the only way QOS is NOT a spy from my perspective, is if yourself AND twietee both lied to cover mscriv, who is also a spy.
are you telling me that is the case?
if so, my apologies to QoS
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[A] The Agency - GAME OVER -- SPIES WIN
- Thread starter ravenvii
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
the only way QOS is NOT a spy from my perspective, is if yourself AND twietee both lied to cover mscriv, who is also a spy.
are you telling me that is the case?
if so, my apologies to QoS
*spy, you mean, right?
It certainly doesn't clear me, no, but it's a fact nonetheless. Even if you don't believe me and think it's a misdirection, it's a misdirection people try for a reason - because voting history matters. In my case, my voting history is that of an Agent, because I'm an Agent.
To be fair, they are in a situation where one of them voted yay and one of them voted nay (the other 2 who voted on that mission were mscriv and you). If DP, in fact, is the one that voted yay then he would know for sure that QOS was a spy.
I tend to rest on the side of QOS, but that's mostly a gut feeling from her responses.
-Mscriv
-Wood
-Twietee
I'm not sure for the last person. QoS voting success in the first mission means absolutely nothing and she could have used DP as a scapegoat, however, I'm not entirely sure what would make DP so trustworthy anyway so I feel stuck now.
-Wood
-Twietee
I'm not sure for the last person. QoS voting success in the first mission means absolutely nothing and she could have used DP as a scapegoat, however, I'm not entirely sure what would make DP so trustworthy anyway so I feel stuck now.
Or should I throw Fenris in? Not that we have any info about him that would point to his allegiance in any particular way.
Obviously I think you should put me on the team, but I'm not entirely sure it would go through. It seems people want to (correctly, might I add) trust me, so perhaps.
I don't understand your alternate proposal team (adding Fenris), though. It's the exact same team I presented that you just NAY'd.
:O I'll add you as a possible candidate as well. But DP's reasoning is good about you(I think)
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever - do you mean we know there was a spy on mission 1?
However, that also isn't true. mscriv choose Koodauw, QoS, WoodNUFC - we don't know for sure the status of any of those 3. We do know that all voted success. There could be a spy or 2 or 3 hiding or they could all be agents.
The only thing I can think of that you could possibly read anything in to - is that I was the only person to vote Nay for the team that failed.
This is true - would be very funny if TechGod proposed exactly the same team as the one that just got rejected.
Funny is not the word I'd use.
Any response on your reasoning for nay-ing it and then proposing it, darling @TechGod?
But of course. But we know that for quite some time now..
TechG: what about sythas? not that I feel really confident about him, but I don't about all of you guys, except mscriv.
Because now that I think about it, Fenris is an unknown. Mscriv I feel is an agent and so is wood. It's you, Fenris(kinda) and Sythas that I don't trust.Funny is not the word I'd use.
Any response on your reasoning for nay-ing it and then proposing it, darling @TechGod?
yes, obviously i meant spy.
and it is true that there necessarily was a spy on mission 1. we just don't know who that spy is.
they could NOT all be agents. i am actually very surprised you are claiming that.
we already went over this several times i think, but it looks like it bears repeating (i'll leave out twietee's eavesdropping and my knowledge of my own role -and thus QoS):
facts:
• in mission 2 one of mscriv, QoS and DP voted 'Fail'
• koodauw claims DP is an agent
• wood claims mscriv is an agent
• mission 1 operatives were: QoS, Koodauw, Wood
assumptions:
• an agent will not vote fail
• an agent will not lie about a spy being an agent
therefore:
a) IF mscriv is a spy, wood lied about him, => wood is a spy who voted success in mission1
b) IF DP is a spy, koodauw lied about him => koodauw is a spy who voted success in mission1
C) if QoS is a spy, => QoS is a spy who voted success in mission1
so it is certain there was at least a spy in mission 1, and therefore the claim that having voted success in mission 1 is somewhat exsculpatory is patently false
if you don't put me in it's ok with me. i understand i am under suspicion for the time being
the only one you should not put on the team is QoS.
The only one you should put on the team for sure is mscriv
koodauw does not make sense if you don't trust me
the others (wood, twietee, fenris, moyank, sythas) are all reasonable choices individually, based on evidence, so it comes down to impressions and posts
in terms of combinations, however, some are not as good as others
some additional informations on which to base your decision:
- QoS picked: mscriv, WoodNUFC, FenrisMoonlight, Twietee. if you think QoS could be a spy, you should not pick this same team
- DP picked: QoS, Moyank24, FenrisMoonlight, Twietee. if you think DP could be a spy, you should not pick this same team
- team 1 (which contained at least a spy ) was nayed by fenris and DP
- team 2 (which contained at least a spy ) was nayed by fenris
- QoS picked: mscriv, WoodNUFC, FenrisMoonlight, Twietee. if you think QoS could be a spy, you should not pick this same team
- DP picked: QoS, Moyank24, FenrisMoonlight, Twietee. if you think DP could be a spy, you should not pick this same team
- team 1 (which contained at least a spy ) was nayed by fenris and DP
- team 2 (which contained at least a spy ) was nayed by fenris
This is somewhat mitigated, in my opinion, by the fact that the two teams were not identical. So the possibility remains - which I am claiming - that I voted success once (proven) and again (my claim). I'm not refuting your point that it is not exculpatory, but it's not as meaningless as you suggest it is.
Yeah sorry - I had it down that anyone of them could be but that we didn't know for sure if they were or not. Was missing the logical step that at least 1 of those 3 scenarios is true so at least 1 person in mission 1 has to be a spy. Dohyes, obviously i meant spy.
and it is true that there necessarily was a spy on mission 1. we just don't know who that spy is.
they could NOT all be agents. i am actually very surprised you are claiming that.
we already went over this several times i think, but it looks like it bears repeating (i'll leave out twietee's eavesdropping and my knowledge of my own role -and thus QoS):
facts:
• in mission 2 one of mscriv, QoS and DP voted 'Fail'
• koodauw claims DP is an agent
• wood claims mscriv is an agent
• mission 1 operatives were: QoS, Koodauw, Wood
assumptions:
• an agent will not vote fail
• an agent will not lie about a spy being an agent
therefore:
a) IF mscriv is a spy, wood lied about him, => wood is a spy who voted success in mission1
b) IF DP is a spy, koodauw lied about him => koodauw is a spy who voted success in mission1
C) if QoS is a spy, => QoS is a spy who voted success in mission1
so it is certain there was at least a spy in mission 1, and therefore the claim that having voted success in mission 1 is somewhat exsculpatory is patently false
it is possible, but it requires (from my perspective) that twietee-mscriv-wood are all spies.
until twietee's eavesdrop i was inclined to believe that mscriv and wood could be a spy pair, and was hoping they would get exposed. but now i am not. which leaves you as the spy (plus three more)
mscriv, I think you as the most cleared by far should voice your opinion re TechGods choice/open spot(s).
I personally would prefer Fenris not being on the team and are quite suspicious about Wood as well - although I agree that for wood there can be made an argument being included - although it really depends on how much pressure the spies think is up on 'em - impossible to say as an outsider. Meaning that (in case wood is anagent spy who played the long game) he may vote failure regardless under surveillance.
I think Moyank should be considered and I'm kinda glad you guys (rightly) perceive me as innocent as it can be said about someone totally uncleared. I appreciate that!
As my fellow agents know, being completely alone out there all the time (at least I know about mscriv - but that isn't accounting for anything in his perspective) isn't easy - and it gets a bit tireing to think about what would xyz do if s/he is a spy all the frigging time. I think, although equally demanding, playing as a spy has at least the huge advantage about knowing who is who (plus knowing exactly who are the "specials-agents"/plots) - although that's just what I think, never played one. I think this is a bit different to the WW games which do move on re knowledge (cleared/uncleared) while playing plus has the added bonus that the bad guys are searching in the dark as well for a good measure (for the specials). Well, that got a bit OT.
I personally would prefer Fenris not being on the team and are quite suspicious about Wood as well - although I agree that for wood there can be made an argument being included - although it really depends on how much pressure the spies think is up on 'em - impossible to say as an outsider. Meaning that (in case wood is an
I think Moyank should be considered and I'm kinda glad you guys (rightly) perceive me as innocent as it can be said about someone totally uncleared. I appreciate that!
As my fellow agents know, being completely alone out there all the time (at least I know about mscriv - but that isn't accounting for anything in his perspective) isn't easy - and it gets a bit tireing to think about what would xyz do if s/he is a spy all the frigging time. I think, although equally demanding, playing as a spy has at least the huge advantage about knowing who is who (plus knowing exactly who are the "specials-agents"/plots) - although that's just what I think, never played one. I think this is a bit different to the WW games which do move on re knowledge (cleared/uncleared) while playing plus has the added bonus that the bad guys are searching in the dark as well for a good measure (for the specials). Well, that got a bit OT.
At this point I can't say with any certainty who is better than anyone else. Depending on who you trust between QOS and DP there can be a case made regarding the guilt or innocence of just about every other player in the game. Tech and Sythas seem to be our only two wild cards at this point because we have very little information about either of them. Who are you willing to take a chance on @TechGod?
Wow a very busy Wednesday all!
I do think it's plausible that a mission could be nay under a leader and then yay by the second leader, if we don't thrust the first leader. It's not just because of the player on the team but the leader too.
Ok that's sad that we are in a standoff like that, with no information.
Obviously I would say to choose me !
I really don't like this but a team of Mscriv, Koodauw, Wood and Twietee ? If we have a spy in that team they won't know who should vote fail ? This could possiblibly go back to clear DP and/or QOS ? We can't afford to loose an agent and wait for the mission to go to the last resort either
I do think it's plausible that a mission could be nay under a leader and then yay by the second leader, if we don't thrust the first leader. It's not just because of the player on the team but the leader too.
Ok that's sad that we are in a standoff like that, with no information.
Obviously I would say to choose me !
I really don't like this but a team of Mscriv, Koodauw, Wood and Twietee ? If we have a spy in that team they won't know who should vote fail ? This could possiblibly go back to clear DP and/or QOS ? We can't afford to loose an agent and wait for the mission to go to the last resort either