It is authorized to create a group that doesn’t have you ever on it. It needs to be very uncommon although. Here’s why:

The argument that the earlier groups succeeded isn’t logically robust sufficient to power the chief to go away himself off the group. He might argue that the earlier groups had a sleeper spy (which isn’t provable both method with the data public on the time) and substitute one with himself.

Consider that an individual can at all times make the argument that he trusts himself greater than another single individual, and that argument is basically irrefutable.

After all, if he’s a resistance member, he is aware of with 100% certainty that he’s a resistance member and will put himself on the group. Therefore, a resistance chief would wish an excellent rationalization for why he could be excluding himself from the group he builds.

Since a spy ought to continuously act like a resistance member to be convincing, a spy chief additionally has a robust motive to place himself on the group and desires a great rationalization to exclude himself.

In my opinion the third chief in your recreation performed poorly in that state of affairs.
That participant ought to have changed one of many earlier group members, had some dialogue about it, and put it for a vote.