That's 4 yays, one more for a lock!
(or, well, 4 more nays to a lock, if we're going that way...)
(or, well, 4 more nays to a lock, if we're going that way...)
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
But I explained that? She voted yay, like Sythas - without being assigned and could eavesdrop on DP (in case one rates it so important to clear him - as TechGod somewhat implied).
You were a bad guy last round so of course you had little incentive to start a broad discussion about your list. And I wasn't criticizing TechG for doing so but merely sharing that observation - what's wrong with that? Still, almost everybody didn't bold it from the get go.
Well, I don't know whether it's about being afraid or not, never been team leader myself. I guess it just went that way last game. Same could be said for how plots got distributed
@WoodNUFC: except that those that just went on with their personal business were bad guys last game. You rapid bolding your list, mscirv spying on Mo, Astro outing DP, TechGod rushing his list last game..
in the end the Teamleader is a role like any other role and although one should be ultimately in command of how to play that role, we as an agency definitely benefit from sharing intell and exchange thoughts on what makes sense or doesn't. At least that's my take on these games. Generally speaking, although it may sound different I'm not bashing TechGod for assigning DP, it's just a strange decision imo.
in the end the Teamleader is a role like any other role and although one should be ultimately in command of how to play that role, we as an agency definitely benefit from sharing intell and exchange thoughts on what makes sense or doesn't. At least that's my take on these games. Generally speaking, although it may sound different I'm not bashing TechGod for assigning DP, it's just a strange decision imo.
lol
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's one glass of (good) vino bianco for you. Enjoy it!
then i am afraid i might have out-twieteed you
catching up with the thread. be back soon.
What you haven't explained (or I missed it) is why you consider someone who voted Yay last round as less suspicious than someone who voted Nay.
I think it's because the mission was a succes, wich is not really relevant, just nice for the agency. (yes with further informations, everyone could be Agency on that team and those voting in favor too, but that's a big big stretch...
why do i feel like i am being set up?
although i can see why i would be the obvious suspect were this mission to fail, i think that the possibility that one or more spies stayed hidden in the previous mission should not be discounted
and if there was a hidden spy in the first team, i think techgod is the least likely to be the only spy. if he was, he wouldn't have picked wood, twietee and me, since in that case none of us would be a spy (as i am not one). So either techgod was one of two spies and both voted success, or he is not a spy.
this leaves the possibility that twietee or wood -or both- are spies who voted success to hide, or of course, that all are agents.
twietee, your QoS line of reasoning doesn't make much sense to me.
if techgod had picked her, then she would be the automatic suspect of being a spy when the mission fails, just like i am now. and the same is true for anyone 'new' he would have picked
although i can see why i would be the obvious suspect were this mission to fail, i think that the possibility that one or more spies stayed hidden in the previous mission should not be discounted
and if there was a hidden spy in the first team, i think techgod is the least likely to be the only spy. if he was, he wouldn't have picked wood, twietee and me, since in that case none of us would be a spy (as i am not one). So either techgod was one of two spies and both voted success, or he is not a spy.
this leaves the possibility that twietee or wood -or both- are spies who voted success to hide, or of course, that all are agents.
twietee, your QoS line of reasoning doesn't make much sense to me.
if techgod had picked her, then she would be the automatic suspect of being a spy when the mission fails, just like i am now. and the same is true for anyone 'new' he would have picked
Here you go:
"As for those that voted YAY last match without being on the mission themselves: of course no one is cleared because of that, but one shouldn't exclusevly apply the soso working QoS rule with only three assigned agents but also acknowledge that traitors want a list of 100% agents to be declined just as well. And since TechGod and mscriv both treat those [agents] on the first mission as semi-cleared, it's extra odd to take one player on board that voted NAY."
Either you think that a successful mission semi-clears agents (I don't, TechGod does) or not. If you think that it does you don't assign somebody that voted against it. At least that's super odd imo.
I say that they treat those players as semi cleared since both suggested/implied that a failed mission would point to DP being a traitor.
I think you guys misunderstand me. It's not about who I would have picked if I were teamleader but what I gathered from what little techGod gave as a statement why he picked you. From what I understood QoS would have made more sense then. I spare you repeating all the other stuff.
Anyway, if Fenris and you both vote yay, which makes sense to assume since you're on the mission, we have technically six persons yaying a mission. That means TechGod and me both would be spies: impossible from my perspective, highly unlikely from everybody elses.
This is why I'm confused. In one breath your saying that you think their traitors because they declined an all agent team and in the next your saying that you don't hold with mscriv/TechGod's theory that the team succeeded because it was all agents. Which seems to contradict each other?!
Oh sorry - I see what I missed - your saying TechGod taking someone who voted Nay doesn't make sense combined with the fact he believes the first mission had no infiltrators. Yeah - I see that - it is odd...
ok, i got what you are saying on the QoS stuff.
on the second part of this post, why would you equate a 'Yay' to being an agent? and why would it be highly unlikely that you and techgod are spies. from my perspective it might not be 'highly likely' but it certainly is plausible, and could be supported by interpretation of some posts and team picking
I knew somebody would pick on that.
Sure it's not a given, but when TechGod's a spy = team would have a spy, right? Do you think I'd cause all this ruckus when under cahoots with him and basically every unassigned player even supports his list?
If you think TechGod is a spy you should Nay that list, no?! If TechGod is an agent there are five other agents out there and at least one traitor votes yay. that would mean it most certainly isn't an all agents team since that's the worst case scenario. In case TechG is a good guy but I'm the bad one: why should I try to sabotage this one since I'm assigned and the bad guys lost one match already. Would be pretty heavy gameplay if you ask me.
I knew somebody would pick on that.
Sure it's not a given, but when TechGod's a spy = team would have a spy, right? Do you think I'd cause all this ruckus when under cahoots with him and basically every unassigned player even supports his list?
If you think TechGod is a spy you should Nay that list, no?! If TechGod is an agent there are five other agents out there and at least one traitor votes yay. that would mean it most certainly isn't an all agents team since that's the worst case scenario. In case TechG is a good guy but I'm the bad one: why should I try to sabotage this one since I'm assigned and the bad guys lost one match already. Would be pretty heavy gameplay if you ask me.
anytime anyone goes "why would i do that if i was a _____" in any of these games, it looks like UN headquarters to me , with all those flags going up..
anytime anyone goes "why would i do that if i was a _____" in any of these games, it looks like UN headquarters to me , with all those flags going up..
Same here, but you asked me why I said highly unlikely, and that can be answered only in conjecture. At this point in the game even more so.
Here's the thing. Having been a bad guy who was put on the 1st team last game, the thought of hiding never crossed my mind. Sure, it's a possibility and could even be argued as valid strategy, but it's a slow play in a game that is really designed for quick victories. It is especially beneficial to the spies if they can get a win on the first team because so much is unknown and based on speculation. Later in the game once people start getting cleared it becomes harder and harder for the spies to win.
Twietee is acting suspicious to me with some of his posts, but for now I think the best thing we can do is put this team through as opposed to selecting a new team with all new members. If this mission fails then we can use both the plot cards from last round and any new plot cards we get to hopefully get valuable information.
With all of that being said, I'm going to vote YAY to lock the majority so we can move forward.
Twietee is acting suspicious to me with some of his posts, but for now I think the best thing we can do is put this team through as opposed to selecting a new team with all new members. If this mission fails then we can use both the plot cards from last round and any new plot cards we get to hopefully get valuable information.
With all of that being said, I'm going to vote YAY to lock the majority so we can move forward.
alright then.
i have my suspicions but let's see the plots first, those should already clarify a few things, hopefully
i have my suspicions but let's see the plots first, those should already clarify a few things, hopefully
Lets hope so. Interesting that everyone not on the team voted Yay and the only people to vote Nay were on the team.