The Resistance: Avalon (Game Over)

[stessier]

Because Evil can't communicate. Because after Evil passed in Round 1, they had to spike Round 2 or risk being 1 Success from failure. So everyone Evil had to vote Fail lest everyone vote Success. Again, simple math.

They can't communicate, but they know who the others are. Logic seems to say that if there are 3 Evils in the group one can hold back assuming at least one of the two remaining will Fail the quest. In other words, we don't know how many evil are in that group.

And how would they pick the one?

They wouldn't pick the one. Again, logic would say that with 3 evils in a group at least one of them will vote to fail so a 3rd could hold back. In this case 2 people voted to fail. My point is that just because 2 voted to fail doesn't mean there wasn't a 3rd evil in the group.

Logic in no way suggests that at all.

Maybe not logic, but I can certainly see one of team evil sandbagging, and taking the chance that one of the other two would choose to fail the quest.

The goal is to make us think that you are on team good, while really on team evil so that we pick you to quest. Not sure how this works in this format. There are no 'tells' like when you play face to face.

You know how I know it didn't happen? Because we got 2 Fail votes when adding one player. If it is good to hide one Bad Guy, wouldn't it be even better to hide 2? You only need one Fail vote to scuttle a Quest at this point, so 2 gave something away. And we got 2 because they couldn't coordinate and had to be sure it failed. If there were 3, we would have gotten 3 votes because no one could be sure who would vote Fail.

[RMC]

Because Evil can't communicate. Because after Evil passed in Round 1, they had to spike Round 2 or risk being 1 Success from failure. So everyone Evil had to vote Fail lest everyone vote Success. Again, simple math.

They can't communicate, but they know who the others are. Logic seems to say that if there are 3 Evils in the group one can hold back assuming at least one of the two remaining will Fail the quest. In other words, we don't know how many evil are in that group.

And how would they pick the one?

They wouldn't pick the one. Again, logic would say that with 3 evils in a group at least one of them will vote to fail so a 3rd could hold back. In this case 2 people voted to fail. My point is that just because 2 voted to fail doesn't mean there wasn't a 3rd evil in the group.

Logic in no way suggests that at all.

Maybe not logic, but I can certainly see one of team evil sandbagging, and taking the chance that one of the other two would choose to fail the quest.

The goal is to make us think that you are on team good, while really on team evil so that we pick you to quest. Not sure how this works in this format. There are no 'tells' like when you play face to face.

You know how I know it didn't happen? Because we got 2 Fail votes when adding one player. If it is good to hide one Bad Guy, wouldn't it be even better to hide 2? You only need one Fail vote to scuttle a Quest at this point, so 2 gave something away. And we got 2 because they couldn't coordinate and had to be sure it failed. If there were 3, we would have gotten 3 votes because no one could be sure who would vote Fail.

Maybe, but I would caution against making that assumption.

[Zarathud]

Chicken.

[RMC]

Chicken.

heh.

[Remus West]

My guess: if 1 EVIL who votes F.
Remus West.

Take stessier from early larger party as EVIL and we know only 1 other based on his "slip"

So leaves 1 among others

This tells me you put 1 of your teammates in with us. I'd almost bet we get a single F vote from that statement.

El Guapo, I want to know why you scanned Chaosraven.
Holman, I want to know why you chose to skip Chaosraven in the party you formed. Why would you not want a firm chance at seeing how he would behave?
Chaosraven, I want you to try and justify leaving yourself out of a party you chose. Claiming you don't want to be tainted by a failed vote doesn't cut it. You have to pick 4 people. If you can change that to needing only three by putting yourself in as a Good then the odds of success go way up. Why pass on that chance. A Good you doesn't do that.

Chaosraven is Evil.
El Guapo claimed Chaosraven was good and must therefore also be Evil.
I think I lean Evil on Holman but rather than go that far I think we just leave him out of the party mix.

This explains the scan to me as well. El Guapo was just burned two Secret Hitler games in a row by scans being in the hands of the other team. Scanning his own team leaves the scan in the hands of Evil and creates the chaos around an argument regarding the scan.

Also, if we everyone just votes yes all willy-nilly we never have anything to talk about form a theory and get it out there so we can parse through ideas.

Right now I'd choose stessier and Scoop to join any party I made. Not sure yet on a fourth but those two I feel the best about regarding them being good.

[Holman]

Holman, I want to know why you chose to skip Chaosraven in the party you formed. Why would you not want a firm chance at seeing how he would behave?

I already answered that.

I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

I've never played this game before, but it doesn't look like we have a lot of chances to play around with. I didn't think "testing" through actual quest failure was an option. I also assumed that anyone affiliated with the earlier failed quest (as CR was through being scanned by ElG) would cause the party to be rejected.

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

[stessier]

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

I told you why I voted against it. It should have been you, Chaos, El Guapo, and one other. At the very least you should have included yourself in the mix - you know you aren't Evil and since there are two remaining in the rest of the pool you have a better chance at getting a passing party if you only have to choose 3 names rather than 4.

And why were you trying to guess what would pass rather than do something that gave the best shot at getting a Passing grade from a Quest?

[El Guapo]

El Guapo, I want to know why you scanned Chaosraven.

I already explained that when I was making the choice, but I can certainly go back and quote those posts for you.

[El Guapo]

FWIW I am inclined to scan someone off my team. Since 2 of 3 teammates are evil, I probably hit an evil person. BUT I still could not trust the other two teammates in that scenario (since one would be evil), so I / we would presumably still stay away from the rest of the team. Plus then evil would get control of the scan.

I'm interested in more input, then I plan on deciding this afternoon.

I assume that Holman is going to get rejected even if I scan him and he comes back good. Though he is my probable in-team scan choice.

Fair enough, but we already know (depending on who you are) that he has a 50% or 66% chance of being evil. We can already infer information about Holman. If his team would be rejected anyway (which he knows and which would skew the info provided) shouldn't we reject him and have me scan the next in line (chaosraven) so that we are not flying blind with him?

This is mixed in with replies from stessier.

[El Guapo]

Remus, who would you have scanned, out of curiosity?

I could see a case for scanning Holman, though I thought (and still think) that the case for chaosraven as the next quest organizer in line was more useful and compelling. I can't see much of a case for scanning anyone else (though I was hoping to get more suggestions and input, though people in this game seem to only want to discuss things after they're done).

[Holman]

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

I told you why I voted against it. It should have been you, Chaos, El Guapo, and one other. At the very least you should have included yourself in the mix - you know you aren't Evil and since there are two remaining in the rest of the pool you have a better chance at getting a passing party if you only have to choose 3 names rather than 4.

And why were you trying to guess what would pass rather than do something that gave the best shot at getting a Passing grade from a Quest?

I was acting on what I thought was will of Camelot to avoid everyone connected to the earlier quest. I thought I made a clear, obvious effort at doing so.

[Remus West]

Remus, who would you have scanned, out of curiosity?

I could see a case for scanning Holman, though I thought (and still think) that the case for chaosraven as the next quest organizer in line was more useful and compelling. I can't see much of a case for scanning anyone else (though I was hoping to get more suggestions and input, though people in this game seem to only want to discuss things after they're done).

I would have scanned backward through the list. So for your scan I would have targeted me. Rather than worrying about the people who will be naming teams (which gives us information regarding them) we should have been looking for information regarding those not going to be active soon. Had you scanned me I would then have gone with bb2112 and suggested he target Scoop.

As for folks discussing things after they happen, I've been trying to check in and comment daily yet every time I check in several things have been decided with no discussion so I put very little faith in the "I tried to get people to discuss" argument as nobody had shown any patience towards allowing time for discussion. Which is another issue I have with you, Holman, and Chaosraven. All three of you made big decisions with seemingly no real interest in what the group thought about those decisions. You all claim to say you were acting as the group thought you should but none of you gave enough time to hear those thoughts.

[Remus West]

Holman, I want to know why you chose to skip Chaosraven in the party you formed. Why would you not want a firm chance at seeing how he would behave?

I already answered that.

I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

I've never played this game before, but it doesn't look like we have a lot of chances to play around with. I didn't think "testing" through actual quest failure was an option. I also assumed that anyone affiliated with the earlier failed quest (as CR was through being scanned by ElG) would cause the party to be rejected.

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

Except I don't buy that. At the time Chaosraven had done exactly nothing so how could he be tainted? El Guapo good would call him good/evil based off truth. El Guapo Evil would call him good/evil based off whatever he thought would stir the pot the best. Chaosraven had no tie in to El Guapo and an evil El Guapo may very well have called out the truth simply to blend with the good guys after the failed quest.

Note, all that was my thinking at the time. I felt as stessier has said, the quest after the failed one should have been you, El Guapo, and Chaosraven, + 1 other. The number of fail votes would have shown us a lot regarding the roles of folks from the first two quests. We shall see where we stand after this quest but given Chaosraven's actions since that time I do not feel good about him or this quest.

[El Guapo]

Remus, who would you have scanned, out of curiosity?

I could see a case for scanning Holman, though I thought (and still think) that the case for chaosraven as the next quest organizer in line was more useful and compelling. I can't see much of a case for scanning anyone else (though I was hoping to get more suggestions and input, though people in this game seem to only want to discuss things after they're done).

I would have scanned backward through the list. So for your scan I would have targeted me. Rather than worrying about the people who will be naming teams (which gives us information regarding them) we should have been looking for information regarding those not going to be active soon. Had you scanned me I would then have gone with bb2112 and suggested he target Scoop.

As for folks discussing things after they happen, I've been trying to check in and comment daily yet every time I check in several things have been decided with no discussion so I put very little faith in the "I tried to get people to discuss" argument as nobody had shown any patience towards allowing time for discussion. Which is another issue I have with you, Holman, and Chaosraven. All three of you made big decisions with seemingly no real interest in what the group thought about those decisions. You all claim to say you were acting as the group thought you should but none of you gave enough time to hear those thoughts.

FWIW I never claimed to be acting as the group thought. As for waiting long enough I waited about 24 hours from when the Quest #2 results came in (which started the Lady of the Lake turn/phase) and a full day from when I asked for any advice that anyone wanted to give. Most people posted at least once during that time frame. I was going to log-off for the evening and didn't really expect to get much more in terms of advice, and I felt good (and still do) about my scanning target choice.

I do see the logic of scanning people who aren't going to be otherwise active, but the goal of the game is to pass quests, not identify wolves, and knowing the loyalty of the quest organizers seems more useful than knowing the identity of miscellaneous person X. At least I know that Chaosraven is trying to put together a party devoid of evil.

[Chaosraven]

Didn't give time?

[El Guapo]

Didn't give time?

Is this directed at me or at Remus?

[Holman]

Holman, I want to know why you chose to skip Chaosraven in the party you formed. Why would you not want a firm chance at seeing how he would behave?

I already answered that.

I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

I've never played this game before, but it doesn't look like we have a lot of chances to play around with. I didn't think "testing" through actual quest failure was an option. I also assumed that anyone affiliated with the earlier failed quest (as CR was through being scanned by ElG) would cause the party to be rejected.

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

Except I don't buy that. At the time Chaosraven had done exactly nothing so how could he be tainted? El Guapo good would call him good/evil based off truth. El Guapo Evil would call him good/evil based off whatever he thought would stir the pot the best. Chaosraven had no tie in to El Guapo and an evil El Guapo may very well have called out the truth simply to blend with the good guys after the failed quest.

Note, all that was my thinking at the time. I felt as stessier has said, the quest after the failed one should have been you, El Guapo, and Chaosraven, + 1 other. The number of fail votes would have shown us a lot regarding the roles of folks from the first two quests. We shall see where we stand after this quest but given Chaosraven's actions since that time I do not feel good about him or this quest.

At the time, we had just come off a tainted quest, and the scanner of CR was himself tainted. Since El G was 50% likely to be Evil, trusting his scan target to pick the next quest seemed like a bad bet.

You're pushing pretty hard to make me look sinister where my behavior is very straightforward. I don't know that El G is evil, but I know the odds didn't look good.

[Chaosraven]

I was on over the weekend. Started my OWN discussion around 16-17 HOURS later.

No response.

Not even one.

So I went ahead and did what I thought was right THREE more hours later.

Yeah, your obfuscation attempt here definately marks you as EVIL in my book.

[El Guapo]

Holman, I want to know why you chose to skip Chaosraven in the party you formed. Why would you not want a firm chance at seeing how he would behave?

I already answered that.

I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

I've never played this game before, but it doesn't look like we have a lot of chances to play around with. I didn't think "testing" through actual quest failure was an option. I also assumed that anyone affiliated with the earlier failed quest (as CR was through being scanned by ElG) would cause the party to be rejected.

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

Except I don't buy that. At the time Chaosraven had done exactly nothing so how could he be tainted? El Guapo good would call him good/evil based off truth. El Guapo Evil would call him good/evil based off whatever he thought would stir the pot the best. Chaosraven had no tie in to El Guapo and an evil El Guapo may very well have called out the truth simply to blend with the good guys after the failed quest.

This is true. My working assumption, based on the Quest #2 math and Holman's current unpersuasive reasoning, is that Holman is evil. I also assume that there is precisely one evil in his proposed party (there being no benefit to including more than one evil on the quest, and that even if he thought that the party would rejected it would be too tempting to not include one evil person), so that one of Isgrimnur, Moliere, Scoop20906, bb2112 is evil. Consequently the evil line-up looks something like:

Holman, [stessier / RMC], [Isgrimnur / Moliere / Scoop / bb2112], and [TBD].

[Grundbegriff]

The King's favorite tale hasn't been written yet! Merlin and his recommendations for reading....

Quest #3 is a FAILURE!




The members of Team Failure Two, Electric Boogaloo, were: Isgrimnur, Moliere , bb2112, and Remus West.

The choice counts were:
FAILURE: 1
SUCCESS: 3

The Lady of the Lake will now select and scan a target by using the [accuse tag.

[El Guapo]

Ugh. At least on the next quest we have some margin for error, so all we need to do is avoid including two evils on the team.

[Moliere]

At least I know that Chaosraven is trying to put together a party devoid of evil.

From our perspective that isn't as obvious. Let's run through the scenarios.

Evil ElG picks a good Chaos to scan. This makes him seem good to both Chaos immediately and the group later if Chaos is validated.
Evil ElG picks evil Chaos to scan. This keeps the scanning power with the Evil group, right?
Good ElG picks an unknown Chaos. If he announces Chaos as Good then we have two probable Good people.

[RMC]

I say scan Remus.

[Isgrimnur]

Ugh. At least on the next quest we have some margin for error, so all we need to do is avoid including two evils on the team.

Take the current team and add one other that is not suspected. Should be easy enough, unless we have a sleeper on this team.

[El Guapo]

At least I know that Chaosraven is trying to put together a party devoid of evil.

From our perspective that isn't as obvious. Let's run through the scenarios.

Evil ElG picks a good Chaos to scan. This makes him seem good to both Chaos immediately and the group later if Chaos is validated.
Evil ElG picks evil Chaos to scan. This keeps the scanning power with the Evil group, right?
Good ElG picks an unknown Chaos. If he announces Chaos as Good then we have two probable Good people.

Obviously. I was just saying that *I* know that Chaosraven is good. Your mileage may vary.

[El Guapo]

Ugh. At least on the next quest we have some margin for error, so all we need to do is avoid including two evils on the team.

Take the current team and add one other that is not suspected. Should be easy enough, unless we have a sleeper on this team.

That makes sense, *except* with the enormous caveat that if we take this route we would have to be damn sure that the newbie is good, or else the newbie would join with the current evildoer from Quest #3 and we would lose the game.

[El Guapo]

I say scan Remus.

That would make some sense. I would also be fine with Isgrimnur as the next community organizer in line.

[Remus West]

Holman, I want to know why you chose to skip Chaosraven in the party you formed. Why would you not want a firm chance at seeing how he would behave?

I already answered that.

I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

I've never played this game before, but it doesn't look like we have a lot of chances to play around with. I didn't think "testing" through actual quest failure was an option. I also assumed that anyone affiliated with the earlier failed quest (as CR was through being scanned by ElG) would cause the party to be rejected.

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

Except I don't buy that. At the time Chaosraven had done exactly nothing so how could he be tainted? El Guapo good would call him good/evil based off truth. El Guapo Evil would call him good/evil based off whatever he thought would stir the pot the best. Chaosraven had no tie in to El Guapo and an evil El Guapo may very well have called out the truth simply to blend with the good guys after the failed quest.

Note, all that was my thinking at the time. I felt as stessier has said, the quest after the failed one should have been you, El Guapo, and Chaosraven, + 1 other. The number of fail votes would have shown us a lot regarding the roles of folks from the first two quests. We shall see where we stand after this quest but given Chaosraven's actions since that time I do not feel good about him or this quest.

At the time, we had just come off a tainted quest, and the scanner of CR was himself tainted. Since El G was 50% likely to be Evil, trusting his scan target to pick the next quest seemed like a bad bet.

You're pushing pretty hard to make me look sinister where my behavior is very straightforward. I don't know that El G is evil, but I know the odds didn't look good.

You were one of the 4 that returned 2 failure votes, right? From your perspective El Guapo should have seemed 2/3 chance of being Evil but you are working very hard to not talk from your perspective but rather from the perspective of an actual good guy.

Holman moved all the way to Evil on my list. Ironically in a manner that makes me doubt my earlier evaluation of Chaosraven/El Guapo. I still wouldn't put any of them in a quest right now though.

[Remus West]

I say scan Remus.

I'm good with that but I'd like you to share your reasoning as to why me.

[RMC]

I say scan Remus.

I'm good with that but I'd like you to share your reasoning as to why me.

I always scan you if given the opportunity. Plus, I like some of your analyst, but it will take a bad turn if you are evil. I would like to at least hear someone say that you are good/evil, so I can have one other item to evaluate with.

[Holman]

Holman, I want to know why you chose to skip Chaosraven in the party you formed. Why would you not want a firm chance at seeing how he would behave?

I already answered that.

I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

I've never played this game before, but it doesn't look like we have a lot of chances to play around with. I didn't think "testing" through actual quest failure was an option. I also assumed that anyone affiliated with the earlier failed quest (as CR was through being scanned by ElG) would cause the party to be rejected.

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

Except I don't buy that. At the time Chaosraven had done exactly nothing so how could he be tainted? El Guapo good would call him good/evil based off truth. El Guapo Evil would call him good/evil based off whatever he thought would stir the pot the best. Chaosraven had no tie in to El Guapo and an evil El Guapo may very well have called out the truth simply to blend with the good guys after the failed quest.

Note, all that was my thinking at the time. I felt as stessier has said, the quest after the failed one should have been you, El Guapo, and Chaosraven, + 1 other. The number of fail votes would have shown us a lot regarding the roles of folks from the first two quests. We shall see where we stand after this quest but given Chaosraven's actions since that time I do not feel good about him or this quest.

At the time, we had just come off a tainted quest, and the scanner of CR was himself tainted. Since El G was 50% likely to be Evil, trusting his scan target to pick the next quest seemed like a bad bet.

You're pushing pretty hard to make me look sinister where my behavior is very straightforward. I don't know that El G is evil, but I know the odds didn't look good.

You were one of the 4 that returned 2 failure votes, right? From your perspective El Guapo should have seemed 2/3 chance of being Evil but you are working very hard to not talk from your perspective but rather from the perspective of an actual good guy.

Holman moved all the way to Evil on my list. Ironically in a manner that makes me doubt my earlier evaluation of Chaosraven/El Guapo. I still wouldn't put any of them in a quest right now though.

I was describing how things looked to the rest of you (hence the 50%), which is what's meant by my good faith effort to set up a clean team.

Knowing I was also tainted was exactly why I left myself off the team too. No one would (or should) have voted for a team with anyone from quest 2. Does that not make sense?

Mistrust me and trust El G and CR if you wish, but you're making a mistake.

[Remus West]

Holman, I want to know why you chose to skip Chaosraven in the party you formed. Why would you not want a firm chance at seeing how he would behave?

I already answered that.

I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

I've never played this game before, but it doesn't look like we have a lot of chances to play around with. I didn't think "testing" through actual quest failure was an option. I also assumed that anyone affiliated with the earlier failed quest (as CR was through being scanned by ElG) would cause the party to be rejected.

I sill don't understand why that fresh party WAS rejected, incidentally.

Except I don't buy that. At the time Chaosraven had done exactly nothing so how could he be tainted? El Guapo good would call him good/evil based off truth. El Guapo Evil would call him good/evil based off whatever he thought would stir the pot the best. Chaosraven had no tie in to El Guapo and an evil El Guapo may very well have called out the truth simply to blend with the good guys after the failed quest.

Note, all that was my thinking at the time. I felt as stessier has said, the quest after the failed one should have been you, El Guapo, and Chaosraven, + 1 other. The number of fail votes would have shown us a lot regarding the roles of folks from the first two quests. We shall see where we stand after this quest but given Chaosraven's actions since that time I do not feel good about him or this quest.

At the time, we had just come off a tainted quest, and the scanner of CR was himself tainted. Since El G was 50% likely to be Evil, trusting his scan target to pick the next quest seemed like a bad bet.

You're pushing pretty hard to make me look sinister where my behavior is very straightforward. I don't know that El G is evil, but I know the odds didn't look good.

You were one of the 4 that returned 2 failure votes, right? From your perspective El Guapo should have seemed 2/3 chance of being Evil but you are working very hard to not talk from your perspective but rather from the perspective of an actual good guy.

Holman moved all the way to Evil on my list. Ironically in a manner that makes me doubt my earlier evaluation of Chaosraven/El Guapo. I still wouldn't put any of them in a quest right now though.

I was describing how things looked to the rest of you (hence the 50%), which is what's meant by my good faith effort to set up a clean team.

Knowing I was also tainted was exactly why I left myself off the team too. No one would (or should) have voted for a team with anyone from quest 2. Does that not make sense?

Mistrust me and trust El G and CR if you wish, but you're making a mistake.

Why do you lump the two of them in with yourself? How would you know if I'm making a mistake regarding anyone save yourself? Why do you want me to trust them? Why do you? You just went to pains to demonstrate that El Guapo was tainted.

[Remus West]

I say scan Remus.

I'm good with that but I'd like you to share your reasoning as to why me.

I always scan you if given the opportunity. Plus, I like some of your analyst, but it will take a bad turn if you are evil. I would like to at least hear someone say that you are good/evil, so I can have one other item to evaluate with.

So you want to have a player that I feel is untrustworthy be the one to announce to you whether I am trustworthy or not?

[bb2112]

Hmmm, thoughts...

CR & RW - I don't think they are on the same team. The problem is I don't know which to trust.
El G - I have to link with CR. Either both are good or bad. I know this may not be true, but to cut down on the variables, I am going to go with it until proven (Ha) otherwise.
Holman - I believe is good. His attempt at setting up the second party was a good one.
Scoop - His play is confusing, but not sure if it is because he is playing games, or is good. Leans good I think.

Stess - Trying to play mastermind. In mastermind you have 10 tries to figure out combinations. We have 5, and have to be right 3 times out of those 5. Not enough chances to play mastermind.

Overall, I am not convinced this is a good PBP game.

I know we need to get a scan. I would like CR to scan Stess. I think it would be a waste of time for him to scan RW.

[Holman]

I was describing how things looked to the rest of you (hence the 50%), which is what's meant by my good faith effort to set up a clean team.

Knowing I was also tainted was exactly why I left myself off the team too. No one would (or should) have voted for a team with anyone from quest 2. Does that not make sense?

Mistrust me and trust El G and CR if you wish, but you're making a mistake.

Why do you lump the two of them in with yourself? How would you know if I'm making a mistake regarding anyone save yourself? Why do you want me to trust them? Why do you? You just went to pains to demonstrate that El Guapo was tainted.

What do you mean, why lump them in with me? We were all (CR by extension of being scanned by ElG) associated with Quest 2. Stessier and RMC are lumped in there as well, but for some reason you're not talking about them. Why is that?

I don't trust anyone but myself associated with Quests 1 and 2. Your mistake is mistrusting me.

This isn't hard, and I know you know that, so I believe you're blowing smoke.

[Holman]

Given all the smoke blowing around here, I think CR should scan RW.

[bb2112]

Given all the smoke blowing around here, I think CR should scan RW.

I think that would be a waste of a scan. I believe that CR is going to name RW evil whether RW is or not. Based on their interactions, I don't think they are playing for the same team. It could be wolves trying to smokescreen us, but I don't get that feeling and we don't have a lot of time, or semi useful scans to waste. Stess feels like the biggest variable we need to get some information about, IMO.

[stessier]

Scanning either me or RMC would tell the group things about previous leaders and who they were willing to send on Quests. Not a horrible plan.

[bb2112]

Scanning either me or RMC would tell the group things about previous leaders and who they were willing to send on Quests. Not a horrible plan.

RMC wouldn't really tell us anything about picking teams. You picked the original team and we only added RMC to the mix.

[stessier]

Well, actually he did. I mean, Holman could have done a lot of things with his choice too.