Should the win condition for Citizens be changed?

[Judge Sam]

Here are the current rules:

The game ends when either:

All Spies are eliminated. When all the Spies are eliminated, all Citizens still in the game are declared the Winners.

All Citizens are eliminated. Every Spy has won the game, regardless if they were eliminated.

Should all Citizens win the game equally if any Citizen wins it? Do you think this win condition changes how the game is played in favor of self-preservation, or do you think people would do that anyway to continue playing the game? Or regardless of who I say is the "winner," do all Citizens feel they have won if the Citizens do win?


There was some discussion about this during the game and I'd like to know everyone's thoughts.

[Trina]

A part of me want to feel like I won when the Citizens won but it just doesn't seem up to par to lasting in the game until the end of the game and winning. I guess its an added incentive to be on the winning team and surviving till the end. I think the rules as they are are fine, but if they were changed to "If Citizens win, all Citizens win" it will just be the same.

[Reicheru]

As I've said many times before in this very forum, not a chance.


But look at why I didn't win. (I don't just mean BECAUSE I'M CRAP - I mean specific details!)

Spies 1 - As Gerta, a cit, I helped to take out Gigi. I encouraged Soraya and Gindi (didn't know about Monica then, who was doing the same thing) to form a bandwagon against her. Soraya probably would have anyway though. I was also very suspicious of Julian and let everyone who I knew was a citizen know about it.

That said - I had nothing to do with Julian's exile, because I never voted for him. I had nothing to do with Mercedes' exile, because although she was one of my last five suspects I really didn't think she was the last spy. Who do I think was most responsible for the win in that game? Soraya without a doubt.

Others who reached the end didn't really contribute to the win at all. I suppose it's possible that you could make a case for them NOT winning, but in the end Spies is a game of survival. If you survive long enough to eliminate the spies, you win. If not, you don't. I didn't.


Spies 2 - Sorry, DC, but this was always clear-cut for me. Before the finale, Derek was saying Anna was a spy. Adriana and Jenna were saying Rodney was a spy (although I think they cottoned on after my misguided Antonio accusation, it was too late by then!) Even in the last round, Nicole was saying Karl was a spy. Rodney had me at the very bottom of his suspect list in the penultimate episode, even below Nicole.

To win the game, the citizens had to take me out. NOBODY helped to do that except Karl and Rodney. A lot of the cits had alliances with me, trusted me, and protected me. They might have suspected Leo or Allison, but in the end that's irrelevant. To get the win you have to ELIMINATE THE LAST SPY. If the last spy remains standing, you lose.


Spies 3 - There was no way I was sacrificing myself this time around, as I basically did in S1. I think I had a very good strategy to avoid imprisonment and exile. Had the citizens identified the spies early on (as in Spies 1) I would probably have been one of the "official" winners. As it was, I stayed until the very end. (Although whether this was down to my "strategy" or the fact that I was just horrible at finding the spies, I don't know!)

So if we HAD won, why should someone who showed themselves publicly to be an obvious threat to the spies and got imprisoned in episode four, like I did in Spies 1, get credit for the win? They didn't deserve it. I didn't deserve it in Spies 1.


So to answer Sam's queston, I would say, without a shadow of a doubt: NO. For the spies, this is a game of aggression (as I think all of them ably proved in Spies 3.) For the citizens, it's a game of survival. You have to have: 1) a game-plan to survive the imprisonments and 2) still have enough perception to be able to take the spies out and get the win.

The reason I've not won so far as a citizen is that in Spies 1, I pretty much had the spies narrowed down to five possibilities, but was such an obvious threat that they took me out before I could do anything about it. In Spies 3, I think I had a pretty good strategy for avoiding imprisonment, but my spydar sucked. Did I deserve to win in either game? Not a chance.

The citizens who win should be the ones who take out the final spy. You can't do that if you're dead.

[Bebe]

I find Yves' answer amusing because no matter what, the Spies were not going to let him win Spies 3. If Tenchi had been exiled, Taylor would have been imprisoned next, followed by Reicheru, followed by Bruce and Brooks, so only Matthew and Arthur were left at the end. Period.

And wouldn't that be a kick in the pants considering that it was Reicheru who (I think - again, this is just from my perspective) outted all 5 Spies?

I don't really consider the Citizens list to be indicative as to who the real winners are. The Spies list, sure - if Tyson had won Spies 2, I would've been 100% OK with Leo and Allison claiming the win too.

But is it fair that citizens like spies1DJ and spies2Tiffany and spies3Reicheru (if the citizens had won) who had a clear impact on the game wouldn't get credit for it, but useless citizens would just because the Spies kept them around because they were clueless and non-threatening?

No.

[Reicheru]

But is it fair that citizens like spies1DJ and spies2Tiffany and spies3Reicheru (if the citizens had won) who had a clear impact on the game wouldn't get credit for it, but useless citizens would just because the Spies kept them around because they were clueless and non-threatening?

You mean they were PERCEIVED to be clueless and unthreatening. Sometimes it's the same thing, agreed, but most of the time it isn't.

Here's two citizens I thought were clueless and unthreatening in Spies 2: Rodney and Karl!

[Bebe]

Either way, your Spies record still would have been 0-3 by the end of this game, regardless of what you did.

Fair?

[Reicheru]

Yeah.

I'm never going to hear the last of that, am I?

*checks the seat of his pants for DC's bootmark...*

[Jessica]

I dont have the time to read all responses so far, but I will give my opinion regardless of if it has been said.

I think citz should win if they helped the citz. Trying to avoid imprisonments justs hurts citizens. Being imprisoned isn't an action that hurts citizens. It has to be someone, why should the specific person be punished.

As for citz who are exiled, thats a different story. They hurt the team by causing them to waste an exile. They should not win IMO.

SO I think the win condition should be, "All Spies are eliminated. When all the Spies are eliminated, all Citizens who were not exiled are declared the Winners."

Thats just my two cents.

[Reicheru]

SO I think the win condition should be, "All Spies are eliminated. When all the Spies are eliminated, all Citizens who were not exiled are declared the Winners."

Actually that makes good sense the way you say it. I just wonder if it won't be a little unclear as to why only citizens who are not exiled get the win, if Sam were to change the rules that way. Doesn't mean I disagree though.

And wouldn't that be a kick in the pants considering that it was Reicheru who (I think - again, this is just from my perspective) outted all 5 Spies?

I didn't "out" all five spies. I never got more than four at a time, and only then in the very last episode. I was fairly convinced that Bruce was a spy right up until Sam said "citizen" at the finale. I still half-suspect Bruce of being some kind of devious mole, on account of his giving Bebe the investigation, posting his suspect list in the finale of Arthur Brooks and Matthew, and then voting Arthur at the very end despite all the citizens voting the other way! Come to think of it... Trey, anything you'd like to share?

And this time I REALLY AM GOING TO GET SOME SLEEP!

[Jakub]

I think the rules should stand as they are. Give some meaning to that phrase "You will never see them again." you throw around at Imprisonment and Exile. If you're an eliminated Citizen and the Citizens end up winning, you're still screwed. It's not as easy to get someone out of jail as "Can we have our friends back please! ;D", and if you've been kicked out of the Burg I doubt you're going to linger at the border. You're going to find somewhere else to live, and could wind up anywhere. Now, if you're a Spy, you don't care about staying in the Burg. That's not your M.O. You're there for something else: taking over the Internet, instilling Communism into society, whatever. If the Spies win, mission accompished, time to go home. (Seeing as the Burg really isn't their home seeing as they're working against it.) If you get the boot, but the job still gets done, then the job still gets done.

There really is not sure-fire way to do things. No matter what, you're going to have someone saying "He deserves to win." or "She doesn't deserve to win." There really is no way to sort it out without actually objectivly going back and figuring out exactly who contributed what. And that's damn near impossible. So I say leave well enoguh alone. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Bebe]

Paul, you make it sound like also crediting the win to imprisoned players is like an Outcast twist in Survivor. It's not like that at all - Spies is a team game in a sense, totally unlike Survivor. The imprisoned players aren't "getting out of jail" - but their contribution to the win is acknowledged, and I think that makes sense.

I personally think Jessica's criteria makes way more sense than the current system.

[Jakub]

But Jack, the (to use Sam's words) most helpful Citizen ever, was Exiled. Now, I don't know if he was actually the most helpful Citizen ever, but had the Citizens won at least some part should have been credited to him.

[Judge Sam]

There's some interesting point of views here, especially Jessica's. Adding Imprisoned people to the winners list seems like the best fair, unbiased solution I've seen so far, but it still isn't perfect. Then again I doubt anyone could devise a fair system of deciding who 'deserves' to be a Winner and who doesn't.


Besides, as I've learned from Survivor 'deserving' is such a vague and ambiguous term. It means so many things to different people.


I don't think I would ever extend the win to all Citizens if the Citizens win, partially just for the fact that the Winner's Circle shouldn't have 18+ pictures on it. =) I don't think the first imprisoned/exiled should have the same "winner" label as someone who lasted to the end and at least identified one Spy. But then again, even the current system would label someone as a Winner who never voted for a Spy and got to the end while it wouldn't label someone a Winner who voted for 1-2 Spies but got Imprisoned in the last round. So it's hard to say.


But this Imprisonment idea is interesting. And if Citizens like to feel that they are part of the winning team if they win that's great, I encourage it and I hope they do. It's not like my silly little title means anything lol. Feel good based on how you feel you did, not what I say you did.

[Reicheru]

I completely agree.

As regards a fairly simple unbiased system though, how about: Must vote for AT LEAST HALF of the spies on their respective exiles to win?

So if there's three spies you have to be at two of their exiles and vote for them, if there's four you have to be at two and vote for them, if there's five you have to vote for three, and so on...