Sloth, tell me more things about Rhand and why he’s a naughty boy.
...must you?
There's only one post so I want to hear more from him about where his head's at. But!
His post is wrong in ways all of us picked up, like, immediately. It works on the premise that (1) spies have to fail every mission they're in (false); and (2) spies would not want to be in the first team (false)
Doesn't seem like a mistaken notion Rhand would make, as either alignment, so he must have an interesting reason for it.
Shadow's post about he and Rhand doing this exact same thing as scum that Rhand said scum wouldn't do, except even more brazen makes it look worse, so.
Explain this too if you can. I’m not crazy about him but he could go either way for me.
Came off the gate with that 'let's let Shadow talk first' thing.
His idea of getting Shadow's unimpeded (uninfluenced) opinion before starting to interact also makes no sense if I'm reading it right: Wants to know who Shadow wants as a team, based on...no observations from him? Roles are randomized, Shadow can't make an 'unimpeded opinion' without data.
#10's response only connects with this previous discussion in a somewhat clumsy way (so you can throw out ideas, but not ask shadow to be in the group, got it).
And despite this somewhat strongish response, backed off you pushing on it in a somewhat fizzled out way ("hence me not being annoyed, anyway byeeeee~")
Different than what I remember from Prison. Although don't wanna do the same thing Tom did so trying to feel arounddd...
KJ, bro, ya spyin'?
I...what. Do you not recall the plan last resistance where you and I tried to force a first mission of all 3 scum? O.o
I like Vaimes. Wine or not, he’s going to pass the first mission, and if he is scum, I want him accountable early (more time to break him )
Accepting applications for the 3rd slot.
How many people were in that game?
Also, unless [scumcoaching], deliberately having more than one spy on a mission that doesn’t need two failures seems like a really bad idea.
It was a glorious idea, we had some epic secret communication in thread going. It was 7 players, same as here but with the fake mission mechanic.
Quote from Sloth »
Question in general to the group: What information can we glean if a team is rejected? Never played this sort of game before so trying to figure out its pros and cons.
There’s...not much to be gained from rejected teams for the first mission, and only if we are very lucky and propose a pure 2nd mission does a rejection tell us much. Other than just getting a feel for each other, the game kinda starts at mission 3. (Yes I know things before then matter, but that’s where it gets interesting.)Oh my gosh, I just had an excellent idea since it’s a 2 person mission. @Vaimes: love you but I’m taking Sloth with me. He’s next to propose and if I take you he proposes us + him, where’s now he has to choose someone other than himself and that makes for a fantastic data point.
shadow, walk me through your plan slowly. All I’m seeing is you/Sloth now, me/you/Sloth later. Why does he have to pick someone else?
Okay so, if I pick me/you, sloth proposes second and presumably picks me/you/himself. Because that’s what you do, you put yourself on a mission. There’s no decision there, there’s no active choice for him to make. But if the second mission is me/Sloth/x, Sloth has to pick the x here. If he picks you, great, we have the same mission, but he has to actually make that call. Which is a data point I can go back to later, both to read Sloth, and see who campaigns to be on the mission. Especially if mission 2 succeeds, we can glean pretty well who really couldn’t afford mission 2 to go forward.
Okay, but like what's your reasoning? Why should I trust your out-of-the-gate reads when we don't even have voting patterns yet? This just feels weird--it feels like you're jumping into tunneling before even trying to get a read
And GJ, I don't understand your #57, like yes failing mission 1 is suicide, bad guys don't have to fail so don't have to commit suicide, so bad guys want to be on mission so they can pass mission and get good guy cred. Saying that bad guys have to fail mission 1 is misleading and, at least in the in person games I've played, pretty much never happens, which is why mission 1 passing means nothing
I figured the Vaimes read was some internal tone read. This part:
Failing mission one is suicide in this game, so there’s no reason for spies to want to go on it.
Is he wrong? Or did I misunderstand and the dislike is all for the first reason?
I mean, I went over it in #52: It relies in a world where scum can't choose to pass the mission. He paints it as an inevitability despite knowing better?
I'm...really confused here. Like, I'm not fixating on the one post from rhand, but the fact that the contents aren't universally agreed to be bad has me questioning that I'm missing something.
Are you seeing what I'm saying, GJ?
I read his statement as null. Based on my face to face expirence with games like this, and this particular set, the first mission will pass, regardless of which two players will be put forward. I took Rhands statement as null, and didn't get why he was getting flak for it..
Oh
I misread his post, and thought he meant no way spies would want to fail it.
That still feels more like a derp, than a "I is a spy"
shadow, walk me through your plan slowly. All I’m seeing is you/Sloth now, me/you/Sloth later. Why does he have to pick someone else?
Okay so, if I pick me/you, sloth proposes second and presumably picks me/you/himself. Because that’s what you do, you put yourself on a mission. There’s no decision there, there’s no active choice for him to make. But if the second mission is me/Sloth/x, Sloth has to pick the x here. If he picks you, great, we have the same mission, but he has to actually make that call. Which is a data point I can go back to later, both to read Sloth, and see who campaigns to be on the mission. Especially if mission 2 succeeds, we can glean pretty well who really couldn’t afford mission 2 to go forward.
Hm. Not a horrible plan.
Though in the interest of fairness I should let you know that I reserve the right not to choose you at all or Vaimes. I mean, I might if I feel like it. Def not tying me down to it if that matters to you.
I read his statement as null. Based on my face to face expirence with games like this, and this particular set, the first mission will pass, regardless of which two players will be put forward. I took Rhands statement as null, and didn't get why he was getting flak for it..
Oh
I misread his post, and thought he meant no way spies would want to fail it.
That still feels more like a derp, than a "I is a spy"
I'm considering that too, though given he's played this game before with that same strategy it's...noteworthy. Not sure if scummy. Meh, time will tell.
Why do you consider this flak btw? I don't think there's been an actual, strong pressure on him as of yet. I just talked about his one post noncommittally, and Umami's mostly asking him to elaborate on what he means. Or do you define flak differently?
What do you make of Shadow's plan/Shadow in general?
As far as his plan goes, I don't really care at this stage. We can jabber and jabber all day long, but there isn't really a plan to lynch. Until we get a failure, I don't really care what the missions are. I would rather be on the team because I know I am a rebel, but I am sure every player feels the exact way. Plus the 2nd mission is a lot more alignment telling than the 2 person one.
I consider it flak, from the dislike the post is getting. I don't get it. I define flak as dislike for a post, or giving someone the business.
shadow, walk me through your plan slowly. All I’m seeing is you/Sloth now, me/you/Sloth later. Why does he have to pick someone else?
Okay so, if I pick me/you, sloth proposes second and presumably picks me/you/himself. Because that’s what you do, you put yourself on a mission. There’s no decision there, there’s no active choice for him to make. But if the second mission is me/Sloth/x, Sloth has to pick the x here. If he picks you, great, we have the same mission, but he has to actually make that call. Which is a data point I can go back to later, both to read Sloth, and see who campaigns to be on the mission. Especially if mission 2 succeeds, we can glean pretty well who really couldn’t afford mission 2 to go forward.
Hm. Not a horrible plan.
Though in the interest of fairness I should let you know that I reserve the right not to choose you at all or Vaimes. I mean, I might if I feel like it. Def not tying me down to it if that matters to you.
I have thoughts on this generally, but that seems just more data points for later
Vaimes is being mean to me.
Maybe it's residual salt for GoT.
That was still hilarious.
Ok so, the reason I came in trying to get unimpeded thoughts from shadow is very simple: This is not Mafia. The key difference between this and Mafia is that there are no flips. We cannot reliably get hard alignment information (with the exception of failing missions), so every nugget of relevant info needs to be mined if possible. I was hoping that shadow would come into the game giving some plan to handle the first mission. Unfortunately, I was not explicit in asking for that in my first post, so therefore he didn't answer before others had said some stuff that probably influenced what he would have said otherwise.
Yes, the first mission is almost auto-Success save for some ballsy vet Spy teams. Yes, since there's no hard info to go off of, it probably doesn't matter who gets sent from a top-down standpoint. But it's probably been long enough since Shadow's played Resistance/Avalon that he probably hasn't spent a whole lot of time looking at all the angles of what such a plan might result in, therefore potentially proposing a plan that, while not optimal, was honest/unconventional. The inverse of this would just be knowing offhand that the first mission doesn't provide much info and just standing two people to it.
Also, his proposal might have included two specific people (one of which may or may not have been him, which could be relevant). If there isn't all this theory in the thread right now, the why of Shadow's choices become more convoluted. That's why I was pushing to avoid that before Shadow had given his opinion.
I'm gonna start a second post for specific questions/responses so this doesn't get too convoluted.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
@Sloth: I think rejected teams can be used to weigh against in-thread stances looking for consistency. Progression is one tool we have to solve this game.
I think similarly, seeing who accepts a mission is relevant as well. If 5 people accept a mission, at least one Spy has done so, and that could be relevant. At that point, consistency sometimes takes a back seat to "things Spies need to do to win".
@GJ: What do you think of Umami? He keeps asking things without really asserting any opinions. Do you think this is AI?
Vaimes: I like you better than Sloth, that's why I care more.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
Umami as I said is coming off as noncommital initially. Could be a thing, but we'll see I guess.
What should I be committing to at this point? We haven't even had a vote yet. Rhand hasn't answered my question. I already voted on Shadow's nomination. I want more information. Throwing out weak reads and tunneling doesn't help us. I've never played a game of Avalon where the entire game was solved as a loyal servant of arthur before the first nomination--honestly it feels incredibly slow and like a waste of time
I read his statement as null. Based on my face to face expirence with games like this, and this particular set, the first mission will pass, regardless of which two players will be put forward. I took Rhands statement as null, and didn't get why he was getting flak for it..
Oh
I misread his post, and thought he meant no way spies would want to fail it.
That still feels more like a derp, than a "I is a spy"
Well yes, that is what I mean. And because of that, there’s no urgency for them to be on that mission either.
I think spies would even prefer not to be on that mission.
@Shadow: I remember very well our plan to fail mission one last time lol.
But that was a different setup. And Cantrip didn’t get our secret communication anyways
I am very sure you as spy in this game would not try something like that because you would know I am watching for signs.
I read his statement as null. Based on my face to face expirence with games like this, and this particular set, the first mission will pass, regardless of which two players will be put forward. I took Rhands statement as null, and didn't get why he was getting flak for it..
Oh
I misread his post, and thought he meant no way spies would want to fail it.
That still feels more like a derp, than a "I is a spy"
I'm considering that too, though given he's played this game before with that same strategy it's...noteworthy. Not sure if scummy. Meh, time will tell.
Why do you consider this flak btw? I don't think there's been an actual, strong pressure on him as of yet. I just talked about his one post noncommittally, and Umami's mostly asking him to elaborate on what he means. Or do you define flak differently?
What do you make of Shadow's plan/Shadow in general?
He calls himself noncommittal. Now iso him and read what he writes about me.
He is committed to the read in his words, but he doesn’t realise that because he knows the read is wrong.
His post is wrong in ways all of us picked up, like, immediately. It works on the premise that (1) spies have to fail every mission they're in (false); and (2) spies would not want to be in the first team (false)
he wants me to look bad and goes into it with spy mindset.
I did not work from the premise that spies have to fail. He’s putting words in my mouth there. What I obviously meant is that spies have to pass Mission 1 anyways because failing it is suicide.
The only way to make a fail in mission one work in spies advantage is what Shadow and I tried to accomplish last game: have a team with only spies and make exactly one of them fail the mission. Which requires sneaky communication and I’m pretty sure that’s not happening here.
And the second part: there is no incentive for spies to be in the first mission because they’ll be voting to pass the mission anyways.
But Sloth thinks there is incentive and spies would actively try to wiggle their way in? That’s probably because he is a spy and thinks passing mission one gives him towncred. (Hint: it doesn’t)
And then the worst part is that he doesn’t blink an eye when Vaimes and GJ openly solicit for going on the mission while he believes spies want to go on the mission.
What are you talking about? I'm not scumreading sloth? Also, I'm not looking for permission for anything, I didn't like your #21 and given the set-up of first mission passes, run it again +1 person, I think that scum very much want to be on that mission. I think your logic is flawed and in my experience scum want to be on every mission possible. That said, Killjoy said it was NAI for you and I don't want to get caught up in an early post I disagree with all game.
Also, I don't know why early commitment to reads is viewed as such a town trait--I know a lot of people use this as an indicator but to me it just doesn't make sense and is easy to fake. Rhand, I also know you're supposed to be great at reading people, so I don't want to dismiss your reads but I also don't want to blindly trust them, especially with no explanation because I assume you're good at being scum too. I'm not someone who thinks I can solve right out of the gate and I think by doing that you probably become more invested in proving yourself right than actually figuring it out. I'm an easy bus--it's something that's become abundantly clear to me. As town, at least online, I can't talk my way out of a mislynch. I assume you can talk your way out of anything. Why in the world would I set up a situation for you against me? There's a 50% chance you're scum--I'm not going to give you a pass and blindly trust you even though I know you can easily get others to dismiss me. Why would you want me to?
@Sloth: I think rejected teams can be used to weigh against in-thread stances looking for consistency. Progression is one tool we have to solve this game.
I think similarly, seeing who accepts a mission is relevant as well. If 5 people accept a mission, at least one Spy has done so, and that could be relevant. At that point, consistency sometimes takes a back seat to "things Spies need to do to win".
@GJ: What do you think of Umami? He keeps asking things without really asserting any opinions. Do you think this is AI?
Vaimes: I like you better than Sloth, that's why I care more.
Pretty much. I think it's empty work which is slightly eyebrow raising, but I don't think it's necessary wolfy.
Like, I have played these type of games before. And until we actually get failure proposal/denies to group nominations, I don't really think it's worth looking into posts too much.
Rhand, I think you are over thinking it way too much. Spies don't care either way to be on mission 1. It literally doesn't matter. No one is even going to care about mission 1, unless it fails. It's just night 0 for mafia.
Figuring out alignments from post is tough because everyone, regardless of their alignment has the same objective and same motivation: get on the mission.
KJ likes everyone, Umami feels like she’s looking for permission to scumread me and Sloth...
I read this as, 'she's looking for permission to scumread me and sloth.' You meant, 'she looking for permission to scumread me, and sloth...' separate thought. That's my bad for reading too quickly
@GJ: that’s what I was saying all along. Spies don’t care. Which makes Vaimes not a spy.
Okay, I know I said I wouldn't fixate, but have you never played a game where someone says 'pick me, pick me!' for the first mission and is scum? I have a friend that does it literally every game regardless of position. To me, it's NAI. Agree with GJ
I do revisit reads later in the game. For now I’m pretty sure I found mafia in Sloth, quite sure about KJ and less sure about Umami.
It’s a decent start.
Vaimes is being mean to me.
Maybe it's residual salt for GoT.
That was still hilarious.
Ok so, the reason I came in trying to get unimpeded thoughts from shadow is very simple: This is not Mafia. The key difference between this and Mafia is that there are no flips. We cannot reliably get hard alignment information (with the exception of failing missions), so every nugget of relevant info needs to be mined if possible. I was hoping that shadow would come into the game giving some plan to handle the first mission. Unfortunately, I was not explicit in asking for that in my first post, so therefore he didn't answer before others had said some stuff that probably influenced what he would have said otherwise.
Yes, the first mission is almost auto-Success save for some ballsy vet Spy teams. Yes, since there's no hard info to go off of, it probably doesn't matter who gets sent from a top-down standpoint. But it's probably been long enough since Shadow's played Resistance/Avalon that he probably hasn't spent a whole lot of time looking at all the angles of what such a plan might result in, therefore potentially proposing a plan that, while not optimal, was honest/unconventional. The inverse of this would just be knowing offhand that the first mission doesn't provide much info and just standing two people to it.
Also, his proposal might have included two specific people (one of which may or may not have been him, which could be relevant). If there isn't all this theory in the thread right now, the why of Shadow's choices become more convoluted. That's why I was pushing to avoid that before Shadow had given his opinion.
I'm gonna start a second post for specific questions/responses so this doesn't get too convoluted.
Yeah, I follow what you're saying here. It just doesn't address your "intent" of wanting Shadow to make a decision in a vacuum. You didn't say "let's not talk about the team and wait on shadow," more like "let's not talk at all and have shadow make a choice from nothing" - I guess this could be what you mean when you said you weren't explicit in what you were saying, but...eh, thoughts for later.
Also bringing up this idea at all kinda taints that plan for Shadow, you realize this?
There's only one post so I want to hear more from him about where his head's at. But!
His post is wrong in ways all of us picked up, like, immediately. It works on the premise that (1) spies have to fail every mission they're in (false); and (2) spies would not want to be in the first team (false)
Doesn't seem like a mistaken notion Rhand would make, as either alignment, so he must have an interesting reason for it.
Shadow's post about he and Rhand doing this exact same thing as scum that Rhand said scum wouldn't do, except even more brazen makes it look worse, so.
Came off the gate with that 'let's let Shadow talk first' thing.
His idea of getting Shadow's unimpeded (uninfluenced) opinion before starting to interact also makes no sense if I'm reading it right: Wants to know who Shadow wants as a team, based on...no observations from him? Roles are randomized, Shadow can't make an 'unimpeded opinion' without data.
#10's response only connects with this previous discussion in a somewhat clumsy way (so you can throw out ideas, but not ask shadow to be in the group, got it).
And despite this somewhat strongish response, backed off you pushing on it in a somewhat fizzled out way ("hence me not being annoyed, anyway byeeeee~")
Different than what I remember from Prison. Although don't wanna do the same thing Tom did so trying to feel arounddd...
KJ, bro, ya spyin'?
We’re on the same page now.
Oh my gosh, I just had an excellent idea since it’s a 2 person mission. @Vaimes: love you but I’m taking Sloth with me. He’s next to propose and if I take you he proposes us + him, where’s now he has to choose someone other than himself and that makes for a fantastic data point.
Propose Shadow/Sloth
I don't get the dislike of Rhand's 21. I thought the exact same thing.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
@Shadow sure, why not.
On the rest, I don't really follow what changes for rejections on phase 3, but I figure it's a learn-by-doing sort of thing
Is he wrong? Or did I misunderstand and the dislike is all for the first reason?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Okay, but like what's your reasoning? Why should I trust your out-of-the-gate reads when we don't even have voting patterns yet? This just feels weird--it feels like you're jumping into tunneling before even trying to get a read
And GJ, I don't understand your #57, like yes failing mission 1 is suicide, bad guys don't have to fail so don't have to commit suicide, so bad guys want to be on mission so they can pass mission and get good guy cred. Saying that bad guys have to fail mission 1 is misleading and, at least in the in person games I've played, pretty much never happens, which is why mission 1 passing means nothing
I'm...really confused here. Like, I'm not fixating on the one post from rhand, but the fact that the contents aren't universally agreed to be bad has me questioning that I'm missing something.
Are you seeing what I'm saying, GJ?
Boi bye.
Oh
I misread his post, and thought he meant no way spies would want to fail it.
That still feels more like a derp, than a "I is a spy"
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Though in the interest of fairness I should let you know that I reserve the right not to choose you at all or Vaimes. I mean, I might if I feel like it. Def not tying me down to it if that matters to you.
Why do you consider this flak btw? I don't think there's been an actual, strong pressure on him as of yet. I just talked about his one post noncommittally, and Umami's mostly asking him to elaborate on what he means. Or do you define flak differently?
What do you make of Shadow's plan/Shadow in general?
As far as his plan goes, I don't really care at this stage. We can jabber and jabber all day long, but there isn't really a plan to lynch. Until we get a failure, I don't really care what the missions are. I would rather be on the team because I know I am a rebel, but I am sure every player feels the exact way. Plus the 2nd mission is a lot more alignment telling than the 2 person one.
I consider it flak, from the dislike the post is getting. I don't get it. I define flak as dislike for a post, or giving someone the business.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Maybe it's residual salt for GoT.
That was still hilarious.
Ok so, the reason I came in trying to get unimpeded thoughts from shadow is very simple: This is not Mafia. The key difference between this and Mafia is that there are no flips. We cannot reliably get hard alignment information (with the exception of failing missions), so every nugget of relevant info needs to be mined if possible. I was hoping that shadow would come into the game giving some plan to handle the first mission. Unfortunately, I was not explicit in asking for that in my first post, so therefore he didn't answer before others had said some stuff that probably influenced what he would have said otherwise.
Yes, the first mission is almost auto-Success save for some ballsy vet Spy teams. Yes, since there's no hard info to go off of, it probably doesn't matter who gets sent from a top-down standpoint. But it's probably been long enough since Shadow's played Resistance/Avalon that he probably hasn't spent a whole lot of time looking at all the angles of what such a plan might result in, therefore potentially proposing a plan that, while not optimal, was honest/unconventional. The inverse of this would just be knowing offhand that the first mission doesn't provide much info and just standing two people to it.
Also, his proposal might have included two specific people (one of which may or may not have been him, which could be relevant). If there isn't all this theory in the thread right now, the why of Shadow's choices become more convoluted. That's why I was pushing to avoid that before Shadow had given his opinion.
I'm gonna start a second post for specific questions/responses so this doesn't get too convoluted.
I think similarly, seeing who accepts a mission is relevant as well. If 5 people accept a mission, at least one Spy has done so, and that could be relevant. At that point, consistency sometimes takes a back seat to "things Spies need to do to win".
@GJ: What do you think of Umami? He keeps asking things without really asserting any opinions. Do you think this is AI?
Vaimes: I like you better than Sloth, that's why I care more.
Sorry Sloth, looks can only take you so far.
Shadow, I like how much he's thinking ahead with 62. I like the... efficiency he's trying to achieve with his plan. I'm willing to vote with it.
Umami as I said is coming off as noncommital initially. Could be a thing, but we'll see I guess.
GJ is sitting back and analyzing stuff, which is a thing he does. It's NAI.
Vaimes is doing stuff, and is fine?
Sloth also doing things, and is also fine?
I do not think that volunteering to be in the first mission is telling at all unless it fails.
What should I be committing to at this point? We haven't even had a vote yet. Rhand hasn't answered my question. I already voted on Shadow's nomination. I want more information. Throwing out weak reads and tunneling doesn't help us. I've never played a game of Avalon where the entire game was solved as a loyal servant of arthur before the first nomination--honestly it feels incredibly slow and like a waste of time
What do you think of shadow now that he's given some thoughts as to how he wants to proceed?
There's no deadline, so uh, I guess we all just PM Grape with our votes.
Shadow has proposed:
Shadow and Sloth
Please vote by PM. Once all votes have been received I will reveal the results.
Until Monday I will be continuing with my no deadline policy.
Well yes, that is what I mean. And because of that, there’s no urgency for them to be on that mission either.
I think spies would even prefer not to be on that mission.
@Shadow: I remember very well our plan to fail mission one last time lol.
But that was a different setup. And Cantrip didn’t get our secret communication anyways
I am very sure you as spy in this game would not try something like that because you would know I am watching for signs.
Calling Sloth / KJ / Umami.
He calls himself noncommittal. Now iso him and read what he writes about me.
He is committed to the read in his words, but he doesn’t realise that because he knows the read is wrong.
he wants me to look bad and goes into it with spy mindset.
I did not work from the premise that spies have to fail. He’s putting words in my mouth there. What I obviously meant is that spies have to pass Mission 1 anyways because failing it is suicide.
The only way to make a fail in mission one work in spies advantage is what Shadow and I tried to accomplish last game: have a team with only spies and make exactly one of them fail the mission. Which requires sneaky communication and I’m pretty sure that’s not happening here.
And the second part: there is no incentive for spies to be in the first mission because they’ll be voting to pass the mission anyways.
But Sloth thinks there is incentive and spies would actively try to wiggle their way in? That’s probably because he is a spy and thinks passing mission one gives him towncred. (Hint: it doesn’t)
And then the worst part is that he doesn’t blink an eye when Vaimes and GJ openly solicit for going on the mission while he believes spies want to go on the mission.
Also, I don't know why early commitment to reads is viewed as such a town trait--I know a lot of people use this as an indicator but to me it just doesn't make sense and is easy to fake. Rhand, I also know you're supposed to be great at reading people, so I don't want to dismiss your reads but I also don't want to blindly trust them, especially with no explanation because I assume you're good at being scum too. I'm not someone who thinks I can solve right out of the gate and I think by doing that you probably become more invested in proving yourself right than actually figuring it out. I'm an easy bus--it's something that's become abundantly clear to me. As town, at least online, I can't talk my way out of a mislynch. I assume you can talk your way out of anything. Why in the world would I set up a situation for you against me? There's a 50% chance you're scum--I'm not going to give you a pass and blindly trust you even though I know you can easily get others to dismiss me. Why would you want me to?
Pretty much. I think it's empty work which is slightly eyebrow raising, but I don't think it's necessary wolfy.
Like, I have played these type of games before. And until we actually get failure proposal/denies to group nominations, I don't really think it's worth looking into posts too much.
Rhand, I think you are over thinking it way too much. Spies don't care either way to be on mission 1. It literally doesn't matter. No one is even going to care about mission 1, unless it fails. It's just night 0 for mafia.
Figuring out alignments from post is tough because everyone, regardless of their alignment has the same objective and same motivation: get on the mission.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Where did that come from?
Am I that bad at expressing my thoughts?
Although I did catch you in an early post and then completely forgot about that later :/
I wouldn't clear him off that alone...
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I read this as, 'she's looking for permission to scumread me and sloth.' You meant, 'she looking for permission to scumread me, and sloth...' separate thought. That's my bad for reading too quickly
Okay, I know I said I wouldn't fixate, but have you never played a game where someone says 'pick me, pick me!' for the first mission and is scum? I have a friend that does it literally every game regardless of position. To me, it's NAI. Agree with GJ
It’s a decent start.
Also bringing up this idea at all kinda taints that plan for Shadow, you realize this?