From a voting standpoint, I think it doesn't matter whether the leader sends himself or not. If you think the leader is town, you are going to trust his selections the same no matter who is on it. In fact, it might be even better if the leader decides not to put himself on the team as we are able to see more of his concrete reads and opinions.

This is just me theory-crafting but let me know if I am way off.

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 03:12 GMT

#92

If Koshi is going to troll, I'm not sure if I want him going on missions. Would it help our read of him or just hinder our chances at getting a good mission?

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 05:01 GMT

#99

On December 27 2013 13:58 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Corazon if you were a leader now would you send a team that does not include yourself?

Seeing as I just said that I don't really think it matters, I don't understand why are you asking that question.

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 05:14 GMT

#101

On December 27 2013 14:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Because you job as a leader is to send 3 townies on a mission. You knowing your alignment why would you not send yourself?

Because it gives me the opportunity to share my reads and have people discuss them. I can say all I want about people being townie but it never becomes concrete until I send them on a mission.

If I send myself, we only get to talk about the alignment of 3 people.
If I don't send myself, we get to talk about the alignment of 4 people. Myself + the 3 others I sent.

Of course the drawback is that we aren't able to discern the leader's alignment as accurately after the mission fails/succeeds, but I think both approaches are valid ways of picking teams.

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 05:19 GMT

#103

On December 27 2013 14:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Why would we talk only about those people's alignment who are sent in the mission?

Because when I say, "I'm thinking of sending A/B/C", that means we are supposed to talk about A, B, and C when we decide to accept/reject the team.

There are other times where we discuss everyone's alignment (such as after a mission), but for accepting/rejecting teams, I don't understand why we would publicly evaluate anyone else besides the town status of the people that the leader chose and the town status of the leader himself.

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 05:30 GMT

#105

On December 27 2013 14:25 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Oh god, i hope you drop that line of thinking if you are town. We are supposed to discuss everyone's alignment regardless of what the team leader is going to send. Strongest townreads should go, on D1 that means you should send yourself, because you are your strongest townread, and there is no concrete information of anyone's scumminess/towniness (i mean voting patterns & mission results to analyze).

Even if you have a weak townread on someone who is being put on the mission that does not mean you should automatically pass that without discussion, you need to suggest your strongest townreads. After D1 that somewhat changes but the first mission.. There is no reason to not nominate yourself if you are town, absolutely none.

So you are saying my line of reasoning is only invalid for D1?

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 05:48 GMT

#108

On December 27 2013 14:41 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Basically yes.
After D1 that somewhat changes.

Ok, I can compromise with you there. Of course I'm not picking first so I don't know what you mean by "I hope you stop thinking like this if you are town". No need to attack me for hypotheticals

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 16:06 GMT

#145

I kind of like Hopeless' idea of sending 2 strong town reads and 1 liability. I think that would be a good way to weed out the town lurkers from the spy lurkers if we got a good D1 where we passed the mission.

It's only a bad plan if we are behind, as spies can spare town a win and allow us to misread the liability.

I'm only doing a lot of theory crafting b/c this is my first time playing resistance and not too much has happened in the way of action.

Koshi, I think you should give hopeless the benefit of the doubt in the beginning of the game and not assume he is going to lurk the whole game. Why are you calling out people for meta reasons? How is that solving anything?

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 18:44 GMT

#154

In my opinion, Koshi needs to step up his game. His line of reasoning is very anti-town and his only explanation for why he should be picked is "I'm town".

If he doesn't improve, I don't think he should be considered for any of the missions (at least the first 2 or 3).

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 27 2013 23:38 GMT

#170

After looking at Hopeless again, I really do like his posts. His contributions have been very excellent and I don't mind his nomination at all.

I'm also okay with Rayn and Adam as nominations. I want to hear some more questioning and activity from everyone b/c the only scum/spy read I have right now is Koshi.

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 28 2013 00:35 GMT

#174

On CR - I think you are being a little harsh on him. I think your scum read on him is simply because you disagree with him. Most of his posts have been refuting you so he hasn't had much of a chance to say anything else in relation to the game. Perhaps you should back off of him a bit and let him do his thing?

Ofc if he pulls a Koshi and lurks, then you can go after him.

@Rayn + everyone else
How do you feel about Adam's team? Is there a more optimal team from your standpoint?

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 28 2013 00:46 GMT

#176

Yeah I would've preferred myself or VE on the team instead of Adam but I also agreed with your point about the leader picking themselves on the team.

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 28 2013 15:50 GMT

#189

Is it typical for the first mission team to be approved mostly uncontested?

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 28 2013 20:35 GMT

#202

I'm going to have to Nay as well. I gave it careful consideration but I realized that Adam has had little thread presence and I can't really trust his picks because I believe that he has not been putting enough attention into the game to read anyone else.

The other thing that startles me was the lack of contestation of the picks. 3 people voted yes without really discussing it, which makes me nervous that this team is backed by the spies, which would most likely result in this mission failing. There wasn't enough scrutiny early on which doesn't give me confidence in Adam or his team.

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 28 2013 20:46 GMT

#205

He's making Adam vote formally so we still have a chance to convince him to oppose his team and read the game.

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 28 2013 21:17 GMT

#208

Would you like to explain your post?

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 29 2013 01:41 GMT

#240

On December 29 2013 10:39 Adam4167 wrote:

Show nested quote +

You don't like the fact that I want to take extra time to make sure I don't fuck this up?

Why

This ultimately rests in my hands, as I have the swing vote and I want to make sure i'm making the right decision.

Why are you only being cautious now as opposed to being cautious when you picked a team?

Corazon

United States3230 Posts

December 29 2013 16:58 GMT

#270

TBH I think we should disregard most of what Koshi says. It's quite obvious from his posts that he's not really playing the game and he's just flinging shit for no reason.