Sorry Sythas, but I don't follow your logic at all in the above. Could you explain further?
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
Sorry Sythas, but I don't follow your logic at all in the above. Could you explain further?
When we went from team one to team two, you and DP were the new players in the team.
In my mind :
the spy who stay in the team should vote success and the new spy should vote fail.
If there's no new spy, that spy will then vote fail so the suspicion is spread out.
you and Wood are kind of clear (not wood on the last mission tho
)If we put Koodauw and twietee in the same team, if they are both spies they won't know who should vote fail. If that mission is clear we would have a good information on the clearance of DP.
Anyway my tactics works best if for team 1 and 2 we don't pick the same person twice.
you and Wood are kind of clear (not wood on the last mission tho
If we put Koodauw and twietee in the same team, if they are both spies they won't know who should vote fail. If that mission is clear we would have a good information on the clearance of DP.
No, wood is far from being clean - this is not like the first game where the bad guys need always two fails past mission three to win a match/turn. Only mission 4 needs that now, mission 5 (if we get there) needs only on fail vote and we lost the game. So it's not that attractive or even necessary to play the extremely long game.
I won't tell you how the spies should play it in my opinion with more than one spy and wood in the team, but that's not a good strategy imo. To be quite frank: I'm extremely suspicious about wood after our discussion yesterday again, because his accusations re DP / defence of QoS was based on a wrong premise and when we pointed that out and he even agreed to that, he didn't really change his stance at all, just immeditaley re-formulated it with a "well, got that gut-feeling/hunch" reasoning. That's not how I'd think an agent would have played it who missed a crucial thing.< seemed like he wanted to give an excuse why he voted yay (he was the only one).
And while I'm at it: can't really believe that Fenris, our chief analyst, missed the "spy in mission 1 is a fact" thing. Looks like an innocent comment (mistake on purpose) to appear innocent. But those are just hunches of course.
Yeah sorry - can see that looks a bit suspicious but I was genuinely so focused on what we can deduce from which of DP, QoS or mscriv failed mission 2 that I missed the fact that that means there since at least 1 of those is true means that at least 1 person was a spy in mission 1. In my defence if I was a spy I'd have known there was a spy hiding and I wouldn't have missed it. I'm also the only person who voted Nay for the doomed mission 2 team.
Last edited:
You were extremely suspicious when I left Fenris out of my team proposal, and basically convinced me to include him. This change of heart you've had is based primarily on his (intentional or non-intentional) screw up of the definite spy in mission 1?
I'm just checking. Alternatively, who do you think is a better bet than Fenris?
Erm, what? I thougth it immediately strange when you included him on your tentative list from the get go (for reasons discussed afterwards) - no prior exchange about who you should assign was held too. Scrolling past the following discussion I don't see where I make a case or anything remotely resembling that for him?? On the contrary I specifically asked you why you'D included Fenris on your next list while putting Moyank into the spy (probable) chart.
Your answer to that was:
Wasn't convincing back then, and certainly gets better when revisiting it now.
Did you mean Wood instead? I certainly mentioned that he appeared as an afterthought in your posts, which was a bit odd since mscriv just got cleared and he was as good as others a choice + the benefit of under surveillance. And well, his posts about DP throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks stuck out to me (+ what I mentioned in my post above) - but came later.
The fact that you don't know just how much you don't know, makes you dangerous.
Remind me, what was my premise that was wrong, and I "immediately re-formulated"?
Yes, sorry, I was talking about Wood not Fenris. I'm going to get some coffee!
All that was just to say I'm not sure we're doing anything but circling around and around here. I wasn't isolating you, in particular. Although it's easier to discuss with you since you're around and active. TechGod's turn is important, obviously, but we haven't gained any new information.
Well, I can't do more than saying that these are my hunches.
You said that DP would have to be a spy to know QoS would be one. Already forgotten? You also said that he throws a lot of stuff on the wall to accuse QoS to look what keeps sticking. Do you have any observation/quote of him to back that up?
Although you might say I want to make a case for DP being innocent it's more about why I don't really have a good feeling about you guys. Fenris is a bit of adifferent case, I might be biased there, but the fact that he is almost on every team is really suspicious. Same can be said for me of course.
That premise is far from wrong. The fact that you are unwilling to accept it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Glad I wasn't the only one confused by QoS claim of you being suspicious about her leaving me out. lol. I'm getting more and more convinced QoS is a spy backed into a corner. Also everyone naying her mission team implies most people distrust her which means I think we should be working on the assumption she is a spy and therefore we should be including DP on the next mission team. It doesn't seem to make much sense to block her team then turn around and copy her team or add her to a team.
IMO - mscriv, Wood, DP + me would be a good team combination - while I know there is no proof on me from my PoV this gives us
mscriv - double agent! Cleared by Wood and Twietee
DP - probable agent! Cleared by Koodauw
Wood - dunno but is under surveillance.
Me - definitely agent. I know I'm not a spy - sorry no proof for anyone else.
If this team fails. If Wood is a spy and fails it we'll know instantly. Not ideal since we're then 2 down but we'd have identified a spy for sure.
If it fails and Wood voted success I know for sure someone is lying and either mscriv/Wood/Twietee are spies or DP/Koodauw are spies. So we'd have identified 2 or 3 spies.
Obviously from anyone else PoV if it fails and Wood voted success I could be a spy.
If it succeeds we have a 4 person core team we can use for the 4th mission - add 1 other person and we should hopefully win it in mission 4 - unless a spy hides this mission and we fill the last spot with another spy.
From my PoV it seems a good way forward - replace me with whichever 4th you feel is more trustworthy if you don't trust me.
Damn good coffee!
Completely agree. TechGod disappeared unfortunately (again). I wish mscriv would present more of his hunches since he is the sole anchor point we have. It's not really frutile if I ramble on what I observed etc.
And please excuse guys if my posts appear a bit sharp or harsh (no idea, don't think so but always difficult to tell online): it's not meant that way, I have quite a brutal deadline at work next week so I just skip the diplomatic crap and get to the point. That reminds me: I'm off for holidays next Saturday, so we should try to solve this riddle within the next week or I'm going to be MIA.
Completely agree. TechGod disappeared unfortunately (again). I wish mscriv would present more of his hunches since he is the sole anchor point we have. It's not really frutile if I ramble on what I observed etc.
And please excuse guys if my posts appear a bit sharp or harsh (no idea, don't think so but always difficult to tell online): it's not meant that way, I have quite a brutal deadline at work next week so I just skip the diplomatic crap and get to the point.
That reminds me: I'm off for holidays next Saturday, so we should try to solve this riddle within the next week or I'm going to be MIA.
To be 100% sure yeah he'd have to be a spy - but for him to be pretty certain and say he knows QoS is a spy that's certainly not wrong. From his PoV - mscriv has been cleared by you and Twietee - so he accepts that mscriv is an agent - he can't be 100% sure that your not all 3 spies but its most likely that your not so mscriv is cleared. He knows he's not a spy so therefore QoS has to be a spy. Logically it fits together. Not sure why your claiming it doesn't
I agree - it would be nice to hear more from mscriv - since he's double cleared, he's probably the only one most people would be willing to trust.Damn good coffee!
Completely agree. TechGod disappeared unfortunately (again). I wish mscriv would present more of his hunches since he is the sole anchor point we have. It's not really frutile if I ramble on what I observed etc.
And please excuse guys if my posts appear a bit sharp or harsh (no idea, don't think so but always difficult to tell online): it's not meant that way, I have quite a brutal deadline at work next week so I just skip the diplomatic crap and get to the point.
And I fly back to England following Monday (3rd August) so I'm going to out of comms range then for a while.
I understand what you are saying, but I'm sticking with my posts yesterday. He could be telling the truth, that QoS is a spy, but the only way he can know that 100% is if he's a spy himself.
Listen, I've seen this play out more times than I can count. Someone new comes into the team, the vote fails, and that person claims immediately that player x from the first mission was a spy. They swear with certainty that they are telling the truth. 9 times out of 10 that person is lying, especially if they were a) first to make the assertions, or b) screaming the loudest
It seems insane to you guys that I'm calling him on it, because his defense is "logical". I'm here to tell you that the more "illogical" the plan, the better it works. You don't expect him to be lying to your face. He has "facts" that show that he is right. You can't argue with "facts," so anything that runs counter to that is obviously false.
If you want to ignore my experience in this game, fine, be my guest. But I'm telling you unequivocally that just because something seems "logical" doesn't make it so. You literally can't trust anyone in this game.
No, it's a fact and we went on already. You know for a fact that mscriv is an agent hence we two know for a fact that one of DP and QoS voted fail. It makes no sense to say one of them has to be a spy to know about the other. And no, I don't take the theoretically possible scenario of an agent voting fail as a serious argument to consider.
The fact that QoS claimed the very same ("DP's a spy") yet you singled out DP for that statement is just another oddity.
It's just as it is, I'm not mocking you in case you're an agent, but we have little to go on here and this is at least something, whether you acknowledge it or not. You're more than welcome to bring your observations re DP that made you so sure about QoS being innocent to the table. I didn't find some, doesn't mean he's a good guy, but makes me really wonder when you accuse him that strong as you did back then.
This plan as presented by Fenris is what I was referring to in a previous post where I said at some point we are going to have to just make a decision/guess on who to trust and see how it works out. An important thing to consider is how can we do that in a way that gives us further clarifying information on the guilt or innocence of those whom we put on the team. At this point we could use this Fenris strategy with either DP or QOS with the assumption that if they are an agent they will prove it with a success vote and if they are a spy they will prove it with a fail vote. The big challenge with this plan is whom do we trust enough to be in the number 4 slot? The other thing to consider is that following this plan means we are basically going "all in" purposefully risking a failure vote with 50/50 odds to test one of either QOS or DP. And, of course, those odds only hold true if both the fourth person we put on the team and WoodNUFC are agents.
Last edited:
I never argued that an agent would vote fail, that's idiotic.
We know that either one or both DP or QoS is a spy. I've not claimed otherwise, to assert so is reading something into what I've written that isn't there.
I know I'm an agent, and I know mscriv is an agent. Beyond that I don't trust anyone else to be telling the truth.
No, I disagree with that list. I'm down with that strategy the next turn, would stick Koodauw into the team and pray for either a possible eavesdrop on him (to know about him and DP) or Open Up. With mscriv on the team we also have our go to guy for the result.
It's up for TechGod to decide, but I strongly plea for a spot or at least not Fenris and Wood (and certainly not DP as well) on the mission at the same time.
It's up for TechGod to decide, but I strongly plea for a spot or at least not Fenris and Wood (and certainly not DP as well) on the mission at the same time.
Here, in case you accuse me of being the devil's advocate - I'm not getting any pay!! That was the only thing so far that stuck out a bit:
That sounds almost like there were 5 spies around. Bit oddly worded.
That sounds almost like there were 5 spies around. Bit oddly worded.
Player List:
The only possible team that could render similar results is myself, Wood, Twietee, and Sythas. Sythas hasn't given us much to go on in terms of participation and I admit that often I find his/her posts somewhat confusing (especially the last few that could be interpreted as a spy giving fellow spy's directions). For this reason I'm sort of hesitant to trust putting Sythas on a team, but is it any more of a risk that putting DP, QOS, Koodauw, Fenris, Twietee, or Moyank?
Another option I see is to purposefully Nay two more teams until Sythas leads and put together a team of myself, Wood, Twietee, and TechGod. The risk with this plan is whether Sythas can be trusted to do so and the fact that if he/she doesn't we are stuck with putting through whatever team he/she puts up.
@twietee, you are saying you don't want to see Fenris, Wood, or DP on a team. You are still suspicious of Koodauw and QOS. With those players eliminated and Tech leading then it would seem you are suggesting myself, you, Moyank, and Sythas. Those are the only 4 remaining players. Is that what you think is best at this point?
- mscriv
- Koodauw
- Don't panic (No Confidence used, counts as a Nay vote)
- Queen of Spades (5 Nay votes)
- TechGod (current leader)
- WoodNUFC
- Sythas
- Moyank24
- FenrisMoonlight
- twietee
The only possible team that could render similar results is myself, Wood, Twietee, and Sythas. Sythas hasn't given us much to go on in terms of participation and I admit that often I find his/her posts somewhat confusing (especially the last few that could be interpreted as a spy giving fellow spy's directions). For this reason I'm sort of hesitant to trust putting Sythas on a team, but is it any more of a risk that putting DP, QOS, Koodauw, Fenris, Twietee, or Moyank?
Another option I see is to purposefully Nay two more teams until Sythas leads and put together a team of myself, Wood, Twietee, and TechGod. The risk with this plan is whether Sythas can be trusted to do so and the fact that if he/she doesn't we are stuck with putting through whatever team he/she puts up.
@twietee, you are saying you don't want to see Fenris, Wood, or DP on a team. You are still suspicious of Koodauw and QOS. With those players eliminated and Tech leading then it would seem you are suggesting myself, you, Moyank, and Sythas. Those are the only 4 remaining players. Is that what you think is best at this point?
Sorry! Multi-tasking is never my friend in these threads, but it's a necessity for me right now.
FenrisMoonlight said:
Dammit, Fenris, I thought we were cool! And sorry, but you're wrong.
FenrisMoonlight said:
You can't be serious - okay, fine, I understand that I'm under suspicion. But the idea of including DP on the next mission team is reckless. If you want to exclude me, he should absolutely be excluded as well. One of us is a spy (he is), and you'd be gambling on a 50% chance that your newfound (seems most of you believed me just recently) hunch is right. This is a terrible, terrible idea.
FenrisMoonlight said:
This is an awful, awful suggestion. I'm starting to doubt your innocence, honestly.
Damn good coffee!
Completely agree. TechGod disappeared unfortunately (again). I wish mscriv would present more of his hunches since he is the sole anchor point we have. It's not really frutile if I ramble on what I observed etc.
And please excuse guys if my posts appear a bit sharp or harsh (no idea, don't think so but always difficult to tell online): it's not meant that way, I have quite a brutal deadline at work next week so I just skip the diplomatic crap and get to the point.
Duly noted!
I can say this with absolute certainty - DP is a spy and he's pulling shenanigans again. I am not this good of an actress. Koodauw, by extension, is also a spy. I really, really hope people aren't going to be sucked into DP's Billy Flynn routine yet again.
I think this team could be good would be good with the fact that we don't have any new cards. The placement of the players on the list is irrelevant.
First, I see that those kind of game are at the limit my English to understand and render my thought and with that the difficulty to correctly explain myself.
I'm not sure it's a good strategy to put tech and me in the same party, unless we put 4 uncleared and no semi-clear. Because you are practicly clear unless you, twietee and Wood are in cahoot.
So I would go with only 1 unclear or 4 uncleared. That's why I liked Fenris choice, it reset our turn and next team is only to get cards (so position wise on the board) and stopped by Fenris no confy.
-----
EDIT : Changed 4 cleared to 4 uncleard on the last paragraph
In the QOS vs DP debate I think both have done a pretty good job at deflecting and pointing fingers at each other.
@Don't panic, can you please explain something to me? When you were putting your team together you openly expressed suspicion of me and WoodNUFC. I can understand that. What confuses me is why did you not include Koodauw on your team? At that point in the game he had more than proven himself as potentially trustworthy through voting success on the first mission and by clearing you through the use of the Eavesdrop card given to him by me. I can't figure out why any player who is an agent wouldn't have taken those odds and continued with Koodauw on the next team. You chose QOS and she had less evidence to vouch for her than Koodauw.
@Queen of Spades, several folks questioned your choice in team as well. I'm not sure I recall reading a satisfactory answer as to what was your thinking behind using so many of the same players that DP used? If you knew he was a spy after I was fully cleared then why would you take such a risk?
@Don't panic, can you please explain something to me? When you were putting your team together you openly expressed suspicion of me and WoodNUFC. I can understand that. What confuses me is why did you not include Koodauw on your team? At that point in the game he had more than proven himself as potentially trustworthy through voting success on the first mission and by clearing you through the use of the Eavesdrop card given to him by me. I can't figure out why any player who is an agent wouldn't have taken those odds and continued with Koodauw on the next team. You chose QOS and she had less evidence to vouch for her than Koodauw.
@Queen of Spades, several folks questioned your choice in team as well. I'm not sure I recall reading a satisfactory answer as to what was your thinking behind using so many of the same players that DP used? If you knew he was a spy after I was fully cleared then why would you take such a risk?