P: So, Dainjre posted the next team. Everything seems to be going according to your plan.
D: Unfortunately, you are one of the few people I consider capable of attempting the same maneuvers I pulled in the previous games. This puts us at somewhat of an impasse with regards to communication. My strategy is obviously far from simple, but I can't discuss it with you as I could an outsider.
So we must skip the formalities and go straight to the game.
Are you a spy?
Do you think I am a spy?
P:I think any denial of spy status is foolish at best. It serves me no purpose as either a member of the resistance, nor as a spy. So I will simply not respond to your question. But I will return your question: Do YOU think I am a spy?
And despite past experience with your mind games - EXTENSIVE experience, I might add, I do not currently think you are a spy. You have yet to perform actions I deem spy worthy. Unlike Dainjre with his too-cavalier attitude.
D:I'm still not as convinced as you that dainjre is definitely a spy.
I have sent him a rather ambiguous PM which I hope will allow me to read his intentions. Failing that, the email appeals to him, as a spy, to vote to succeed the mission, claiming that I will vote fail.
It would amuse me greatly if this gambit pays off and no one votes to fail this mission.
P: Seems like a fair plan.
That said, you never said if you thought I was a spy. I answered your question, you answer mine.
D:It's not that simple is it? Because you are capable of pulling off a complex duplicity I can never be sure that you aren't doing so now. I would say that you are almost certainly resistance-like at the moment, but things change fast.
Thinking about how the spies should act, I disagree with you entirely on your most recent post, but it's a good move to try and fake-out a critical success for the resistance. I don't think the spies could recover if this mission succeeds, as mission 4 needs a double vote and should hopefully be another resistance win.
So I'm unsure as to whether I should publicly correct this obvious flaw or simply let it influence everyone and hope for the best. I am inclined towards the latter.
Your thoughts?
P:
I think the fake out can work. However, just to spite me, someone my vote fail anyway.You coming down on either side could either convince them to undertake such a plan, or avoid it entirely. But this would be my strategy were I a spy. Give the resistance a second win, and steal it away from them by avoiding suspicion.
D: In a game where the spies knew each other, yes, that might be an acceptable gamble, but given how likely the spies are to fuck up due to lack of coordination, I would say the risk would be too high. Of course, there's unlikely to be any central spy leadership, so individually they just might think your plan could work. I like it.
I've played enough games to know what suspicious behaviour looks like, I was more seeing what YOUR thoughts were - confirming it was a gambit is less suspicious behaviour than flawed logic. And me not picking up on flawed logic is ALSO suspicious behaviour.
I think I'll just let it slide, see if the others pick up on it (as they should), and wait for the mission vote. Then we either finally get some actual data rather than loops of bluffs and double bluffs...or a strong probability of overall winning.
P:
Based on discussions between you and I, and dainjre and myself, we can seriously mess with his head. If the spies ignore my 'advice', there will probably be a single fail vote. At which point, I told him that you would probably crucify him. I also emphatically told him to NEVER trust you.
So if you come at him from the other direction, we can have his head spinning as to who is really on his side, and who isn't. Paralyzing another player, regardless of allegiance is good for us. It thins the herd, affording us a better opportunity to ferret out the real spies. Sort of like what you did to Baldorax in the last game. You froze him out, and he was never able to recover. If we're canny and clever, we can pretty much shut him out of any decision-making process, and devalue any of his arguments. If he IS a spy, then we need to find 3 in 9. If he ISN'T, then we just need to find 4 in 9. And I like those odds.
D:
I have already emphatically told him that he a spy and that I am one too, and he now claims he will vote 'succeed' on the next vote 'so that multiple spies don't vote to fail', at my behest. I call that a win.
There's only one thing more that I need from him - who he's been talking to and who he thinks is a spy. Assuming the mission fails I can get those from him.
He's already a dead-man walking, I can make the case very easily. All I think we need to do is ignore monitor him now - he won't get on another mission unless group cohesion breaks down entirely (towards the end of the game perhaps). I don't think we need so much unnecessary complexity vs someone I am sure is a spy.
P:My conversation with Otakebi
Me: Otakebi. You are a spy. STOP BEING TERRIBLE AT IT.
You're making the game harder for the rest of us.
Otakebi: Do I really look that much like a spy?
Me: Yes. You are BLATANTLY hiding your information. Not only that, your are ADMITTING YOU'RE HIDING YOUR INFORMATION. Terrible spy behaviour.
Try not to make my sabotaging harder please.
Otakebi: Well I am new to this, some advice would help.
Wow. Just...wow.
------------
At this point I message Otakebi in in the hope of ensuring my 'no fail votes' strategy.
Vote occurs
