[A] The Agency GAME OVER -- AGENTS WIN

[Don't panic]

Info is info, even if it becomes useful only later on.

Also, not necessarily all infis will vote to fail.
The would want just one fail, to minimize exposure
Paradoxically a team with 4 infis wold be great for the agents, if 3-4 vote fail,
Since then you can exclude all those players from future teams

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

Info is info, even if it becomes useful only later on.

Also, not necessarily all infis will vote to fail.
The would want just one fail, to minimize exposure
Paradoxically a team with 4 infis wold be great for the agents, if 3-4 vote fail,
Since then you can exclude all those players from future teams

Stop telling the infiltrators how best to play! Or maybe I'll start thinking your not an agent!

 

[twietee]

agreed, odds are low. didn't calculate them but one reason, other being euphoria (stop laughing), why i voted yay at the start.

in the end all those unassigned should have done that and leave it to the 5 listed, minimum one agent, to make up their mind whether they're comfortable with that or not. if yes, then they have the majority and go ahead.

 

[WoodNUFC]

You don't necessarily learn more by voting nay on mission groups--especially the very first. You need to actually run a mission for the information to mean something.

If this mission group runs, and goes through without failing, then it gives us information about the people who were selected. Obviously cleared groups will not vote to fail, so if the mission succeeds then the group is clean, but if it fails there are infiltrators among those five selected.

 

[Moyank24]

Yes, you get more info by voting nay, since you get to know who the leader selected and what people voted multiple time for each mission rather than just once

But, my point is, that any info we get from voting nay is useless until we actually send a team through...

 

[twietee]

Also, not necessarily all infis will vote to fail.
The would want just one fail, to minimize exposure
Paradoxically a team with 4 infis wold be great for the agents, if 3-4 vote fail,
Since then you can exclude all those players from future teams

huh? were does it say we get the voting tally? doubt it. ravenvii? mission fails or not, that's all i guess. infiltrators will most certainly vote fail (except for two reasons i can think of, one may be a plot) and will certainly try to win the first three games as it'll be much more difficult later on, more info+2 fail votes needed.

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

agreed, odds are low. didn't calculate them but one reason, other being euphoria (stop laughing), why i voted yay at the start.

in the end all those unassigned should have done that and leave it to the 5 listed, minimum one agent, to make up their mind whether they're comfortable with that or not. if yes, then they have the majority and go ahead.

If your an agent and not chosen for the team think you have to vote 'Nay' as you know the group can't succeed as it must have at least 1 infiltrator.

 

[Moyank24]

So would it be better to simply nay 4 missions in a row to gain voting info and then put one through? That gets us the most info without using up a turn.

I misunderstood the OP at the beginning of this - I thought if a mission was nayed then the leader just picked new people until it got put through, not moving to the next leader. So thus there would be no benefit to naying a mission until we knew more about roles.

If we are naying missions on purpose for the first 4, then the results aren't going to be "real". And it's only going to help the infiltrators.

 

[twietee]

But, my point is, that any info we get from voting nay is useless until we actually send a team through...

but there will be a team send through the fifth being the very latest

 

[WoodNUFC]

but there will be a team send through the fifth being the very latest

I guess I don't see the point in failing four teams in a row on the first mission. You really don't learn anything of value on the very first mission by failing it four times--we could go from having a good team, to having a bad team very quickly.

@ravenvii I'm sure it's been discussed previously, but I'm missing the discussion-- I think the team leaders should be allowed to nominate themselves for missions. We only have 6 agents, if we eliminate one from the start, the odds are very long in choosing a good team.

 

[ravenvii]

Majority reached! Mission is on.

@Koodauw, prepare your team!

Here are the plot twists that could occur:

No Confidence
Spy
Eavesdrop

You can give each of the above to any team member of your choosing. One plot per player only. Choose wisely!

 

[Don't panic]

huh? were does it say we get the voting tally? doubt it. ravenvii? mission fails or not, that's all i guess. infiltrators will most certainly vote fail (except for two reasons i can think of, one may be a plot) and will certainly try to win the first three games as it'll be much more difficult later on, more info+2 fail votes needed.

Post 55

do we know the actual score of the round or only if the mission was a success?
can a leader NOT select themselves?

Raven's answer

Votes will be revealed but not who voted what.

 

[Koodauw]

Majority reached! Mission is on.

@Koodauw, prepare your team!

Here are the plot twists that could occur:

No Confidence
Spy
Eavesdrop

You can give each of the above to any team member of your choosing. One plot per player only. Choose wisely!

Is this done via PM or in public?

sorry everyone, I a bit slow to catch on to this game. I think I understand now more now about the nays though.

 

[Don't panic]

So would it be better to simply nay 4 missions in a row to gain voting info and then put one through? That lgets us the most info without using up a turn.

I think that is too much. If you fail 4, you put yourself in the hands of leader #5, who can pick whoever they want unchecked. 3 is borderline but could be ok.
However i can really see little downside in failing 1 or 2 except time, especially at the beginning when you have no info at all about the leaders

You don't necessarily learn more by voting nay on mission groups--especially the very first. You need to actually run a mission for the information to mean something.

If this mission group runs, and goes through without failing, then it gives us information about the people who were selected. Obviously cleared groups will not vote to fail, so if the mission succeeds then the group is clean, but if it fails there are infiltrators among those five selected.

You do learn more, you just do not know what it means yet.
A success group is great, but it doesn't mean they are 100% cleared. There could be Infis in hide in there

But, my point is, that any info we get from voting nay is useless until we actually send a team through...

Correct, but it could become useful later on

If your an agent and not chosen for the team think you have to vote 'Nay' as you know the group can't succeed as it must have at least 1 infiltrator.

That was my thinking and i think it is a good rule of thumb for the first couple of lists in the early missions.
However, an Infi might vote Nay also, if no teammates are on, if too many are on, or if they want to mud the waters

By a similar token, if you are picked on a team you'd tend to Vote Yay, since at least one of your team (you) is on, but then it depends on how others vote

 

[Moyank24]

Is this done via PM or in public?

sorry everyone, I a bit slow to catch on to this game. I think I understand now more now about the nays though.

According to Post 35, it's public.

 

[ravenvii]

Is this done via PM or in public?

sorry everyone, I a bit slow to catch on to this game. I think I understand now more now about the nays though.

Public.

 

[mscriv]

Well, things are moving along. I have a feeling it's going to get real interesting after the plots are handed out. I can only assume that since the plots are distributed publicly that the expectation from other players, specifically agents, is going to be that the information is shared so we can catch the bad guys (or at least begin to possibly clear players from the suspect list). Anyone with a plot who is reluctant to use it, with some exceptions, and share that knowledge is going to make themselves look very suspicious. As this game progresses it seems like it's going to be harder and harder for the infiltrators to hide. Compared to WW there is a lot of public information "out there" regarding game dynamics. We need to use the information wisely and take advantage of the opportunities it will grant us. Does everyone agree that whoever gets a plot should share the information ASAP?

 

[Koodauw]

Moyank is the eaves drop
Mscriv is the spy
QOS is the No confidence.

 

[Moyank24]

Do I select the player here or via PM?

 

[Astroboy907]

So does mission voting start after roles are put out? I assume it has a second deadline and is like WW "night"?

 

[Don't panic]

Is this done via PM or in public?

sorry everyone, I a bit slow to catch on to this game. I think I understand now more now about the nays though.

Public.
You assign them to players and then THEY decide how to use the plots, when they see fit.
You can't give binding orders on how to use the plots, but you can suggest instructions (as can everyone else) if these are good ideas there would be pressure on them to use them that way aNd share the results.
Of course depending on ghe plot, whT they say may or may not be trustworthy, since initially you can't know who you are handling them to (unless you are Infi)

 

[Don't panic]

Do I select the player here or via PM?

i think you select publicly but you get your answer via pm

So does mission voting start after roles are put out? I assume it has a second deadline and is like WW "night"?

I think so, people on the mission must send in their fail/success choice.
This should be quick, since there is really nothing to do/discuss at this point

 

[twietee]

why would you vote for it? you are not on it.
if koodauw is infi, it is certainly there is one infi (likely exactly one infi) on it.
if koodauw is agent, and you are agent, you are approving a list with the worst possible odds to have infis on it (50%).
if you are agent, the only reason for you to vote nay is if there are no other agents on the list

Still have my problems with this post, DP. the last two points are mere rhethorical gymnastics and strangely worded imo as only the infiltrators know about the loyalties on day one. the explanation of the last one is especially strange. If I'm an agent and not on the list, I have about zero incentive to vote yay.

I guess I don't see the point in failing four teams in a row on the first mission.

I didn't say it should be done that way. I merely said that it's not like we would never send out a team just because one nay'd the first, like Moyank was suggesting.

---

I think it's key for us to clear one player asap. Ideally the spy/mscriv or eavesdrop/moyank. So I somewhat suggest that the exposed plot, when in play, should be used on one of those two (Moyank). Not so ideally, because it means they necessarily have to be nominated the next rounds to, but also helpful since the Expose-plot is one count only are the Identification verification and to some degree the Under Survailance plot for those two players.

What about mscriv and moyank use their respective power on each other so we have to clear only one of both to verify both infos?

 

[twietee]

Also good for us that the final vote tally will be presented! Missed that part, should be a helpful tool.

 

[twietee]

Sorry for triple post.

I think it's key for us to clear one player asap. Ideally the spy/mscriv or eavesdrop/moyank. So I somewhat suggest that the exposed plot, when in play, should be used on one of those two (Moyank). Not so ideally, because it means they necessarily have to be nominated the next rounds to, but also helpful since the Expose-plot is one count only are the Identification verification and to some degree the Under Survailance plot for those two players.

What about mscriv and moyank use their respective power on each other so we have to clear only one of both to verify both infos?

Not that this gets gunned down immediately as I was mostly thinking aloud.

mscriv/spy power isn't really THAT powerful anymore (in my mind), since the publication of the final vote tally makes it much more likely that an infiltrator votes "success" than before (which I missed previously). It's more about posing a threat to the infiltrators and could potentially be an incentive to vote success when there are two or more infs on the same mission - although the vote tally does its part already in that scenario.

So spying on moyank is rather pointless, but eavesdropping mscriv who in return chooses one of the other three (Fenris, QoS and DP) gives good info once Mo is cleared.

...

Baddies will try to communicate between the lines which has to be really subtle hence can lead to misunderstandings but is almost impossible to spot as an agent since we're not searching for a WW who wants to out him/herself to the others (we had this in a game or two) but only point in a certain direction (yay or nay/ fail success for example).