I can’t help much. I know (but you can’t know) that at least one of @CF_Kane and @CaseyRobinson are evil because one of them failed the first mission. @CaseyRobinson giving me the NC and the fact that it was @CF_Kane who picked the failing team gives @CaseyRobinson a slight edge as good in my mind, but it’s hardly a certainty. There was really no one else @CaseyRobinson could choose for the NC.
I know that one of CF_Kane and CaseyRobinson is Evil because Kane revealed Casey as Evil. What I don’t know is whether or not you are Evil.
Edit: But I find it unlikely.
I’m agreed with scott that there wasn’t much choice there. Not giving it to a neighbour would have looked extremely suspicious. I guess the only thing we can conclude is that if Casey is evil, Dave (the other neighbour) probably isn’t.
Even giving the NC to anyone else would have been odd, as scott is far and away the most trusted player now.
So it’s pretty much a toss up for me, slight leaning towards Casey being evil on the basis that Kane said so and I tend to find that evil people aren’t certain to call someone else evil in those circumstances while a good person always will. Might just be my experience from face-to-face games though.
I agree they don’t always (or usually) but Kane was calling someone Evil either way (he just had to pick between Casey and scott). Plus, last game, Thraeg called two people Evil. That didn’t really work out all that well but since Kane didn’t have a choice about calling someone Evil, it’s definitely plausible.
I’m not saying Casey or Kane is definitely Evil. I’m saying there are legitimate arguments on both sides.
Edit: replacing a word with a close-synonym
Accepting all remaining votes. @soondifferent if you wish to use Chicago Proxy please say so in channel and whose vote you are taking.
Wait, there are two people on this team who were on the first team that failed?
It’s a matter of whether or not Casey is Evil. Casey says Kane is Evil, Kane says the same thing. It’s unlikely (but possible) that scott is Evil in addition to Kane or Casey. This team is just Casey saying “I think Kane was the only Evil on that team” which was also the case with giving scott No Confidence.
Ah okay – I think that makes some sense. Thank you. I suppose that Casey kind of had to put himself on the team (who doesn’t?) and I’d forgotten that Kane had called him out.
I’m planning on voting no, as I can’t just support Kane or Casey, and I’d rather me blindly pick and have 3 not 100% sure people than Casey pick and there be 3 not 100% sure people and a 50/50 Evil.
@Dave_Perkins please nominate team 2B
edit - renamed the game thread to not match the pm thread names I have with all of you because some weird inception thing was happening…
I would prefer to choose a team that includes no one from the failed team, but I’m happy to entertain opposite points of view.
Specifically, I’d lean toward the next three in the list, so if the team succeeds, we have the basis for some good card distribution. That would be me, Snebmi, rowe33, and rho.
Does the math work on that? If there’s one baddie on team 1, and you exclude all three, that means there are two baddies in the remaining five, and you’re certain to get one on your team.
I’d argue that there’s strong evidence I’m good. The only way that’s not true is if there were 2 baddies on a 3-person team and they somehow managed to avoid a double fail.
I agree with scott on this one (at least about some things). I definitely agree to avoid the Casey/Kane duo, as it doesn’t make sense to guess between them, but avoiding scott seems like asking for trouble. I’d suggest you and scott, plus two others. I’d like scott to play the spotlight but could see an argument for waiting till mission 3.
It’s not too hard to avoid a 2-person fail on a 3-person mission because it’s rare to fail them at all. But I agree it was unlikely.
Which just happened last game unfortunately. Kane has been pretty silent after his statement on Casey’s loyalty for some reason though.
We don’t have much to work with, we probably have to go with what’s more probable.
Those arguments are persuasive. I’ll go with Scott and the next two on the list, so my team is:
If this team doesn’t go through, it’s my turn. And that’s the third team, and with both an NC and Chicago Proxy in play, that’s the farthest I’m comfortable going. This team (from my perspective) has two unknowns and a probably Good player. I don’t know if I can necessarily pick a better team than that without randomly selecting from the remaining players. Plus if this team goes through, I get the next set of plot cards. I like that.
If scott turns out to be Evil (which, as I keep saying, is unlikely) the probability of two Evils is high (as there are two other unknowns). Then we can maybe get some signalling? Although last game Thraeg and Ot got away with the Thraeg-is-new-and-has-the-Eye thing. There’s no Eye in play so that would make the probability of a double-fail with two Evils high. 25%, to be exact, if there are two Evils on the team and they both flip a coin.
I very much doubt that - if scott is Good - there are two Evils on the team. That would make (from my perspective) rowe and Dave both Evil, and since Dave picked the team, that’s risky. But possible, I guess, so keep an eye out for any signalling, of course.
I’ve been posting a lot, so I’m not sure if I should be talking less, but evidently I’ve got a lot to say? I did a bunch of math last game but I couldn’t post it anywhere. So:
Chance (If two Evils on the team and they both flip coins):
I’m beginning to wonder if the Chicago Proxy is a bad thing for good early on whichever side is holding it. Might be worth just burning it this vote or next so we aren’t limited to 3 team options.
I’m inclined to agree. It does suck to only be able to go three votes. But given the convenience for me - I selfishly want cards, and I’d of course like to be on the team - and my feeling that we should get some use out of it, I think I’d rather wait until Round 3 so we have a little more information to go on.