| Author |
Message |
| Ctorj |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:59 pm Post subject: 1 |
|
| Chaz wrote: |
Man. I blew this one hard.  |
That's what she said. |
|
 |
| lex* |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:38 pm Post subject: 0 |
|
| wow my laptop dies and look what happens! I've been wanting to try this game so I'm in for a second round if anyone's up to mod. Also i have a netbook now so I'm back |
|
 |
| dethwing |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:12 pm Post subject: -1 |
|
I guess I have to apologize...it never occurred to me that everyone would want a private message. I posted an announcement, updated the title, said the spies were notified, I figured that was enough.
Next time I'd message everyone. |
|
 |
| wordcross |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:51 pm Post subject: -2 |
|
| Bwahahahaha =D |
|
 |
| MatthewV |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:58 pm Post subject: -3 |
|
| We really should blame wordcross, Poisonium, and ralphmerridew for not admitting to their guilt. |
|
 |
| Sentran |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: -4 |
|
| As I was saying all along, I was not a spy. I really did not notice the game had started until the day AFTER it had started. I had a strong feeling that Chaz was not a spy either. |
|
 |
| Undercover Monk |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: -5 |
|
Crap! I think this was mostly my fault. I figured picking myself would be viewed as suspicious and I really wanted the info of having several spies on that first team. Sorry Guys but yeah I would play again it was interesting.
Im also thinking of running a survivor game if I could get enough interest seeing as Survivor Redemtion Island premiered Wednesday. |
|
 |
| wordcross |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:02 pm Post subject: -6 |
|
Mostly because I knew what the next round would be, so we'd be up 2-1 and then it was highly unlikely that the rounds with 5 players would be able to keep the spies out. Plus I got to feign confusion over why it happened  |
|
 |
| Chaz |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:48 pm Post subject: -7 |
|
Crap. And I almost voted no!
Man. I blew this one hard.
I'm still not entirely clear why wordcross failed his round, but I guess if it works, then it works, right?  |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:24 am Post subject: -8 |
|
Well, my logic was correct (of course ) but the team I chose would have lost, also. I said that if my theory was incorrect, I was at least getting a 50% chance of success, but I happened to hit the wrong 50%. |
|
 |
| mv* |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:14 am Post subject: -9 |
|
| What would happen if the spies had to submit pass or fail before the leader chose the team? |
|
 |
| mv* |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:06 am Post subject: -10 |
|
There needs to be more rounds with fewer people on them for the rebels to have a chance. Or the rules need to be changed because I don't think we could ever win with this setup.
I will remain convinced that a longer game benefits the resistance. Without any solid information, the mix of theories is just too great.
And 2/4 of the early posters were spies. We should have trusted that more. |
|
 |
| ralphmerridew |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:28 am Post subject: -11 |
|
Congrats to MatthewV for picking out two scum, even if he couldn't convince anybody.
I said it favored the spies before we started and still think so. Every proposed team had enough spies for them to get a point. |
|
 |
| wordcross |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:46 am Post subject: -12 |
|
| Also, I hope I'm on mattV's team next time around. He seemed to be the most on point for all that he wasn't very good at convincing others. |
|
 |
| wordcross |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:45 am Post subject: -13 |
|
| I can't imagine how frustrating that game was from the rebel point of view. As a spy it was hilarity =D |
|
 |
| dethwing |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:26 am Post subject: -14 |
|
Sentran: No
RM: Yes
Zag: No
wordcross: Yes
bgg: Yes
MattV: No
Chaz: Yes
Monk: Yes
Poison: Yes
Motion passes, the team is launched.
Pass, Pass, Pass, Fail, Fail.
With a double fail the spies score a point winning the game 3-1.
Your spies were: Wordcross, Poisonium, ralphmerridew
Thanks everyone for playing, hope to do this again. |
|
 |
| MatthewV |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:57 am Post subject: -15 |
|
In fact, Sentran's behavior yesterday makes me think he isn't a spy. Well, not entirely, but I think wordcross is taking his place.
The funny thing is that we think nearly every leader as being a spy because of the team they picked. |
|
 |
| Chaz |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:28 am Post subject: -16 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Sentran wrote: |
| Reminder to self: do not post while cranky. ... |
You didn't seem cranky to me. If you imagine that I was owed an apology, you're quite mistaken -- as far as I can see, you did nothing to cause offense. |
I agree with Zag, and if the two of us agree on something, it couldn't possibly be wrong. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:34 am Post subject: -17 |
|
| Sentran wrote: |
| Fools all. Oh well, after we (the resistance) lose this game, you will see that I am not a spy. |
Oh, they're not all fools. The spies have been quite clever.
Please finish the voting so we can end this. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:33 am Post subject: -18 |
|
| Sentran wrote: |
| Reminder to self: do not post while cranky. ... |
You didn't seem cranky to me. If you imagine that I was owed an apology, you're quite mistaken -- as far as I can see, you did nothing to cause offense. |
|
 |
| Sentran |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:16 am Post subject: -19 |
|
| Fools all. Oh well, after we (the resistance) lose this game, you will see that I am not a spy. |
|
 |
| Poisonium |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:58 pm Post subject: -20 |
|
| Also, since Bgg and Sentran are my by far most likely picks for spies, I can accept this. It certainly won't have more than 1 spy. |
|
 |
| Poisonium |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:04 pm Post subject: -21 |
|
| Quote: |
| I'm not willing to swap Pois onto the team. His vote for Zag's team made him too suspicious in my mind. |
To me, it seemed more than likely that the former team (wordcross, Chaz, Zag, Sentran) only contained one spy. Since I know I'm not a spy, adding me would still only mean it contained one spy. From my (and only my) point of view, that was a definite win for the rebels, which I don't see why I should vote against. |
|
 |
| dethwing |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:06 pm Post subject: -22 |
|
| I for one didn't take it personally. No worries. |
|
 |
| Sentran |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:59 pm Post subject: -23 |
|
| Sentran wrote: |
| The only thing I’d like to add to this is that I’ve had a few RL problems with my kids this week, and it’s likely coloring my judgment. If you feel I’m attacking or taking out my frustrations with players on the forum, you’re probably right, and I apologize. Unless RL changes drastically over the next week, I will likely be taking some time off of the site after the end of the current games. |
Reminder to self: do not post while cranky. Don't even log on. Badness will ensue. I'm sorry for my grumpy outbursts yesterday. I'm feeling much better today, and apologize profusely for projecting my anger on to this site |
|
 |
| Sentran |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:55 pm Post subject: -24 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Chaz wrote: |
The thing that makes me the most suspicious of you, Zag, is that you understand why Monk's proposal was a bad idea for town, but you voted yes anyway.
|
An excellent point. From my point of view (at the time), a random three was just a random three, and I didn't have any reason to judge that one better or worse than any other. I remember at the time thinking it was a little odd for someone not to pick himself, but I didn't think it through. It wasn't until later that I thought to consider it from the point of view of the person picking the team, and realized that it was more odd than I originally thought. |
So in retrospect you decided that the team was a poor idea, just as UM claims that in retrospect he realized the team was a poor idea. I don't believe that the initial team choice was a telling point for either of your guilt. |
|
 |
| Chaz |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:15 pm Post subject: -25 |
|
| Well, mine is sent. |
|
 |
| Chaz |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:40 am Post subject: -26 |
|
I haven't got the package yet; it's at my parent's house. I'm super excited, but it was a blizzard in Utah tonight. I will post pics as soon as it's in my hands.
(I usually ship things there because there's usually somebody there, and nobody at my house in the day.) |
|
 |
| mv* |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:33 am Post subject: -27 |
|
| Chaz wrote: |
| I'm still not sold on MattV's innocence, but I got a package in the mail from him today, so I'll extend him some more trust than I normally would. =D |
Did I really forget to send the $20 bill?  |
|
 |
| Chaz |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:21 am Post subject: -28 |
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| Mind picking one that was actually possible? Who would fail day one if that was the team? |
HA! Good point!
That puts you ahead of Sentran, and right next to Zag.
I'm still not sold on MattV's innocence, but I got a package in the mail from him today, so I'll extend him some more trust than I normally would. =D |
|
 |
| bgg1996 |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:37 am Post subject: -29 |
|
Voted yes.
There's no way I could be wrong on two of them.
However, I do think one of them might be spies. The game isn't won yet.
If any, which do you think could possibly be a spy? |
|
 |
| wordcross |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:18 am Post subject: -30 |
|
I think the team's about as solid as I can imagine any would be. I'm not certain we're keeping the spies out, but any substitutions are either the same or worse.
Vote: yes
If we have less than 2 spies on the team (very likely, imo), then we will have a 100% pass tonight. no reason for a single spy to vote fail when it will do no good and give us info on the makeup of the team. We either lose, or we're back to the same group and arguments for tomorrow. Sounds pretty hopeless when you put it that way  |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:45 am Post subject: -31 |
|
| I'll go through with the formality of voting no, even though I know that the spies will all vote yes, plus you've got a deluded few who will join you. Then the game will be over and we can try another. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:43 am Post subject: -32 |
|
| Chaz wrote: |
The thing that makes me the most suspicious of you, Zag, is that you understand why Monk's proposal was a bad idea for town, but you voted yes anyway.
|
An excellent point. From my point of view (at the time), a random three was just a random three, and I didn't have any reason to judge that one better or worse than any other. I remember at the time thinking it was a little odd for someone not to pick himself, but I didn't think it through. It wasn't until later that I thought to consider it from the point of view of the person picking the team, and realized that it was more odd than I originally thought. |
|
 |
| ralphmerridew |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:39 am Post subject: -33 |
|
If UM's initial play didn't have to get all three spies. If it had ID'd two spies, it would have been worth it. (Luck would have put two or three spies on the list with probability 16/56 = 2/7.)
It was flawed even considering that. The spies can eliminate the risk of collision fairly easily if they follow the rule that only the first spy listed should even consider failing (with the exception of round 4).
I'm not willing to swap Pois onto the team. His vote for Zag's team made him too suspicious in my mind.
team is rm, Chaz, wx, UM, MV.
(least suspicious) rm, Chaz, wx, UM, MV, bgg, Sentran, Pois, Zag (most suspicious) |
|
 |
| bgg1996 |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:38 am Post subject: -34 |
|
| Chaz wrote: |
My money is on Zag, MattV, and Sentran.
bgg only *just* falls shy of being on this list.
| Zag wrote: |
| Conclusion: Monk's shot in the dark was a move that only a spy would make. No serious townie would have thought it was a good idea. You supporting it puts you in question. |
So, if Monk's not a spy, then you will stand all PWN'd?
The thing that makes me the most suspicious of you, Zag, is that you understand why Monk's proposal was a bad idea for town, but you voted yes anyway.
I can buy that Monk might have made an ignorant choice (especially if he had deluded himself into thinking that he was choosing all scum.) I can't buy that you would have made a consciously "bad idea" choice. The only way you would have said yes is if you're a spy. If you're not, then I'll stand all PWN'd.  |
Mind picking one that was actually possible? Who would fail day one if that was the team? |
|
 |
| Chaz |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:18 am Post subject: -35 |
|
| For the record when I use the words "ignorant" and "deluded", I'm not looking down on Monk. I mean ignorant in a "we don't know what we're doing" kind of way. I mean "deluded' in a way that I usually play most of my VSGs. |
|
 |
| Chaz |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:17 am Post subject: -36 |
|
My money is on Zag, MattV, and Sentran.
bgg only *just* falls shy of being on this list.
| Zag wrote: |
| Conclusion: Monk's shot in the dark was a move that only a spy would make. No serious townie would have thought it was a good idea. You supporting it puts you in question. |
So, if Monk's not a spy, then you will stand all PWN'd?
The thing that makes me the most suspicious of you, Zag, is that you understand why Monk's proposal was a bad idea for town, but you voted yes anyway.
I can buy that Monk might have made an ignorant choice (especially if he had deluded himself into thinking that he was choosing all scum.) I can't buy that you would have made a consciously "bad idea" choice. The only way you would have said yes is if you're a spy. If you're not, then I'll stand all PWN'd.  |
|
 |
| bgg1996 |
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:13 am Post subject: -37 |
|
1. Poisonium. He is a guaranteed spy, that is, if Chaz is innocent.
2. Zag. He is one of the three that voted yes to the last team, and those three people would make perfect sense as a spy team.
3. Sentran. Sentran was also one of the three. Seems only slightly less evil than Zag.
Those are my top three spy picks. I could be wrong on one, but I doubt it. |
|
 |
| Sentran |
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: -38 |
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| Looking at the probability it was dumb but from my perspective I knew who I was and wanted more info on the other players. |
Looking at it that way, it sort of made sense. 20/20 hindsight...
Since I'm next up for the chopping block, I propose a team creation method that will take more time, but allow everyone to share their opinions. I propose that everyone rank all other players in terms of least to most suspicious. That way, I can base a team on who is less suspected overall, prior to voting on the team. |
|
 |