Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 22, 2014 15:59:06 GMT -8
I said I was tired. In fact, I'm going to bed. I'll return tomorrow to see what I think. It's really hard for me to get my head around the fact that nearly half of you are bad guys. And I need to stop thinking that people who sound reasonable and/or agree with me must have my best interests at heart. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jan 22, 2014 16:40:25 GMT -8
Thinking about it, I'm inclined to believe that the most likely scenario for the first mission failing is the GM being a spy. It'd be particularly clever if Joly happened to be a Rogue. In thinking about how any info we've gained from day 1 could be used to fill out a team, I'm somewhat stymied. Junking the first 3 and moving on has a pretty low chance of success. The rogue ratio, assuming one in the first three, would be 3:4 which is no better than it was and we're picking one more person. Obviously you don't want to keep a rogue. I'd be willing to not be on the mission if that's thought best. My first blush is something like Me, AL, Joly and Aeth and if that doesn't work start picking from among the last 5, but that may be making too many assumptions. I'm still trying to logic through with what little we have. I'm late to the party (sorry, trying to adjust to my new life schedule still. Between work and homework, and I'm being paid by Curves to do social media for them (well, paid with free workouts and programs), so I'm working out 5 days a week...), anyways, I'm not sure why I'm in that first sentence? Anyways, Mastermind has been brought up. Loved the game. Typically, for me, it was a couple lines that were process of elimination. So I either picked 2 colors or 4 different colors, then used something else in the second line, until I'd tired everything once, then started from there. It set up a pattern that made sense to me. In this game, I can't say, ok, I'm choosing 2 reds and 2 greens to start with, because, well, we can't send the same person twice. What I CAN do, is send new people to mission 2 and see what happens. For me, I wouldn't be comfortable, at this time, with a team that included any of the first 3. Why? Because we know for a fact that one of them is a spy. Could be more (I doubt it, more in a moment), but for a fact, it's one of them. If team 2 went and did include the spy from team 1, it would be in the realm of acceptable loss, because there are still 3 spies unidentified and only 1 more mission to sabotage. I do agree that there was only 1 spy in group 1 though. I can't see the reward of a failed mission now being worth suspicion on multiple spies later on in the game, especially if we make it to mission 4 or 5, where they'd have to have at least 2 of them on a team to win. Does anyone else see an advantage to multiple spies in Mission 1 and failing it? We all think differently, and I'm rather fascinated by this whole shift in the way we have to think, so I'm very interested to see if anyone has an opposing view to that.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 16:49:32 GMT -8
And wow, Furare, I sure don't remember that post being that short. Nor was mine. Regardless, do what you want. I'm not having an argument with you about this again. I explained what I was responding to, and why even if you didn't literally mean that I found the idea worth refuting regardless, and how it isn't even really to do with you. If you're just going to be snide while implying I'm still misinterpreting or mischaracterising you then I'm done. All I've said, and it's clear in that post, is that talking gets us nowhere unless we act on it in some fashion. If you'd prefer, we could rephrase as, "We don't know where talking has gotten us unless we act on it." I don't even think that's a controversial statement. And deciding any mission should be voted down is though. Which Sets has since clarified that that's not what he intended to say. So... that seems comfortably wrapped up. Instead, why don't we all talk about who we'd like to send or dislike sending?
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 22, 2014 16:52:49 GMT -8
For me, I wouldn't be comfortable, at this time, with a team that included any of the first 3. Why? Because we know for a fact that one of them is a spy. While this is an understandable first reaction, you have to remember that we know for a (generally accepted) fact that 3 of the other 7 are spies. 3/7 is a larger fraction (.429) than 1/3 (.333).
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 22, 2014 17:16:00 GMT -8
Instead, why don't we all talk about who we'd like to send or dislike sending? Okay. I of course would like to send myself, which is a true and useless statement. After that I'd probably put Sets. His recent posts seem to be from a very town-centric viewpoint, and don't make sense given what we know about the spies (they chose to fail the first mission). His reaction seems to be "Uh-oh, we have to be really careful now". Innocents having this reaction is exactly the downside for the spies of failing the first mission. Spreading this sentiment is not something the spies would want to do given their choice of failing it, as they would want to minimize their losses. Next I'd say Joly. She's been quiet, but flying under the radar is not really a benefit for a spy. Her most recent post, although I disagree with some of it, seems like it has good intentions and also appears to be from the mindset of an innocent. Also Furare. I feel like if she were a spy she'd seem more... calculated. My current impression is that the spies have a plan. An innocent Furare, on the other hand, would still be learning the game and thus would be slightly more haphazard. I would not like to send Leif or AL, for obvious reasons. Although it's a 1/3 chance from an outside perspective, for me it's 1/2, and I don't like those odds. Leif slightly moreso, but partly because I agree with Sets that we should be careful and Leif's first blush of him, AL, Joly, and Aeth worried me a little too much. Also not Aeth, for reasons previously stated.
|
|
|
Post by Bunnylaroo on Jan 22, 2014 18:45:00 GMT -8
In Bunny's case, there are three people under suspicion, one says "I think it was that guy" and she simply agrees? That's...not what happened at all? When I saw that the mission had failed, I considered who I thought would benefit the most. My initial reaction was that it was riku, for the reasons I stated. When I came to the thread, I saw that Leif had apparently, independent of me, reached the same conclusion, so I quoted it and expanded on it with my own reasoning. Which acknowledged the WIFOM of the situation and left me doubting all three of you (Leif included). So...not exactly "simply agreeing". And my suspicion on Sets doesn't make sense if riku is a spy, but I'm not clear why it doesn't if Leif were the spy. I'll clarify: If you're not a spy, then you have at least a 1/2 chance of identifying a Spy, since you know the mission failed, and you know it wasn't because of you. Yet you come out of that result suspecting someone who was not directly connected to the failed mission? That read to me like "Players A, B, and C were on a mission that failed, therefore I suspect Player D". Which made no sense to me. It felt like you were ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room. Your latest post clarifies your view of riku/Leif somewhat, so thanks for that, but I just didn't understand how, coming out of that mission, you apparently found Sets most suspicious (or at least, more suspicious than Riku or Leif). That's what I meant when I said I didn't understand where your Sets FoS came from. It would be super neat to get thoughts from Firebolt, Jolyna and Bunny in particular as well as anyone else that's been really quiet that I'm not currently thinking of. I'll assume you mean thoughts other than the thoughts I already posted today, since I guess those weren't thought-y enough for you. I said I was interested in seeing how people reacted as the day progressed, so here goes: There's a lot of talk of "willful misunderstanding/misinterpretation" being thrown around, but I think it's just plain old misunderstanding. Leif, if I'm understanding you correctly, you think the discussion will be more profitable if we're throwing out team suggestions and debating them. Fine, you're the GM. Throw out a team suggestion and we'll debate it. If the "first blush" proposal of yourself and the next 3 GMs was your actual proposal, I'd reject it, because as someone (sorry, long day, not checking back to see who) pointed out, that's 2/3 of the people who were on the last failed mission. I'm by no means so certain that riku is a spy that I'm confident with that team. I'm having difficulty because, other than myself, I really don't have any "I think this person is probably resistance" feelings about anyone. I'm always more shy about handing out FoI. I do find myself agreeing with much of what Aeth and Furare say, but I think Furare is my doppelganger so I always agree with her regardless of alignment. Joly and Firebolt (and to an extent Marinated) have not said enough to make me feel anything other than neutral on them. Sets is also in the neutral zone. I have doubts on Leif, AL, and riku, because of the failed mission.
|
|
|
Post by firebolt153 on Jan 22, 2014 20:35:35 GMT -8
Post explosion much? This might take me a bit to catch up on, so expect something from me soon-ish (like in the next 24 hours, as I'm off from work tomorrow).
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jan 22, 2014 20:52:14 GMT -8
For me, I wouldn't be comfortable, at this time, with a team that included any of the first 3. Why? Because we know for a fact that one of them is a spy. While this is an understandable first reaction, you have to remember that we know for a (generally accepted) fact that 3 of the other 7 are spies. 3/7 is a larger fraction (.429) than 1/3 (.333). Yep, I know. It's not a thought process I ever thought I'd have to explain to anyone. It's a game strategy from my teenage years. It makes sense to me, because of how I think about things. I think the easiest way to explain is, if we get 2 negatives, we can then start piecing together who we CAN send vs pondering who we can't, when we just don't have the data to tell us yet, nor enough missions to really play an elimination game. Mastermind was a game of 'find the RIGHT pieces' and this is a game of finding the wrong ones. I always felt that eliminating the pieces I should not use was simpler. I'm sorry, I'm sure that doesn't make much sense either. Anyways, based on your reaction to my reaction...Do you think that the strategy of changing one thing at a time is better? Then we have 2 from Mission 1 and 2 new. Or 1 from Mission 1 and 3 new.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 22, 2014 21:03:00 GMT -8
No, it does make sense. I understand that we aren't and can't play it from a pure probability standpoint, but I just wanted to point out that it is very difficult to find all 4 non-spies in a group of 7.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 22, 2014 23:17:54 GMT -8
Since Leif decided to discard me from his list of people to send on a mission, and I know what I am, it looks rather a lot like trying to find any reason - however tenuous - to discount an innocent from the list and make picking a Spy more likely. (I mean to say, it looks like that to me; I can't expect any of you to take my word for it.) The only reason I'm not cast iron sure about this is because Leif is always doing this "You said something about what I said that I don't like" stuff and I think he's usually innocent when he does. But then he knows I know that. Jolyma: Our feelings about what to do are often not borne out by probability. It's weird. Like, you'd think, well I know 1 of these 3 people is a Spy, so I won't send them... but this isn't ROMS and there are far more bad guys than we're used to. Actually, to put it another way: Assuming 2 of AL, Leif and Riku are innocent - if we discount all 3 of them, that's 2 non-Spies removed from our list of possibles. Picking 4 non-Spies from another list where there are only 4 non-Spies is quite an undertaking. et you come out of that result suspecting someone who was not directly connected to the failed mission? That read to me like "Players A, B, and C were on a mission that failed, therefore I suspect Player D". Since Bunny is me from the future and our minds are one, it's not surprising I find what she said about AL to be pertinent. I feel like my own reaction as an innocent on a failed mission would be to try to figure out which of them it was that dun it. Watching AL for developments.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 23, 2014 0:52:53 GMT -8
Okay, I should note that actually Leif immediately retracted the "do not send" comment. In a one line post that I didn't even see until after I'd written the above. I may need to reconsider but not right now. Just didn't want anyone to think I'm trying to pull a fast one rather than just missing a post.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 23, 2014 3:04:17 GMT -8
Gah, part of me thinks "If we fail another mission then between the two failed ones we should have enough information to know what's what". But part of me just doesn't want to take that step towards defeat right away.
I'm a conscientious worker, so anything more concrete is going to have to wait until I'm not on the clock.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jan 23, 2014 6:34:47 GMT -8
Oh, no I don't want to TOTALLY remove them from the pool. I just want to make a note that there is a spy in that group, and then look at another batch. It's just the way I play this type of game, much like the Reaver's Fate puzzle. The trouble is the possibility of a false positive. If we had more rounds, and if having a spy in the group meant it HAD to fail, I'd suggest sending 1 or 2 from the first mission. But that isn't the case. I know that statistically, randomly choosing the right 4 out of 7 is astronomical, but we aren't (hopefully) choosing quite at random.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 23, 2014 6:41:47 GMT -8
As pointed out, we can't play solely by probability, but I generally think we could suss out who is more, or less, likely to be a bad guy. Thinking about it, I'm more inclined to view this as a game of finding the innocents than the rogues. If we can pick out 3 people that are innocent, we win even if we never decide on who a spy is.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 23, 2014 6:48:55 GMT -8
Actually that's not true. We need 4 to get through. I clearly needed to re-read the rules there.
|
|
|
Post by Aethera on Jan 23, 2014 7:32:13 GMT -8
Furare & Riku, thanks for math. (Maths...man that is the one Britishism that, while it makes total sense, weirds me out.) I'm assuming it's right, because it's actually embarrassing how math fell completely out of my head after high school.
I wasn't suggesting randomness, just our odds generally if we eliminate part of the group from contention. I guess it doesn't work very well if we're just talking about randomness. And the point is well-taken that if we assume only 1 of 3 on that last mission was a Spy, perhaps it is in our best interest to determine, if not the Spy from the group of 3, the LEAST likely to be the spy, and send them again.
Riku, I'm confused as to why you think Sets seems innocent due to his 'we have to be careful now' feeling. Isn't that an easy call for anyone to make, after a failure? The Spies could expect that response and could certainly parrot it, no?
Riku volunteering that he go again is bothering me. In my head it goes like this:
-Riku is the only Spy on Mission 1. -Aeth asks for Math. Math can support the fact that it's worse to auto-exclude someone from Mission 1, since it was likely 1/3 so within that group it's actually more likely we'll choose a non-Spy to go. -Riku proposes himself, meaning that a)Mission 2 Fails and b)we'll assume it was his fault, meaning we've only figured out 1 Spy and they're up 2-0. Of course, it's possible there will be other Spies on the mission, but we don't have any way to figure that out. And sending Riku on a 3rd mission to be sure, while it might work in Mastermind, definitely won't work for us.
This seems worth the gamble, for sure, of putting himself forward. If we refuse his offer, probability-wise there could be a Spy on the mission anyway, so what does he have to lose?
All that is my way of saying that I'm not comfortable sending Riku on the next mission. I keep going back and forth on whether I'm more comfortable (or less uncomfortable) with sending Leif or AL. I'd like to see AL's response to Bunny, who raised good points about her. AL seems to be more aggressive than I can remember her being, but it's been a long time since we played together. Leif seems Leifish, but I wonder if he let that Furare thing go on longer than Innocent Leif would normally have, and I feel like he threw out a mission team most would reject (current plus next GMs again, though he didn't call it that), which he could have done purposefully to force us to take the heat off him by countering with suggestions he could accept with less responsibility for them, or Rejecting and letting us move on to someone else? "Hey you guys told me to send these people". Not a strong argument though. Hrm.
Furare, I don't think another failed mission would help us enough. We'd basically be at this game's version of Lylo for the rest of the game, and without having any way to know how many Spies might have been on Mission 2, we won't have the 'enough information' you're referring to. I'm not sure what team you think we could send on Mission 2 that would give us enough information if it failed. The general possibilities in my head:
Riku, AL, Leif + 1 new person (I think we all agree this is a terrible, terrible idea.) 4 new people (random, next 4 GMs, 4 people that the group can agree on, whichever) 1 of (Riku, AL, Leif) plus 3 new people. 2 of (Riku, AL, Leif) plus 2 new people.
Am I forgetting something? And which of these groups failing would help us more than another? I'm just not seeing it. I will say I'm also not seeing any way besides 'luck' that we manage to find 4 non-spies to send on this mission, and that makes me more open to the idea of picking 1 from Mission 1 to send.
Sets keeps poking the quiet people but I don't feel like he's said enough. ToDay, he's said basically "talk more", "let's be cautious" and the interesting statement that he'd be ok sending Leif AND AL again, which makes him the only person to say that, but he's also been hammering on Leif more than anyone else, which is a strange contrast. I get why people are saying 'Sets seems Townish' but at the same time closer inspection makes me unsure. Sets, now that 2 of the 3 people you poked for being quiet have posted, any more thoughts, or at least questions?
Joly, it sounds like you're the good kind of busy! To respond to your thoughts - While the game does remind many of us of Mastermind, the fact that we don't have white pegs and black pegs means it's not useful in actual application. Actually trying to apply the game to the Resistance seems like a bad idea.
I'd be comfortable sending Furare. Even in ROMS, I find irritation like hers to be more of an innocent tell, and her 'let's just give up' feels honest to me. When I read the initial setup, I said "how do the innocents win this?" and it still feels like "primarily with luck" to me. I'm not in favor of sending Fire, since she's so incredibly quiet, which I don't like - I think the Spies must be more nervous than the Resistance, with the newness of the game. She's barely said anything since she volunteered for the 1st mission. I guess we'll see what her promised post brings in the next 14 hours.
Short version:
I would not currently vote to send Sets, Firebolt or Riku. I would be ok sending Furare or Bunny. I feel neutral on Marinated & Joly. I am conflicted on Leif & AL. I would be ok sending 1 of them, but I want to see more before I decide which. Obviously if Riku is a Spy, then likely they are both innocent, but actually sending them both on the next mission seems like too big a leap to me, as I see suspicious behavior from both. I am ok with sending 1 person at most from Mission 1 on Mission 2.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 23, 2014 7:59:28 GMT -8
Hm. Me, Aeth, Riku, Sets. I actually feel okay about Riku, the failed mission notwithstanding, because of the way he's talking. But I need to re-read what Rogue Riku is like before I'm concrete on that. Obviously, to me, I am innocent - you don't know that, but I do, and these are my opinions so whatever. Aethera seems as expected. Sets is more of a case of "I think you might be innocent but confirmation would be nice". What I'd think if that failed is something I'll keep to myself for fear of altering the outcome through observations. Aethera: I was erring on the side of thinking a failure would be definitely bad. Information is good, but teetering on the brink of defeat is bad for morale. I get your point about Sets, but innocent!Sets isn't exactly the world's most helpful person, so it's hard to tell. I suppose the idea that he isn't really rubbing anyone the wrong way at the moment might be a point against him. (I was joking when I said it, but during 16.66 I basically said "Sets' rogue tell is not being quite so much of an ass". >.>) So I'm going to possibly maybe rethink my fourth man. I reminded myself earlier that AL is the Zen Master of rogues and so might do the whole "sabotage the first mission and get suspected, wevs." And "you misrepresented me" is basically innocent!Leif's battle cry, so. So. Getting irritated is something I do. And "we might as well give up now" wasn't ever a serious suggestion. More of a rhetorical device. Or sarcasm. Take your pick.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 23, 2014 14:23:36 GMT -8
Do y'all suddenly hate me or something?
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 23, 2014 14:35:45 GMT -8
Still trying to read Aeth's post.
(Thursday is the busy work day.)
|
|
|
Post by Bunnylaroo on Jan 23, 2014 14:45:28 GMT -8
I appear to be coming down with a stomach bug, which means YAY no work tomorrow but BOO illness. So I may or may not be coherent as I type this. Me, Aeth, Riku, Sets. I actually feel okay about Riku, the failed mission notwithstanding, because of the way he's talking. But I need to re-read what Rogue Riku is like before I'm concrete on that. Obviously, to me, I am innocent - you don't know that, but I do, and these are my opinions so whatever. Aethera seems as expected. Sets is more of a case of "I think you might be innocent but confirmation would be nice". This is really more for the sake of clarifying my understanding, but how does the team you're proposing mesh with your earlier attitude of "GMs should send themselves"? Are you intending to wait for the turn where Aeth is GM? I'm asking because I still feel like the best bet is for GMs to send themselves. The way I see it, a spy GM's priority is to get a spy on the team and fail the mission, so a spy GM theoretically would be totally fine staying behind as long as their mission gets accepted. On the other hand, a resistance GM's goal is to not send any spies on the mission. The only person a resistance GM can be 100% certain of (excepting the Double Agent) is themselves - so to my mind, it doesn't make sense for a resistance GM to bow out of their own mission. (Ugh pronoun/antecedent agreement in that sentence is totally wrong but oh well) Do y'all suddenly hate me or something? Suddenly? No. JUST KIDDING I LURVE YOU FOREVER AND ALWAYS!
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 23, 2014 15:09:55 GMT -8
Eh, it doesn't mesh. Mostly because I don't entirely trust Leif. I wasn't really thinking about who would send it.
Really most of my posts this game have been me rambling about whatever random thoughts popped into my head at the time. So basically like having a conversation with me.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 23, 2014 15:42:51 GMT -8
Oh, I assumed Leif was asking who we'd send if we were GM this round, rather than who we want him to send. Riku, I'm confused as to why you think Sets seems innocent due to his 'we have to be careful now' feeling. Isn't that an easy call for anyone to make, after a failure? The Spies could expect that response and could certainly parrot it, no? The point is that, how I see it, that is a sentiment the spies do not want to spread. There's pros and cons for the spies for failing the first mission, and the biggest con in my opinion is that it immediately puts the town on their toes and makes them more careful. If the spies encourage this amongst the townmembers, it kind of makes it so that failing the first mission was not worth it for them. Since Sets right off the bat told everyone he wanted to be careful even to the point of suggesting not sending a mission, I doubt he's a spy. I think the Spies must be more nervous than the Resistance, with the newness of the game. I disagree, and in fact I actually think the opposite. It's like the first time you join a ROMS game -- if you're innocent, there's nobody to explain it to you except the people in the thread who may be lying. If you're a rogue, you have this group of people and you'll all help each other and come up with a plan and be all ready to go. I imagine it's kind of like that here. The innocents I would expect are slightly more at a loss for what to do, partially due to the general feeling of never-having-played-before but also due to the new and uncomfortable feeling of not being able to trust half of the people in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Marinated on Jan 23, 2014 16:42:06 GMT -8
Sorry I haven't posted much but I'm having great difficulty seeing the way forward here. I'll take a fresh look at it all tomorrow.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 23, 2014 17:29:35 GMT -8
I'll likely be gone on Saturday. To that end, I'll be putting up a team tomorrow for approval/denial.
I assumed these were similar things. Really, I was hoping to get some discussion and maybe a reasonable consensus.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 23, 2014 17:46:42 GMT -8
I'm not entirely sure consensus is required or even desirable. The idea is for the GM to know what we think, and make a decision based on that. Not for there to be a consensus decision and the GM just to ratify it. We don't learn all that much about you that way, if there's a resistance-wide consensus for you to hide behind.
"Accountability" was one of the buzzwords in the meeting whose minutes I had to write up this morning. Curiously, there was also a part where the person writing the notes had just put "WE ARE THE COOLEST". In all caps. I kind of hope that's not our new marketing strategy.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 23, 2014 17:48:27 GMT -8
I rather think collectively we can plan better than just me.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 23, 2014 17:49:25 GMT -8
Yeah, the only difference is I wouldn't expect or necessarily want you to send me. Aeth apparently took issue with me "volunteering" when I was just including myself as if I were the GM. And that is also why I was confused by Bunny saying Furare's team "didn't mesh" with the idea of a GM sending themselves, when I was seeing it as Furare suggesting a team as if she was the GM in which case it would mesh. The point I guess is that it's kind of an unreasonable assumption from Bunny to call that out when the question was "Who would you want on a mission team?" rather than "What team should Leif send?".
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 23, 2014 17:51:25 GMT -8
That's what I get for being too lazy to quote. That last post was directed at leif's post up a bit thataway^
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 23, 2014 18:02:06 GMT -8
I'm not particularly bothered with how well we can plan together vs. apart. You're the GM. It's your responsibility. The idea of the game is: "GM proposes, rest of the players accept or reject". Not "Consensus decision reached, GM makes proposal official, proposal voted through or not".
Sorry if this is unduly confrontational, it just troubles me that this whole Day so far you've shown a lot of interest in finding out what everyone else thinks, while not really proposing much yourself. (I'm not sure if the team you talked of at the beginning of the Day was serious, or if it was just the next 4 GMs again.) It's like you want to spread the responsibility for a potential failure as wide as possible.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 23, 2014 18:04:46 GMT -8
It is and you are. If I want to make a proposal by attempting consensus, as you say, I'm the GM.
|
|