The Resistance - Game Thread

[Jerome]

SR71 send yourself, Gonzo and myself.

[Crumb]

SR71 has already made his proposal, so there will be a new leader if it is voted down.

[Crumb]

Mission 2: Adam, Kael and Gonzo

#	Player	Vote
1	Adam	No
2	SR71
3	Kael
4	Gonzo
5	Jerome	No

[SR71]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

SR71 send yourself, Gonzo and myself.

So Jerome doesn't want to send Adam or Kael. Why would Jerome want those two untested rather than me? Crumb, can one spy fail a mission?

[Crumb]

Crumb, can one spy fail a mission?

Yes, a single FAIL will fail a mission.

[Gonzo]

vote no

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by SR71

So Jerome doesn't want to send Adam or Kael. Why would Jerome want those two untested rather than me? Crumb, can one spy fail a mission?

No, I want you tested. You would be the only new variable.

[SR71]

If the mission fails, it will still prove nothing, since it is possible that you or Gonzo, or both, are spies, and opted not to fail Mission 1 to conceal your identities. In any case it's a fairly arbitrary decision, we still have nothing concrete to go on, and we still have no definitive identifications even if mission 2 fails. I am still pretty whatever on who goes. So the mission is already voted down. Crumb, so is it official, was that proposal voted down? What is the next step in the game if so?

[Adam]

That's three no votes, right? Does leadership pass on to Kael, then?

[Crumb]

Yeah, why not.

#	Player	MISSION 2
1	Adam
2	SR71	Adam, Kael and Gonzo
3	Kael	*Leader*
4	Gonzo
5	Jerome

[Kael]

I'm thinking we should hear some ideas before I just shout out a team roster. More important than what the roster should be is why it should be that way.

If this were another two-person mission we might be able to pin someone down for sure, but as-is I don't see a way to be certain of who borked it if it does get borked. If it doesn't, we're only one more mission away from winning, but we also would still not have a single clue about who the spies are...

[SR71]

How about this? If we send three untested players, and the mission fails, at least we have learned that one or two of those three is a spy. ?

[Adam]

The spies don't communicate out of thread, right?

Since G and J's mission succeeded, it's likely that either both or neither of them are spies. (If both of them are spies, presumably they would be smart enough to intentionally let the mission succeed to hide that fact...since they have no way of communicating, they wouldn't be able to coordinate having only one of them sabotage the mission, so the safest move for each of them is to let the mission succeed.). Otherwise, if only one of them is a spy, that person basically scored an own goal to prevent us from getting a little bit of information.

If both of them are spies and we send the two of them plus someone else, they're in a tight spot. If two sabotage results show up, they look bad. If no sabotage results show up, they move us a step closer to winning.

I think the two of them, plus either Kael or myself is the best move.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm going to need to see a resume, Gonzo. We're looking for applicants with at least 2 years' practical experience in blowing things up. Typing skills a plus.

Crumb, two questions:

Do the spies know each others' identities?

If a spy gets onto a mission, can they choose not to sabotage it? I'm guessing yes, only because otherwise there's no point in having people actually send you night actions, since you'd already know what everyone would do.

Originally Posted by Crumb

Yes and yes.

The spies do know each others identities. Even if they can't communicate, it would only make sense to not fail the mission, because since there were only two, we would know it is one of those two.

[Kael]

Hmm. A fair point. But why only me or you with the previous team? Why keep SR71 off the table?

[SR71]

Yes, I only omitted me from the roster on the last mission because I though that's how it is done, following Adam's lead. If I hadn't made that incorrect assumption, I would have sent three untested personnel.

[Kael]

Sorry my post was @ Adem, if there's any confusion. I'm just wondering why he said J & G + himself or myself, omitting you...

If you two were spy buddies, you'd tell me, right?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kael

Hmm. A fair point. But why only me or you with the previous team? Why keep SR71 off the table?

Nothing concrete, but JEROME's repeated calls to sort him out tweak me a bit. I'm not 100% opposed to sending him.

[SR71]

I think we should either retest people who already went as much as possible, or test people who didn't go as much as possible, in order to keep the possibility tree as simple as possible.

[Kael]

Y'know, I think we should send Jerome and Gonzo again, with one other, owing to the very real possibility that the mission succeeded because neither of them are spies. We still wouldn't know for sure even if the mission fails with the new guy added, but if it does the next mission is a two-person, which would give us a good chance of ruling someone out.

So the question is, me, Adam, or SR71?

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by Adam

The spies don't communicate out of thread, right?

Correct.

[SR71]

Does anyone else see the sense of either sending max tested or sending max untested? What about that? Would it help in a process of elimination sense, or is that a false assessment?

[SR71]

I think we need to isolate the possibility branches. Which course is cleaner in that sense, or is it irrelevant?

[Crumb]

Proposal Kael?

[Kael]

Yeah, I think I can make one now. I rolled a dice to pick between me, Adam, and SR71 () and it came up for Adam, so:
I propose we send JEROME, Gonzo, and Adam on the second mission.