Well, we don’t have any particular reason that I’m aware of to distrust Lantz or Casey, so I would have gone for one of them over Rho. So I voted against the team, but hope that I’m wrong and it turns out to be successful.
Generally, outside of certain circumstances, an evil player has almost no incentive to claim a good player is evil. It creates a mechanism to out that evil player as soon as someone else is able to verify the alignment of the accused. It’s far safer for evil to report honestly about good players. It even causes some people to trust the evil player, though there’s really no good reason for that. E.g, you trust Ott more than Rho, since Ott says you are good. But that tells us nothing at all about Ott.
I mean, it doesn’t make sense for an evil player to lie about a good player except that since it doesn’t make sense then people will think that you’re good because it wouldn’t make sense if you were evil…
It seems that we have some level of clustered evil exposed and hence they were put under pressure to be risky. I can’t untangle it now but I think that once the knott is untangled some moves might make more sense.
Just noting this for later when we sort out the early mess!
There’s obviously no way I can vote for a team with rho on it.
I would expect no less.
It contained two evil players. In my experience it’s best for the evil team to have precisely one evil player on each of the early teams, the better to avoid putting too many fail cards in. (Even if they plan to pass the first, the team for the second is usually the first team plus one player, if it passes.)
I’m used to seeing evil players voting against a team with two evil on it if they think there’s a fair chance of getting a better team instead. So I’m not seeing the early voting here as particularly enlightening. OTOH, I’ve only played face-to-face, so perhaps I’m way off base for a forum game.
Also, @rowe33, I realise I seem to be arguing against you a lot recently. I actually think you’re more likely to be good than not, I just don’t agree with some of your justifications. :)
This is true, except in scenarios where the evil team has Oberon in the team, so doesn’t know a second evil is there.
Like, hypothetical, let’s say that Rowe is Oberon and Ot is the one of the other three evils. Then an evil player would have no idea a second evil was on the team. Or let’s say that Thraeg is Oberon. Now not Thraeg and Ot would know two evils are on the team, but no other evil would, and given Ot just ‘cleared’ Thraeg it would be highly suspicious to vote against a team with both of them.
It was close, but this quest isn’t going.
@scottagibson, would you like to use Strong Leader? If no, @CF_Kane, please choose a four-man team for quest 3b.
@scottagibson, Right now my read has you as being on the good team. My planned team proposal, assuming you do not strong leader me, is myself, CaseyRobinson, Lantz, and you.
Based on the voting, that seems like a clean team. I’d propose it again and I’ll vote yes.
That’s a hard No from me. I think those four voted this last team down for a reason.
For what it’s worth, I voted for the last team. I thought the voting for the most recent team was instructive, when pared with previous votes.
I had a feeling that breaking from the knot would be instructive.
And it was.
And I think it helps tilt me towards decision on the Thraeg/ Dave/ Rowe axis.
Oops, I meant to specifically call out Lantz/Casey on your proposed team. I think Evil is very possibly Thraeg, Ot, Lantz, and Casey.
That seems odd to me. That would mean Lantz and Casey voted against a team with an evil member. I guess they could be playing the long con, but that seems risky.
What have I done other than vote no like I always do when I am not sure what is happening and I am not on a team? Unsurprisingly the two teams to go immediately were dirty and we didn’t get much information.
It looks like we have a 3/2 good/evil split among the players as Casey broke down above. That would give us 3/2 of remaining players. How could I vote for a team leaving me on the bench from those 5? I know it’s dirty (unless the Casey 5 have 3 evils).
Not that there’s much point in trying to persuade you, I just want to highlight how strained your accusations are.
Confirming that scottagibson is not using Strong Leader. @CF_Kane, you may speculate as long as you want, but when you’re ready, bold a team and I’ll call for votes.
As a prelim, to save time, if you are on the team you may (but it is not required) send me your Success/Fail vote. Again, you do not have to.