I'm honestly just going to start suspecting people who don't vote by PM of being spies... There's no reason not to vote by PM unless you want to help the spies!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
And I disagree. I think voting publicly last game hurt the spies more than it helped them.
I was thinking that as well, until I remembered the 4 rejected teams from last game that helped us figure out who the resistance was quite quickly.
So there is a reason to reject the team, but if the spies know we auto reject the first team, there's reason to suggest a wacky team with all spies, so there's a reason to accept it as well
.
I accepted a team due to reacting to the voting of the spies, it may have passed 6-2, but the vote was made largely on what the spies were doing. Not to mention discussion during the first 4 teams could have lead to those teams being rejected. We will never know, due to the fact that the game already happened, but many of them were close (4-4) and without the discussion could have led to a pass. It was the fact that we rejected 4 teams with Falc on it that led to you suggesting the team that was successful. Can you really say that the public voting and discussion had no influence on getting some of those teams rejected?
You also get more discussion on the teams, instead of people just voting in private. Which, depending on who the spies and the resistance are, can help either side equally.
## Confirm loyalty
Apologies that it took me a bit to get around to this game. Not sure what's going on with that really, as I have been checking my forum subscriptions .. ah well.
Any particular reason as to why you distributed things like that?
I've never really understood this game's tendency for leaders to just post their proposals without any prior discussion whatsoever
I don't really get why.
Yeah, bandwagoning, but really .. usually the way the wind blows is easy enough to read from what people post in the thread.
Ah, I see.
That assumes people won't talk about the how and why of their vote in the thread, though. If you really want to retain vote purity people shouldn't talk about it in public either, at least until the next leader's turn comes up.
Speaking of which:
## Reject this team
I would like to see something that has me on it, and get a few more vote cycles as well while we're at it.
There you go and prove my point.
Public discussion is simply more important than maintaining sanctity of the votes.
Apologies that it took me a bit to get around to this game. Not sure what's going on with that really, as I have been checking my forum subscriptions .. ah well.
Any particular reason as to why you distributed things like that?
I've never really understood this game's tendency for leaders to just post their proposals without any prior discussion whatsoever
I don't really get why.
Yeah, bandwagoning, but really .. usually the way the wind blows is easy enough to read from what people post in the thread.
Ah, I see.
That assumes people won't talk about the how and why of their vote in the thread, though. If you really want to retain vote purity people shouldn't talk about it in public either, at least until the next leader's turn comes up.
Speaking of which:
## Reject this team
I would like to see something that has me on it, and get a few more vote cycles as well while we're at it.
There you go and prove my point.
Public discussion is simply more important than maintaining sanctity of the votes.
If you take a step back, it's actually predictability that allows the Spies something to hide behind.
Private votes are de facto harder to predict than public ones, but that doesn't mean public ones are always predictable.
Always voting in public is beneficial to the Spies, yes. But some discussion needs to take place and sometimes a person's intent is so clear that a private vote is pointless.
Private votes are de facto harder to predict than public ones, but that doesn't mean public ones are always predictable.
Always voting in public is beneficial to the Spies, yes. But some discussion needs to take place and sometimes a person's intent is so clear that a private vote is pointless.
But you didn't know who the spies were at that point, so that shouldn't really have affected how you vote. The spies may have all accepted the team after seeing a member of the resistance accepting it too which nearly led to those 4-4 proposals being passed (they actually did this twice if memory serves). If everyone voted in private, the spies don't have the benefit of knowing when to accept and when to reject. If they have no information the chances of them accepting all teams with a single spy on a far higher. So any teams passed by 5-3 that fail (assuming all spies approve along with two resistance members also on a 3 man team), we can immediately start to question why the two people who accepted but weren't on the team acted as they did.
Without meaning to offend anyone, the spies last game didn't play particularly well, as you could work out who they were just by analysing the votes. Every team with one spy on got an accept from all three of them. If they had played better they would be accepting teams without spies on knowing that it will fail anyway and rejecting teams with spies on that they know will succeed anyway. That let's them hide from anyone analysing the vote counts. This is impossible to do if we vote by PM, making the vote counts far more valuable. If we all vote in the open it's much less helpful for analysis.
Discussion of why you accepted/rejected a team can still be done, just once the game has been updated. However, there does seem to be this very strange habit of approving teams that players know nothing about because 'why not?' People should only be accepting teams that they actually have reasons to accept, not because they don't have a reason to reject. The default position should be reject. And I'm not saying reject everything that doesn't have you on, but at least have a small reason even if its only the people on team just struck you as resistance.
If everyone did this we would have far more to analyse. Even if it voting openly is slightly helpful to the resistance, it's far more helpful to spies. Please vote by PM!
Sure, discussion is good. Allowing the spies to know exactly how you will act tends not to be. If you are convinced there is a spy, by all means state why and reject the team publicly. But when we have so little information to go on there isn't much to discuss anyway. Voting publicly at this point helps no one but the spies...
So basically you're saying that if the spies play the game the way they should be playing it voting by PM is the better strategy for the village.
Right.
Frankly, I don't think we're going to settle this dispute without trying it once or twice.
Right.
Frankly, I don't think we're going to settle this dispute without trying it once or twice.
If the spies are crap it doesn't matter what we do. If the spies know what they are doing, voting by PM hurts them. Having been a spy when Falc managed to convince most of the resistance to vote by PM, I know how difficult this can make life.
## Confirm loyalty
Any particular reason as to why you distributed things like that?
I've never really understood this game's tendency for leaders to just post their proposals without any prior discussion whatsoever
I random.org'd them. We don't know who the spies are yet, and any discussion is relatively random, or guided by spies.
Sorry, but if you actually look at last game, you'll quickly find that 1-2 spies rejected every team (at least until we figured out who was safe, then all 3 rejected, but the game was already won). And we DID know who the spies were, we had Xarkan and Cliges as the duo of potential spies, and we could decide on teams based on their votes (which I did)
After the fact is sadly ineffective. While I can convince people to change their minds about voting yes or no during the vote, it's impossible to do so afterwards. Sometimes a good convincing is all people need before they reject a horrible proposal, or accept a good one. Sometimes people don't know that a proposal is horrible or a proposal is good until someone explains it to them.
reject
I agree with that. While discussing such proposals sounds nice in theory, I'd rather have the leader make up his mind immediately. There are less opportunities for manipulation that way. At least initially in the game where little info is available.
I agree with that. While discussing such proposals sounds nice in theory, I'd rather have the leader make up his mind immediately. There are less opportunities for manipulation that way. At least initially in the game where little info is available.
If this doesn't pass, I think I would like to see Xarkan on the next team again. I currently think that he is one of the more unlikely spies here as a spy would have passed the NC to a packmate IMO - which I am not. Although currently you have to take my word for it.
Also I would like to ask AsdfeZxcas why he voted for the proposal with little to no comment.
Also I would like to ask AsdfeZxcas why he voted for the proposal with little to no comment.
The team of Xarkan-Tonkatoy-Tamius was rejected by 6 votes to 4
Approved: Xarkan, Falc, AsdfeZxcas, Tonkatoy5
Rejected: Capt.Kiwi, Randakar, Trinitrotoluen, Tamiuys, Kingepyon, Jpr
This was the first rejected team.
Mission 1, Round 2
Falc becomes the Leader.
Approved: Xarkan, Falc, AsdfeZxcas, Tonkatoy5
Rejected: Capt.Kiwi, Randakar, Trinitrotoluen, Tamiuys, Kingepyon, Jpr
This was the first rejected team.
Mission 1, Round 2
Falc becomes the Leader.