but what else was there to say? The dice idea was unpopular, and other than those on the plan, only redtail896 and I voted for it. I want to say that, with one more yes, it would have been sabotaged by just you.

[Mysterious Mystery Man]

SC: Pick who you want, other than Drench or mastermind. I'm a little suspicious of Fishy as well.

[Fishythefish]

@SC: why did you vote yes? Particularly as you posted that you thought Drench looked bad.

[redtail896]

Just number everybody 1-10 (or 0-9 if you prefer), roll 3 d10s and send those three. I find it incredibly hard to believe that this wouldn't be accepted by a majority.

I know that we already have some potential suspicions running around, but I really think that it's too early to be playing around them. Once the first attack is under our belts, we'll have a bit more info to deal with.

[Fishythefish]

@redtail: same question to you - why did you vote yes?

[redtail896]

@redtail: same question to you - why did you vote yes?

A few reasons. First, I had no real problem with Drench putting himself on the team. From his point of view, it's the best play; if he's resistance, then we have 1 person who has more info; if he's empire, well, then, that's what he should do. In fact, I think Drench himself explained it best:

My reasoning was that I am Resistance, therefore me having plans is better. Now, from your point of view, that is a horrible excuse. I get that. But I cannot in good faith hand three plans to three untested people when we can reduce that number to two. I am playing to win, see, and winning involves getting these plans supported by all planners. I've only got one choice if I receive a plan, which just leaves two choices to be made. And I think that's better than three choices. Yeah, I get that my reasoning is as weak as piss, but I'm sure that if you were the leader and you're Resistance that it would make sense to you in that situation as well.

Second, I can completely believe that the 2/7 vs. 2/9 thing was a mistake on Drench's part. An unfortunate one to be sure, but a mistake nonetheless.

Third, and admittedly the embarrassing one, is that I voted very quickly after the plan was submitted. Actually, I voted just after this post:

Just curious: what was wrong with mastermind's randomized picks?

Now, while it looks like I'm objecting to Drench's plan in this post, I actually was just curious. For the above stated reasons, I didn't object to Drench putting himself on, and then deciding that he needed to re-randomize. But I wanted to hear it from his mouth (well, "mouth"). I didn't actually object. All of the subsequent conversation happened after my vote. It is

possible

that I would've voted differently had I waited (not definite; I'm still unsure what I think about all this jazz). But, the quick vote was certainly a play mistake on my part, and one that I will not repeat.

[Lowell]

I agree with fishy's comments about MMM.

Also, generally speaking, it's stupid to think we can just be mum about everytyhing and think we can luck ourselves to victory. Minor "tells" are better than nothing.

I'd say the drench thing is a null-tell at best, and I kinda give him "townpoints" if for no other reason than because the mistake was TOO obvious to be intentional. fishy's likely resistence as well.

I dont' really have an opinion on SC, so I say he should just go ahead and pick some people and let's just roll with it.

[Pittbunny]

But I cannot in good faith hand three plans to three untested people when we can reduce that number to two. I am playing to win
Soo yeah.

Disagree. Playing to win means cooperation in some fashion. I find the act of disagreeing with a random allotment in favor of throwing yourself on for a different plan, while a stronger play from Drench-town point of view, is really not that much better than random in regards to town as a whole. That is to say, it's far too soon to try and be selfish. I'm of the opinion that a mutual, random cooperation D1 would yield more results than your form of cherrypicking. Then again, discussion yields the best results, but as a base model I disagree with your intentions.

So, you're criticizing me for what you admit is a 'stronger play'? [paulinehanson]Please explain.[/paulinehanson]

And yes, discussion is excellent in these things. To be honest, I'm a bit thankful there's a furore: it gives much more information than a bunch of THIS PROPOSAL FEELS NICE I THINK I SHALL SUPPORT IT

Strong from a perspective. Yours. It would make sense, in your shoes, to make that play. The other 9/10 players don't share the same benefit from such a play, however. Hence why it's not necessarily the 'best' play, despite being the 'strongest' play in what was your position (leader).