[A] The Agency - GAME OVER -- SPIES WIN

[mscriv]

The choice in team is very suspicious to me when I consider Don't Panic's usual careful playing style. If he is choosing to believe QOS then I can understand putting her on the team, but why risk a new player we know nothing about as opposed to using Koodauw who has a history of voting for a mission success?

It would seem to me that a possible option here would be that Don't Panic is a spy putting a fellow spy that we don't know about on the team so they can get a 1 vote failure. This way they can get another point and continue to cast suspicion on QOS. I understand that believing DP to be a spy leads to the logical conclusion that Koodauw is a spy too. This makes sense when you consider that leaving Koodauw off the team might lessen the suspicion around him.

 

[Queen of Spades]

allright, seems we got to the point we are just arguing in circles, which is sort of unavoidable at this stage.
i appreciate mscriv point of view, but to me is 50-50, so i am picking one side. hopefully i am right.

i'll incorporate some of the suggestions above so here is the team

@Queen of Spades
@Moyank24
@FenrisMoonlight
@twietee

Can you explain your choices please? You mentioned possibly including TechGod, and the Fenris/twietee combo. Are you referring to your own suggestions?

 

[WoodNUFC]

Not only was Wood gung-ho to have me take eavesdrop, but he was certainly emphasizing that once he voted publicly we would have to trust him and thereby mscriv. Obviously, they only needed one nay so it didn't matter if he voted publicly with mscriv lying in wait with a nay.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I never suggested that you take the eavesdrop. I suggested in post #325 that mscriv Establish Confidence either to you or me, then use Koodauw to verify those results with the eavesdrop. Remember, it was just the three of us, and I made it clear that it should be either one of us that he opened up to, but that Koodauw made sense to have the eavesdrop, but only if he verified mscriv. It never made sense for you to have the eavesdrop.

Also, the second part of that is severely misrepresenting what I said. I said the teams needs to be able to trust me, and that putting me under surveillance was a smart play.

But hey, wild generalizations work, too.

 

[Queen of Spades]

I know it's not personal. I just meant that you seem to be strongly suggesting it's the combo of me and Wood as opposed to considering the possibility that it's DP. That seems odd to me. We are in similar positions, I don't want to be "set up" or used by the spies to throw off the agents. However, the difference is I'm claiming my innocence and using the facts available to point to the two equally possible options of either you or DP being the spy. You seem have quickly taken DP at his word and lowered your suspicion that he is the spy. I don't understand that.

I haven't taken DP at his word, I don't trust him a whit. I just trust you slightly less based on the interactions in this thread. Which is all we have to go on at the moment.

I think this is where your approach to the game and mine differ. Per the affectionately named "QOS rule" I don't want to be excluded because I know that only raises the chance that a spy goes on the mission team in my place. With both DP and I having been "semi-cleared" by plot cards via PM I understand it's a tough call for the other agents to know who to trust.

I've already outlined how including me on a mission, from a spy leader standpoint, is a good thing. It's not a fundamentally different approach to the game - it's being aware of the next step should something go awry on this mission. And we have basically no cleared Agents at the moment, so it can't be ignored.

 

[Queen of Spades]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I never suggested that you take the eavesdrop. I suggested in post #325 that mscriv Establish Confidence either to you or me, then use Koodauw to verify those results with the eavesdrop. Remember, it was just the three of us, and I made it clear that it should be either one of us that he opened up to, but that Koodauw made sense to have the eavesdrop, but only if he verified mscriv. It never made sense for you to have the eavesdrop.

Also, the second part of that is severely misrepresenting what I said. I said the teams needs to be able to trust me, and that putting me under surveillance was a smart play.

But hey, wild generalizations work, too.

I don't think we're referring to the same exchange (though I meant Under Surveillance, not Eavesdrop in the text you quoted). I was talking about this:

That sounds like a very reasonable use of the plot cards

Literally 2 minutes after Koodauw posted it. Putting you Under Surveillance doesn't automatically make you an Agent, for the reasons pretty much everyone actively playing has outlined. It just makes you less of a focus. So I don't understand the snide "wild generalizations" remark at all.

We don't have concrete evidence for anyone, so speculation is a part of the deal. I would love to hear some better conjectures if you have them.

 

[WoodNUFC]

I don't think we're referring to the same exchange (though I meant Under Surveillance, not Eavesdrop in the text you quoted). I was talking about this:



Literally 2 minutes after Koodauw posted it. Putting you Under Surveillance doesn't automatically make you an Agent, for the reasons pretty much everyone actively playing has outlined. It just makes you less of a focus. So I don't understand the snide "wild generalizations" remark at all.

We don't have concrete evidence for anyone, so speculation is a part of the deal. I would love to hear some better conjectures if you have them.

Read the post of mine before the one you quoted ( edited to add that I'm referencing post #450). I'm tired of people over analyzing out of game information and applying it to my actions in the game. Seriously, is that all you have? the time with which I responded somehow makes me a spy?? That's terribly weak. Next time I'll wait until the next morning, and then say it's a reasonable play. (I still think it was a reasonable use of the plot cards, and will continue to stand by that.) Fenris and Twietee started the ball rolling that I somehow responded too quickly, and that is really suspicious to me.

I'll just stop actively participating. We all LOVE when people sign up, then don't actually play.

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

Read the post of mine before the one you quoted. I'm tired of people over analyzing out of game information and applying it to my actions in the game. Seriously, is that all you have? the time with which I responded somehow makes me a spy?? That's terribly weak. Next time I'll wait until the next morning, and then say it's a reasonable play. (I still think it was a reasonable use of the plot cards, and will continue to stand by that.) Fenris and Twietee started the ball rolling that I somehow responded too quickly, and that is really suspicious to me.

Wait! What? I never said anything about you responding too quickly... I don't know where you got that one from?!

I did say that since both you and QoS seem happy to have the Under Surveillance played on QoS maybe it should be switched round and played on your rather than QoS but I was never suspicious of you due to the timing of the post.

 

[Moyank24]

I'm tired of people over analyzing out of game information and applying it to my actions in the game.

To be fair, that's always been a part of these games. Looking to see if someone is on the forum (it's why most of us go invisible) when they say they haven't been. Some have even posted in other threads while ignoring the game.

When you don't have much to go on, you use what you've got.

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

Can you explain your choices please? You mentioned possibly including TechGod, and the Fenris/twietee combo. Are you referring to your own suggestions?

Why is Fenris/Twietee considered a combo all of a sudden?

 

[WoodNUFC]

Wait! What? I never said anything about you responding too quickly... I don't know where you got that one from?!

I did say that since both you and QoS seem happy to have the Under Surveillance played on QoS maybe it should be switched round and played on your rather than QoS but I was never suspicious of you due to the timing of the post.

I apologize for claiming it was because of the timing of the post. That is inaccurate.

If both of us were happy with the plan, why insist on changing it? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Queen of Spades]

Read the post of mine before the one you quoted. I'm tired of people over analyzing out of game information and applying it to my actions in the game. Seriously, is that all you have? the time with which I responded somehow makes me a spy?? That's terribly weak. Next time I'll wait until the next morning, and then say it's a reasonable play. (I still think it was a reasonable use of the plot cards, and will continue to stand by that.) Fenris and Twietee started the ball rolling that I somehow responded too quickly, and that is really suspicious to me.

I'll just stop actively participating. We all LOVE when people sign up, then don't actually play.

If one more person gets pissed off because of in-game stuff and threatens not to play. This really doesn't help anything. It's a game and we're all trying.

Yes Wood, right now, that's all we have! It's not personal, and I don't understand why we can't remain polite while questioning each other's motivations. It's okay to think someone is an effing spy. It's not okay to subtly call someone a moron, which has been happening a lot in these games lately.

Yes, you responding quickly is flimsy. Yes, you being okay with it being used on me isn't a Gloria Allred type case, but again, there isn't much to go on.

 

[Queen of Spades]

Why is Fenris/Twietee considered a combo all of a sudden?

DP mentioned them that way:

the rest of the team is tough i am thinking techgod to possibly check on QoS -depending on the cards- and the pair fenris-twietee

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

I apologize for claiming it was because of the timing of the post. That is inaccurate.

If both of us were happy with the plan, why insist on changing it? That makes no sense to me.

For exactly that reason - with the way the discussion was going the two Strong Leader cards were going to go to mscriv and DP so Under Surveillance had to go to you or QoS. Since both you and QoS seemed to be happy with the suggestion that it was QoS put under surveillance my thought was to change it - maybe one of you wouldnt have been happy with it played the other way.

 

[Moyank24]

Re: the picks, I'm torn on what to do.

This is an important turn to get right. If we can get a point this turn, it's going to start getting much, much harder for the spies, as they have to vote 2 failures/team twice to win.

I'm leaning towards YAYing the mission and hoping we get some decent plots that can actually clear people and if we don't we always have the option of using the no confidence. I know about me, and I'm more sure of QOS than Twietee and Fenris, though.

 

[WoodNUFC]

If one more person gets pissed off because of in-game stuff and threatens not to play. This really doesn't help anything. It's a game and we're all trying.

Yes Wood, right now, that's all we have! It's not personal, and I don't understand why we can't remain polite while questioning each other's motivations. It's okay to think someone is an effing spy. It's not okay to subtly call someone a moron, which has been happening a lot in these games lately.

Yes, you responding quickly is flimsy. Yes, you being okay with it being used on me isn't a Gloria Allred type case, but again, there isn't much to go on.

That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is, don't just point figures at the people actually trying to play the game. It's no wonder people try winning by hiding! In the real life version of this game--which is awesome and should be played by everyone!--you can use any information you want, but the key is that no one can hide. Here, it's too easy, and as with WW games, it's annoying as hell!

My apologies for sounding like I'm taking this personally, that's not my intent.

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

Re: the picks, I'm torn on what to do.

This is an important turn to get right. If we can get a point this turn, it's going to start getting much, much harder for the spies, as they have to vote 2 failures/team twice to win.

Only once - its only mission 4 that requires 2 failures - every other one its only 1 failure.

I'm leaning towards YAYing the mission and hoping we get some decent plots that can actually clear people and if we don't we always have the option of using the no confidence. I know about me, and I'm more sure of QOS than Twietee and Fenris, though.

I'm sure I'm an agent - not sure of anyone else on that team.

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is, don't just point figures at the people actually trying to play the game. It's no wonder people try winning by hiding! In the real life version of this game--which is awesome and should be played by everyone!--you can use any information you want, but the key is that no one can hide. Here, it's too easy, and as with WW games, it's annoying as hell!

My apologies for sounding like I'm taking this personally, that's not my intent.

Not pointing fingers because your playing - pointing because its one of 3 possible scenarios we have now. Either QoS is a spy, Koodauw and DP, or you and mscriv are spies. Note it is possible for more than 1 of these to be true.

 

[Moyank24]

Only once - its only mission 4 that requires 2 failures - every other one its only 1 failure.


I'm sure I'm an agent - not sure of anyone else on that team.

Right you are! I read that as after turn 4.

Edit: What do you think about DP's team?

 

[Queen of Spades]

That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is, don't just point figures at the people actually trying to play the game. It's no wonder people try winning by hiding! In the real life version of this game--which is awesome and should be played by everyone!--you can use any information you want, but the key is that no one can hide. Here, it's too easy, and as with WW games, it's annoying as hell!

My apologies for sounding like I'm taking this personally, that's not my intent.

I understand your perspective, believe me...I've railed against non-participators in the past. But logically, we have two options: going on actions we can analyze, or going by nothing and just suspecting non-participators.

Not pointing fingers because your playing - pointing because its one of 3 possible scenarios we have now. Either QoS is a spy, Koodauw and DP, or you and mscriv are spies. Note it is possible for more than 1 of these to be true.

Precisely this.

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

Right you are! I read that as after turn 4.

Edit: What do you think about DP's team?

My opinion at the moment is we should Nay it. @Don't panic I think I see what your trying to - but I think maybe I'd rather have you on the team than leading it.

My thinking is we have 12 cards left - 3 of which are actually useful to help clear people (the other establish confidence, the other eavesdrop and the open up). With the current team choice only 1 of those is really useful to us to create a chain of trust (Open Up) - whoever was given that could open up to DP. Establish Confidence would be kinda wasted if it appeared on DP for the same reason as people disagreed with using both Eavesdrop and Establish confidence on mscriv. Eavesdrop - whoever gets it couldn't create a chain of trust so we'd be in the same position as Koodauw/DP - do we believe it or not.

Also by not putting Wood on the team (or anyone semi trusted) if we do get 'A Close Eye' we have a bigger pool of people to use it on since A close eye can't really clear an agent only find a spy.

 

[mscriv]

I haven't taken DP at his word, I don't trust him a whit. I just trust you slightly less based on the interactions in this thread. Which is all we have to go on at the moment.

Care to elaborate a little bit?

The choice in team is very suspicious to me when I consider Don't Panic's usual careful playing style. If he is choosing to believe QOS then I can understand putting her on the team, but why risk a new player we know nothing about as opposed to using Koodauw who has a history of voting for a mission success?

It would seem to me that a possible option here would be that Don't Panic is a spy putting a fellow spy that we don't know about on the team so they can get a 1 vote failure. This way they can get another point and continue to cast suspicion on QOS. I understand that believing DP to be a spy leads to the logical conclusion that Koodauw is a spy too. This makes sense when you consider that leaving Koodauw off the team might lessen the suspicion around him.

Really!?! No one has any comments regarding the possibility of what I posted? Whether you agree with it or not, that's fine, but I don't get completely ignoring it.

 

[mscriv]

Not pointing fingers because your playing - pointing because its one of 3 possible scenarios we have now. Either QoS is a spy, Koodauw and DP, or you and mscriv are spies. Note it is possible for more than 1 of these to be true.

No one has given any legitimate reasoning for this continued accusation being the only possibility. I've posted numerous times explaining that it is just as likely that Wood could be a spy while I am an agent. Why is that option just being ignored due to the insistence that we are a team working together? The same could be true for DP and Koodauw, but what makes them more suspicious is that Koodauw chose DP for his team following the playing of the mission 1 cards, thus if DP is a spy then Koodauw must have lied. I chose WoodNUFC blind for the first mission without any cards having been played and without knowing what cards might come out. If I'm a spy then yes, WoodNUFC lied and we would both be spies, but it's just as plausible that I am an agent and he is a spy who told the truth about me because that was his best play.

 

[mscriv]

My thinking is we have 12 cards left - 3 of which are actually useful to help clear people (the other establish confidence, the other eavesdrop and the open up). With the current team choice only 1 of those is really useful to us to create a chain of trust (Open Up) - whoever was given that could open up to DP. Establish Confidence would be kinda wasted if it appeared on DP for the same reason as people disagreed with using both Eavesdrop and Establish confidence on mscriv. Eavesdrop - whoever gets it couldn't create a chain of trust so we'd be in the same position as Koodauw/DP - do we believe it or not.

Also by not putting Wood on the team (or anyone semi trusted) if we do get 'A Close Eye' we have a bigger pool of people to use it on since A close eye can't really clear an agent only find a spy.

The bolded above makes little sense to me. DP is a primary suspect right now. Why would we trust him to give accurate results for the Open Up card? And, with him being a primary suspect using something like Establish Confidence for double verification would be very helpful. The problem is that if he is the team leader and a spy then he will surely give it to a spy whom he put on the team. I don't get this whole "chain of trust" notion. Since in this updated version of the game all reveals are done via PM then we have know way to every know if a chain is trustworthy.

 

[FenrisMoonlight]

No one has given any legitimate reasoning for this continued accusation being the only possibility. I've posted numerous times explaining that it is just as likely that Wood could be a spy while I am an agent. Why is that option just being ignored due to the insistence that we are a team working together? The same could be true for DP and Koodauw, but what makes them more suspicious is that Koodauw chose DP for his team following the playing of the mission 1 cards, thus if DP is a spy then Koodauw must have lied. I chose WoodNUFC blind for the first mission without any cards having been played and without knowing what cards might come out. If I'm a spy then yes, WoodNUFC lied and we would both be spies, but it's just as plausible that I am an agent and he is a spy who told the truth about me because that was his best play.

Because we were talking about possible ways the last mission failed. Yeah, its possible that Wood is a spy and your an agent - but we know Wood voted success so only 1 of 3 people can have failed the mission QoS, DP, or you.

If you did it means Wood is also a spy since he claimed you were an agent. Similar situation if DP did - it means Koodauw is a spy. If QoS failed it then it tells us no additional info about anyone other than QoS. Whichever of you 3 failed the mission, then Wood could also by a spy hiding. I haven't discounted it - it just seems more sensible to work on figuring out who failed the mission first.

 

[Don't panic]

i subbed techgod with moyank per twietee and fenris suggestion, and the two of them are a 'pair' just because they are next to each other. no other implication.
i have no specific indication for them to be bad or good. their posting is consistent with them being agents, but it would be anyway so that's not much of a clue.
i realize i rushed the team a bit, but i was on my way out to theater dinner, and didn't want to make everyone wait till morning, especially since it seemed to me the discussion had stalled (i see it has now picked up again)

in any cases i really had only two options: excluding QoS or excluding mscriv/wood. i went with the odds.
i decided not to include koodauw because of the failed mission and because the success in mission 1 has no real value anymore, since it is obvious there was a spy there.

gotta go, i'll check back in the morning. hopefully i have more time to get on the discussion.