@CF_Kane
@scottagibson
@CaseyRobinson
Please resubmit your votes now that we’ve cleared up my omission.
Mission 1 Results
@CF_Kane (leader)
@scottagibson
@CaseyRobinson
In Dramatic Order
Success
Success
Failure
@CaseyRobinson please distribute:
No Confidence: You may null an approved Vote and force leadership change / One time use – The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to reject an approved Mission team (successful Vote). Using this card counts as a failed Vote
Overheard Conversation: You must look at the Affiliation (Good/Evil) card of a player on your immediate right or left / Extended description: Use immediately – The player to whom the Leader passes this card must look at the Affiliation (Good/Evil) card of one adjacent player. MB: The "adjacent" player is up or down the list; select the adjacent player publicly and the moderator will PM the result
Does anyone see any signaling? I’m inclined to believe we only had 1 evil on that team but it’s not based on any scientific evidence, just a feeling.
I’m hoping the Overheard Conversation will go to Dave_Perkins here, to check Casey and hopefully clear one member of that team to go again. Or to CF_Kane to look at Casey isn’t bad either, I guess: a conflict makes scott likely to be good, whereas a lack of conflict makes scott extremely likely to be evil.
We’re going to have one person on a failed team vet another person on a failed team?
I don’t even know what that means.
Yeah I don’t get that either.
Yeah, too bad we didn’t have a spotlight so we would have a better idea of what happened.
@CF_Kane you have received Overhead Conversation
Please choose in channel whether to see the loyalty of @soondifferent or @CaseyRobinson
@Lantz, I’ll check @CaseyRobinson’s loyalty.
Sorry team, I didn’t have much to go on. I hope we can make something positive out of this.
@CF_Kane has been notified of @CaseyRobinson’s loyalty.
@CaseyRobinson you can give out the second card and propose a team at your convenience.
When I first read some of the old games, I would always hope someone would be revealed as Evil. Now I’m not quite sure what to think. It’s a ballsy move to declare someone as Evil so early in the game, so I’d normally be happy to join the Casey-Is-Evil camp, but it’s also a ballsy move (if you’re Evil) to give a card to check you to a good player. If both Kane and Casey are Evil they are doing an amazing job for their team.
By a conflict I mean one person calling another evil. So if Kane calls Casey evil one of the two must be evil. While if Kane calls Casey good, either Kane or scott must be evil. Neither case technically says anything about the other player in the team, but it’s pretty likely we only had one evil on the team given the apparent lack of signalling.
Anyway, as things have shaken out I now trust scott a fair bit.
@soondifferent picks a team that skips @CF_Kane, then @CF_Kane returns the favor. What’s that about?
Could be nothing. Could be EVERYTHING.
At least we have some info starting to chain up.
Huh, I thought it would be @scottagibson. Still, it makes this next move easier.
@Lantz NC to @scottagibson.
Need a little more time to fill out the team.
Card Update:
@rho21
@scottagibson No Confidence | In the Spotlight
@soondifferent Chicago Proxy
@CF_Kane
@CaseyRobinson
@Dave_Perkins
@Snebmi
@rowe33
Reasons to believe Casey is Evil:
- CF_Kane said he was, and there wasn’t much grounds for that. Then again, if Kane said Casey was Good, he would be saying scott was Evil. So he’s declaring someone as Evil either way. As I’m typing this, I’m becoming less convinced that this is a good argument.
- On a failed 3-person mission. He has a 50% chance of being Evil, as Kane has said he is. Usually this would be a 33% chance.
Reasons to believe Kane is Evil:
- Casey gave him a card, which is a ballsy move if Kane is good, considering the most logical play is to check Casey, given that the other option is to check soon, which makes less sense.
- Same as Casey’s 2.
On this team composition…it’s definitely not random. Two behind (skipping Kane) and one forward. Obviously we’re going to get a fail if we just take the next four people - the odds that all three evils are in rho, scott, soon, and Kane are rather low.
On Casey’s picks:
scott: Scott seems likely to be good from most perspectives. I’m not too concerned about this pick.
soon: I have no read on soon. The only logic I can think of for this pick is to appear more random or because soon skipped Kane in team picks.
Dave: I don’t have a read on Dave either, who hasn’t really been included in anything. Hasn’t been chosen (that I can remember, I don’t think I’m wrong but I could be) and hasn’t picked a team.
If anyone else has any insights on this team, I’d like to hear them. With a No Confidence and Chicago Proxy in play (even with the low odds they’re both in Evil hands) I’m not comfortable going past 2C (which happens to be my team pick, part of the reason I’m asking for advice). But that’s also not to say I’m on board with rejecting till my pick without good reason.