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 an agent 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. 😀
from last (half) game one hard part for the spies is to try to understand other spies' game, since there is no comunications, and try to convey a strategy or decision, or suggest a move. since spies know other spies, at least they can focus on them and disregard what the agent say (in this context). as an agent, it is much more difficult, because anyone could be trying to send a message, or we could read 'messages' in posts that are in reality completely innocent.
it gets very complicated very quickly, and it is very easy to get directed down the wrong paranoid path (for example, your post above could be construed as a suggestion to wood on how to vote)
-------
EDIT 1
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 am not following: if we have
one spy there, why wouldn't they just fail? especially with he two-fail mission coming up? where is the compication?
if there are two (or more) spies, then ,yes they would need to coordinate votes
------
EDIT 2
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.
here is a perfect example of what i was saying before.
if Sythas is a spy, these are clear instructions: if he is introduced in a team with another spy, he will vote fail, so the other should not
if sythas is not a spy, then it is an innocent, and reasonable, way to analyze things.
as fara as wood being clear, it is quite a stretch imo (mscriv i agree). also i don't see how that gives much info on my clearance
EDIT 3:
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.
kind of nitpicking, but you are quoting twietee and somehow attributing the quote to me
