The Resistance "WW" Official Game Thread

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
If I need to, I'd be willing to let Lissa take my place. Pretty sure she's resistance like I am.
 
I'd be a good choice to add to the team! Just saying.
 
Escalla said:
Awesome! 👍

The stats people can do their analysis, but I think we need to continue to recycle. There may have been a spy that chose to allow it to succeed since it will get easier to pinpoint who it is, but we don't have any way of knowing for sure....
Click to expand...


Not sure about that. Could be. But both sides want to get to 3 first. If there was a spy, it would have made more sense in my mind to vote FAIL and get them to 2. Right now we are 1-1.

The biggest quandary for spies: Do you choose to hide and try and sneak into later missions or do you vote FAIL to get your group closer to winning faster. 😛 (glad I'm not a spy and have to make that choice haha!)
 
wolfspeaker said:
Not sure about that. Could be. But both sides want to get to 3 first. If there was a spy, it would have made more sense in my mind to vote FAIL and get them to 2. Right now we are 1-1.

The biggest quandary for spies: Do you choose to hide and try and sneak into later missions or do you vote FAIL to get your group closer to winning faster. 😛 (glad I'm not a spy and have to make that choice haha!)
Click to expand...
Well, its actually quite obvious. Note what is going on with rojo's reasoning. Rojo is saying, "hey, lets keep same team as it was successful." Aka, if I was a spy, and knew people would go with that reasoning (which is fairly obvious that they would), I would stay in the shadows one round and fail it the next, as the blame would go on the person added. I think we put the spies in a conundrum and add everyone that has NOT been in a group yet. Cause the spies to trip themselves up with multiple unsuccessful votes. Weed out an entire group. That's just my mode of thinking, especially since the way I read the rules, the last time requires the spies to have 2 saboteurs.
 
Well if the mission is just going to fail and it'll be blamed on me, I'm not so sure I want to be that person
 
I'm not convinced that we're all so narrow-sighted that we would automatically blame the new person and consider no other possibilities.

Will they be in question? Yes.

But so will everyone else. I think that much is obvious.
 
If we don't continue with at least most of the people that we feel are resistance, then we're going back to simple statistical chance. Chance that has been shown to be abysmally low and in the spy's favour.

That's the only way we can hope to control this. To put in people that we think will succeed, not by random.
 
SummerTheLynx said:
Well, its actually quite obvious. Note what is going on with rojo's reasoning. Rojo is saying, "hey, lets keep same team as it was successful." Aka, if I was a spy, and knew people would go with that reasoning (which is fairly obvious that they would), I would stay in the shadows one round and fail it the next, as the blame would go on the person added. I think we put the spies in a conundrum and add everyone that has NOT been in a group yet. Cause the spies to trip themselves up with multiple unsuccessful votes. Weed out an entire group. That's just my mode of thinking, especially since the way I read the rules, the last time requires the spies to have 2 saboteurs.
Click to expand...
In a smaller game that is well balanced, sure, gamesmanship may be afoot, but quite frankly, in this game, there is NO REASON for the spies to have to play it like that. 0. Not a single one. If I was a spy and another spy voted success, I would punch them in the face.

We have to select 7 people for this mission... 7. And have 0 margin of error. This is astronomical odds, and basically I was able to succeed because I picked 3 people I was sure or damn near sure of, and then got lucky on my final 3. Like I showed you, my odds of success, being generous with my probabilities, was about 28%.

I will disapprove any team that doesn't include all 6 of us, and will probably disapprove of a team that also included Mad Jack, FFM, and Cracker Jack, and would be hard pressed to trust a team with STL... Everyone else I guess would be fair game, but I'm not sure.

AND, if the mission were happen to fail, I would be 99% sure that the 7th person added was going to have been the spy.

Then again, it will likely be a long time til I have to decide again, so i can just sit back and monday morning quarterback.
 
thedrjojo said:
AND, if the mission were happen to fail, I would be 99% sure that the 7th person added was going to have been the spy.
Click to expand...

That is A LOT of faith.

I'm not saying that it can't be more likely, but I'm wary of saying 99%....

I would approve of adding Lissa in.
 
Escalla said:
That is A LOT of faith.

I'm not saying that it can't be more likely, but I'm wary of saying 99%....

I would approve of adding Lissa in.
Click to expand...
well, i guess I shouldn't have too much faith that the spies aren't idiots, but i'm going to go with the fact that the spies aren't idiots....

down 0-2, the resistance would have to win each additional round.

If it was a 50-50 chance of winning each round, we'd only have a 12.5% chance of winning all 3.
Since its more like a 20-80 chance of winning each round, we'd have less than 1% chance of winning all 3.

So, yes, 99% isn't too far off.
 
Escalla said:
That is A LOT of faith.

I'm not saying that it can't be more likely, but I'm wary of saying 99%....

I would approve of adding Lissa in.
Click to expand...
well, let's work this out.... again, making assumptions that no spy has voted success

1 of the 3 from mission one (Lissa, Mad Jack, STL) is a spy.
0 of the 6 from mission two (Rojo, Escalla, Devyn, Cyndia, WS, Hedgie) is a spy.
4 of the 7 left standing (or 5) are spies (dyachei, allieh, wildzoo, sayabear, 98cats, ffm, cracker jack).

So, yeah, I would say the better odds of success is to pick from someone sent on mission 1. Of those 3, most of us trust Lissa the most, so I would also approve of adding Lissa.
 
I think it would be a smart idea to go with the same 6 and then add an extra person in.... I do not agree with scratching the lot and starting over from scratch... that does not make sense to me at all

We need to have the highest chance at success... yes a spy could have fecked with it and chose success, but I am not sure why they would have....
 
Putting aside the stats for the moment, I don't think that someone that is in a WW mindset and wants to be sneaky would view this as absolute as you do.

Vote to succeed, gain some trust, vote to fail later. I think it's a viable decision that could have happened.

I agree that statistically it's a way better move to fail.....and I think it's way more likely that they would.....I just wouldn't bet my life on them thinking the same way.
 
Escalla said:
Putting aside the stats for the moment, I don't think that someone that is in a WW mindset and wants to be sneaky would view this as absolute as you do.

Vote to succeed, gain some trust, vote to fail later. I think it's a viable decision that could have happened.

I agree that statistically it's a way better move to fail.....and I think it's way more likely that they would.....I just wouldn't bet my life on them thinking the same way.
Click to expand...
That's why we each have a vote I suppose.

If a spy wanted to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, they can. And I'll call them an idiot
 
I can see both viewpoints. I do think a spy might have done it just to be able cast doubt later. Maybe I'm just the suspicious type.

I think we shouldn't scrap it and just add one.
 
I think this is more of the fabled wolf throwing another wolf under the bus to gain credibility move.

you do it if the wolf is going to die anyway. You don't do it when its 4 wolves vs 6 villagers and you are the tie breaking vote, making a successful night kill away from victory... :shrug:
 
I think if we stick with the 6 and add a 7th that we trust...and succeed....then we can be positive.
 
thedrjojo said:
In a smaller game that is well balanced, sure, gamesmanship may be afoot, but quite frankly, in this game, there is NO REASON for the speis to have to play it like that. 0. Not a single one. If me was a spy and another spy voted success, me would punch them in the face.

We have to select 7 people for this mission... 7. And have 0 margin of error. This is astronomical odds, and basically me was able to succeed because me picked 3 people me was sure or damn near sure of, and then got lucky on my final 3. Like me showed you, my odds of success, being generous with my probabiliteis, was about 28%.

me will disapprove any team that doesn't include all 6 of us, and will probably disapprove of a team that also included Mad Jack, FFM, and Cracker Jack, and would be hard pressed to trust a team with STL... Everyone else me guess would be fair game, but me'm not sure.

AND, if the mission were happen to fail, me would be 99% sure that the 7th person added was going to have been the spy.

Then again, it will likely be a long time til me have to decide again, so me can just sit back and monday morning quarterback.
Click to expand...
If I was a spy, that is exactly how I would have played it. I would have voted success in first one, picked again for the second one and voted success, and then voted failure every other time. It is almost a verifiable way to win.

Right now, I am suspicious of rojo. Why? Okay, so I am trying to put myself in the shoes of rojo as if he was a spy. If he was a spy, he would have made himself the only spy in the last group. He would have made himself the person that will continue on from group to group. He then would have pressured each of the subsequent people to have to pick themselves to go along. Why not throw some suspicion on crackerjack, pressure crackerjack to pick himself for the group (as per his argument about FFM), and then when he chooses himself, and it fails, he gets thrown under the bus instead of rojo. He is controlling the mode of thought and I don't like it.

For me, I want everyone that was in the past group EXCEPT rojo. Anyone else that we have any clue about should go in rojo's place. I just don't trust him at all, and will veto any group that has rojo in it.
 
SummerTheLynx said:
veto any group that has rojo in it.
Click to expand...

Misuse of the word veto, I'm assuming?

He is not controlling the thought....you are the only one that has said that starting from scratch is a good idea. Everyone else has disagreed.

I'm not saying that he is absolutely not a spy, but I'm inclined to think he isn't...that's all.
 
ah so much has been happening! I just got out of 3 hours of classes. Give me an hour to get everything read through. Keep giving me ideas to work off of!
 
SummerTheLynx said:
If me was a spy, that is exactly how me would have played it. me would have voted success in first one, picked again for the second one and voted success, and then voted failure every other time. It is almost a verifiable way to win.

Right now, me are suspicious of rojo. Why? Okay, so me are trying to put myself in the shoes of rojo as if he was a spy. If he was a spy, he would have made himself the only spy in the last group. He would have made himself the person that will continue on from group to group. He then would have pressured each of the subsequent people to have to pick themselves to go along. Why not throw some suspicion on crackerjack, pressure crackerjack to pick himself for the group (as per his argument about FFM), and then when he chooses himself, and it fails, he gets thrown under the bus instead of rojo. He is controlling the mode of thought and me don't like it.

For me, me want everyone that was in the past group EXCEPT rojo. Anyone else that we have any clue about should go in rojo's place. me just don't trust him at all, and will veto any group that has rojo in it.
Click to expand...
If mission 1 succeed, we have an entirely different ball game.

I didn't need to pressure cracker jack to pick myself for the group. The logical choice is for this group of 6 to go. There is minimal logic in a spy voting success last time, as I pointed out. Round 1 I would have granted a spy some leeway in voting success to build up the trust, but with a chance to put them down a 0-2 hole, I'm good enough with stats, and even if i wasn't, I watch enough sports to know what that means for us in the resistance.

Everyone I've excluded is fairly weak reasoning. But it's all we got to go on. This is the WW aspect of it. Gotta improve the odds by using deduction and inclination. If people think i'm trying too hard or don't trust me, that's their prerogative. I think I've proven myself before mission 1 as likely a resistance, and with last nights crew believe I should be in the innocent until proven guilty group, but if a mission with me in it fails, then feel free to remove me first... but if we run the 6 from last night and add a 7th and the mission fails, then remove me AND the new addition, cause that's where the smart money for the spy would be.
 
Ok, the 'speis' and 'me' things are over my head I think.
 
symptoms.png
 
Escalla said:
Misuse of the word veto, me are assuming?

He is not controlling the thought....you are the only one that has said that starting from scratch is a good idea. Everyone else has disagreed.

me are not saying that he is absolutely not a spy, but me are inclined to think he isn't...that's all.
Click to expand...
yous would be assuming correctly 😛. And jojo did bring up one good point about my thought process maybe being a bit better in a more balanced game, and I guess that makes sense. I kind of just wish this was a best out of 7 game, we pretty much don't get enough time to use any really beneficial skills for deduction and its frustrating. All this game takes is 1 mole to vote success twice and it will lead to the down fall of the resistance as then no one from the original group can then be fully trusted.

In the future, I hope to see the more missions, as it actually gives us the opportunity to catch spies such that there are multiple in each group, and allows us to use more of a mastermind approach to the game (as in the board game). But that's just my two cents...

I just can't see us winning this game with the set up it currently has.
 
Cheese and crackers, all sorts of stuff is affected today
 
SummerTheLynx said:
yous would be assuming correctly 😛. And jojo did bring up one good point about my thought process maybe being a bit better in a more balanced game, and me guess that makes sense. me kind of just wish this was a best out of 7 game, we pretty much don't get enough time to use any really beneficial skills for deduction and its frustrating. All this game takes is 1 mole to vote success twice and it will lead to the down fall of the resistance as then no one from the original group can then be fully trusted.

In the future, me hope to see the more missions, as it actually gives us the opportunity to catch speis such that there are multiple in each group, and allows us to use more of a mastermind approach to the game (as in the board game). But that's just my two cents...

me just can't see us winning this game with the set up it currently has.
Click to expand...
If we don't have a mole, we can win.
If we have a mole, then i agree, the odds of winning are low.
If we start back over from square one, we have nearly no chance of winning.

We need to roll with the original team, add 1 additional person (so far Lissa has the most votes of confidence), and see if we are successful.
 
SummerTheLynx said:
If me was a spy, that is exactly how me would have played it. me would have voted success in first one, picked again for the second one and voted success, and then voted failure every other time. It is almost a verifiable way to win.

Right now, me are suspicious of rojo. Why? Okay, so me are trying to put myself in the shoes of rojo as if he was a spy. If he was a spy, he would have made himself the only spy in the last group. He would have made himself the person that will continue on from group to group. He then would have pressured each of the subsequent people to have to pick themselves to go along. Why not throw some suspicion on crackerjack, pressure crackerjack to pick himself for the group (as per his argument about FFM), and then when he chooses himself, and it fails, he gets thrown under the bus instead of rojo. He is controlling the mode of thought and me don't like it.

For me, me want everyone that was in the past group EXCEPT rojo. Anyone else that we have any clue about should go in rojo's place. me just don't trust him at all, and will veto any group that has rojo in it.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree. What are the odds if we keep 5, throw in Lissa, and pick a random instead of Rojo? He just really seems to be pushing hard to be on this mission and STL's argument seems pretty plausible. I was originally planning on putting myself in, because Rojo said anyone who doesn't is suspicious. But apparently now I look suspicious if I DO include myself. From reading, it's clear it's going to be impossible to make everyone happy this round.
 
Cracker.Jack. said:
me kind of agree. What are the odds if we keep 5, throw in Lissa, and pick a random instead of Rojo? He just really seems to be pushing hard to be on this mission and STL's argument seems pretty plausible. me was originally planning on putting myself in, because Rojo said anyone who doesn't is suspicious. But apparently now me look suspicious if me DO include myself. From reading, it's clear it's going to be impossible to make everyone happy this round.
Click to expand...

He's not pushing hard for himself, he's pushing for the successful team which happens to include him. There's a difference.

My vote is the 6 + Lissa (though someone can make an argument for someone else). I think it's the best shot right now and if it fails, then Rojo can be suspect. But not now...

:shrug:
 
That is me pushing for the same thing.

So if people honestly disagree, then the vote will reflect it. But I'm being honest in what I think is our best chance from this point.
 
Rojo
Escalla
Devyn
Cyndia
wolfspeaker
Hegei
Wildzoo

thedrjojo said:
well, let's work this out.... again, making assumptions that no spy has voted success

1 of the 3 from mission one (Lissa, Mad Jack, STL) is a spy.
0 of the 6 from mission two (Rojo, Escalla, Devyn, Cyndia, WS, Hedgei) is a spy.
4 of the 7 left standing (or 5) are speis (dyachei, alleih, wildzoo, sayabear, 98cats, ffm, cracker jack).

So, yeah, me would say the better odds of success is to pick from someone sent on mission 1. Of those 3, most of us trust Lissa the most, so me would also approve of adding Lissa.
Click to expand...

1 in 3 chance Lissa was the spy in first round. Too high for me.
 
You guys better hope you're right about Rojo...if he ends up being a spy don't say STL didn't warn us.
 
Disapprove.

I still don't trust you, so wasn't going to trust anyone you picked. If you believe my 1 of 3 logic, then you picked the wrong side of the probabilities anyway, since the game started with 1 of 3 breakdown anyway...
 
Feck it. I'm not ok with going along with it, so no point in being wishy-washy.

****reject****

Unless there's good reason to include WildZoo, then I'm not convinced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WildZoo
SDN Fairgrounds - 10th Annual Noob WW Game
37 38 39 40 41
Replies
2K
Views
19K
katiemcat
katiemcat
Animal Midwife
Death Nommy - Game Thread
83 84 85 86 87
Replies
4K
Views
53K
Animal Midwife
Animal Midwife
WildZoo
  • Poll Poll
Mission ImpoWWssible Game Thread
46 47 48 49 50
Replies
2K
Views
38K
Clem J
Clem J
WildZoo
Noob WW Game 2025 Sign Ups: All New WW Players Welcome! (CLOSED)
2 3 4 5
Replies
223
Views
14K
vampyrica
vampyrica
kaydubs
Melee WW Game Thread-April 2024
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
2K
Views
31K
Sandy Dikson
Sandy Dikson
Top