Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The votes are interesting - its the first time we're getting a fairly even split between Yay and Nay. The only people voting Yay so far are on the team and the people voting Nay are not on the team. I'm going to switch from the trend and vote Nay

Edit: Ninajed by TechGod who is now the only person not on the team to vote Yay. That leaves the decision in Koodauw's hands.
 
Votes
yay: 4 twietee, Moyank24, Queen of Spades, TechGod
nay: 4 Sythas, mscriv, WoodNUFC, FenrisMoonlight

Yet to vote: Koodauw

Voting Log
Post 483 Sythas voted for nay
Post 484 twietee voted for yay
Post 498 mscriv voted for nay
Post 501 Moyank24 voted for yay
Post 525 WoodNUFC voted for nay
Post 527 Queen of Spades voted for yay
Post 528 TechGod voted for yay
Post 529 FenrisMoonlight voted for nay
 
not bad
eavesdrop to skeptic-in-chief, and intel expert, @twietee (in absence of SS, of course, i would use it on mscriv to extend the chain, but i will leave it to your judgement)
No confidence to lead analyst @FenrisMoonlight
Take responsibility to jackie-of-all-trades- and awesomess extraordinaire @Moyank24
QoS you already had a cookie, so no cards for you :p

go gadget go!

5d3f0bcc530f4e94bf561eb956fd806b.554x275x1.jpg
 
well, network then.
but mscriv was still doubted by many -including myself- because of the pattern of the first two missions. if he comes bad, we have two of them, if clean, i would consider him basically ok, since there are two independent modes of verification
 
well, network then.
but mscriv was still doubted by many -including myself- because of the pattern of the first two missions. if he comes bad, we have two of them, if clean, i would consider him basically ok, since there are two independent modes of verification
Agreed - I'd still have preferred to clear him by a check on Wood as that would clear them both.
 
Results of any card play will be sent once I get all votes.

I haven't gotten any yet.
ok that's different from previously? Didn't we get the results of the eavesdrop as soon as it was played before? I think we were waiting for that before we sent in our votes.

So - question for people - do you think we should no confidence this mission to get the results of the eavesdrop before we continue or should we allow the mission to continue?
 
ok that's different from previously? Didn't we get the results of the eavesdrop as soon as it was played before? I think we were waiting for that before we sent in our votes.

So - question for people - do you think we should no confidence this mission to get the results of the eavesdrop before we continue or should we allow the mission to continue?

I'm not sure?

We didn't get any plots that gave us more information on the agents who will be voting, but if this is the way we'll be receiving answers, we may be having the same discussion next round depending on the plots we get.

Luckily we have 2 no-confy's now, so that helps.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.