Off Topic Ranieri, Taylor, Drogs, Spy: KGB vs BI Game

Is it too late to sign up?
SoZ.

 

No, I can swap you in for an inactive player

 

Top one JPF.
Looks fun this.

 

[table="width: 500, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Nominated Player[/td]
[td]Nominated By[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Trev[/td]
[td](1) ACS[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]ACS[/td]
[td](2) Trev, BTK[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Leez[/td]
[td](3) Less Hope Than Neville, Rolando, Magic MS[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Obi[/td]
[td](1) DMW[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Here's the current voting stakes Magic Players can change their votes as often as they like.

 

To save getting neg repped I'll vote Leez

 

Magic MS has come in for FreeBenArfa guys

 

Right BI, I've noticed we're targeting the silent ones in this round of voting but surely if KGB wanted to blend in then the best way would to be as active as possible?

I'm holding off voting for the moment, just think we can come up with a better strategy than targeting the quiet ones as for me they've just probably lost a bit of interest in the game.

It may seem like I'm trying to sway the vote here, which I'm not as I'm a normal MI5 office. I just don't think the logic behind our current voting strategy has been thought out properly or discussed enough.

 

Then let's talk and start formulating strategies. BI has lacked leadership so far. I'm guessing the MI6 officers have chosen to remain quiet for tactical reasons, but we should do our best to at least have method in our madness.

Obviously the KGB will be in on our discussions and trying to influence them and it will be our job to try and spot them doing so. They have the advantage in that they know who each other are and they can co-ordinate action and lack of it whenever it suits.

So what are everyone's thought's on how we should approach this?

For me, there is method in the madness of targeting the silent ones. It could be a great tactic to avoid early elimination and then take an active interest once the numbers are more in their favour. If we get lucky and target the right quiet one we may even draw some of the other quietish KGB agents out into the open to try and divert us away from one of their number.

Oh, and welcome back to the game GBC - it's been a while

 

I've only missed one vote so far, just took me a while to get to grips with the game

Another way to look at it would be to vote for those who have targeted a different player in each round of voting. Reason behind this is that KGB know who we are so surely they'll target different agents, with different reasoning in the hope that we latch on to/agree with their reasoning to vote a certain agent.

I just think staying silent would be a bad strategy for them as it then becomes blind luck on whether we hit one of them with our vote.

If they could influence the vote (which they can) then surely they would? Staying silent only takes away from some of their power/advantage IMO so I just don't see why they would adopt such a game plan.

I know my next statement is going to raise question marks about myself but if our MI6 agents made themselves public and investigated one or two, and at the same time BI hold back with our votes (don't vote) then surely we could flush out the KGB. It would become a kind of "who blinks first" stand off in terms of voting.

It just takes away the "guessing" element to our current voting strategy as surely KGB would have to attack our MI6 agents. We need to turn it in to more of a bluff/double bluff game rather than a guessing game IMO.

 

Couldn't resist the chance to stir the paranoia

I think they will be influencing things, but they will be doing it only when required. Let's face it - if we jump on one of our own and none of them are in the running to disappear, then why risk putting yourself in the limelight?

 

Getting quite involved now I see mate.

 

Just trying to get a strategy in place I'm British Intelligence, I assure you of that.

 

Ahh the old smoke and mirrors...

 

Tags

 

I agree with this bit. I think we need our MI6 agents to make themselves known. They hopefully have been investigating already. They should then make public what they know. We would agree not to vote for them and not to vote for the people they confirm as BI. This leaves us open to a KGB agent also claiming to be an MI6 agent and feeding us false information. Therefore, we agree in advance that all agents who declare themselves as MI6 will investigate each other on the first night of going public. If there are only two come forward they simply investigate each other and confirm they are both genuine. Presumably both MI6 officers would make themselves known if we agreed to this.

If 3 names come forward then A investigates B, B investigates C, and C investigates A. The MI6 officer who investigates the KGB will expose him as KGB. The KGB agent will lie about the British agent being KGB, and the MI6 officer who investigates a MI6 officer will confirm him as MI6. We will then know that any agent identified as MI6 will be telling the truth - regardless of whether the KGB officer tells the truth or lies. If more than 3 names come forward then the KGB will have exposed 40% of their number in one go as we would know that 2 out of 4 were definitely KGB. It would be difficult to avoid being exposed as KGB for long without eventually giving up one of their own.

Just an idea...

 

WAIT! I see where you're coming from, but I sense this is flawed as you'd also be 'outing' the MI6 who are then exposed to KGB secret 'hits'. Plus i'm confused about who you would trust in this scenario. Yes you get three replies, but which two do you trust? And why? But then I'm easily confused, so if I'm missing a simple maths logic puzzle then please explain how it works in our favour rather than against us and then i'll jump on board. But for now, I need to think this through before plying any cards.

Maybe I'm just feeling too exposed, confused, paranoid and lonely to think properly.

Problem with this thread is you're damned if you post and damned if you don't. Everyone's a suspect - or a KGB target.

Damn you JPF - damn you all to Hell!

 

In this scenario, you only need to trust one person. The person (or persons) named as British Intelligence WILL BE Briritish Intelligence, as the MI6 agents will not lie to protect the KGB. Whovever is named as British Intelligence will definitely be British Intelligence. Whoever is named by THAT agent as KGB is definitely KGB. To defeat this the KGB would need to expose more than two of themselves - leaving themselves open to elimination/assassination as more is learned about who is who. This is risky for them and leaves them almost as exposed as the MI6 Agents. The quicker the MI6 Agents are killed then the quicker these names would be exposed.

Even if the KGB got lucky and assassinated an unprotected MI6 officer (risking a wasted kill), then even though the above logic would not work in that scenario, you are left with a 50/50 to name the KGB officer, as well as immediately trusting the names provided by the dead MI6 officer - with more to come from the second officer.

The MI6 officers would be at risk of assassination or being turned. However, they would also have a higher chance of being protected. The KGB would risk wasting a kill. We are three nights into the game. If they have been doing their jobs we could already have six names of British Intelligence agents. By the time a second kill took place two nights later (if the wrong person was protected) we would have 8 names. If we always protected those 8 from losing the vote then by sheer numbers it would be impossible to lose the game.

It is possible to have less than 8 names if the same person was investigated by both agents, but its impossible to have less than 5, and even that would involve huge odds. Individuals would potentially be sacrificed, but the team would win.

This could only work provided both MI6 officers come forward.

It isn't foolproof, but it raises the odds from guesswork, and means we would be using our guesswork and interpretations of actions from a much smaller pool of names.

Edit: I didn't take account of the Maclean - any suggestions to get round that?

 

Err, OK. <blinding me with science>

 

It doesn't work cos of the Maclean (I think)

But maybe someone cleverer than me could refine it?

 

That's what confused me!

You could get:
> one 'true' reply, plus
> one KGB 'lie', plus
> one KGB 'scramble' reversing the message to mislead everyone

Equally you wouldn't know whether a scramble had actually been played or not.

I for one wouldn't have a fook what was going on with those scenarios, or who to believe. All I do know is the KGB would know who 2 of our key men (or women, or hermaphrodites) are. With 2 'hits' and a 'convert' available to them that could be very dangerous play.