Part 3:
-------

Still two more to go. I bet you're all silently cursing zeo now, aren't you? :P

What is this team playing you keep mentioning? Liberals try to find and cooperate with liberals. Fascists try to hide in
plain sight and cooperate with fascists. Hitler tries to hide in plain sight and find and cooperate with the fascists. That's the whole point of the game.
Moreover, these three have merely been agreeing (at times) that some people seems somewhat suspicious. That's it. Meanwhile, you, Greeklover, dedoporno, Brasas, lifthrasil have been making and executing plans and excluding other people from government positions while at it. These plans have gotten us not only liberal policies (which could be just a fascist ploy to earn cred for the endgame + some bad luck in case of FLL) but also fascist ones.
So what exactly is your issue about people that haven't been allowed on the government yet agreeing about some things, that you would accuse them of team playing, whatever that is supposed to mean, when that term in fact most accurately describes not them, but what you and greek etc. have been doing? And if agreeing with other people about something is team playing, and team playing is strictly fascist play as you claim, then exactly what about you and Brasas directly and jointly accusing RW and ZFR as fascists, makes these particular accusations of yours not team play and not fascist play?


1) You also refused a chancellorship when ZFR was president. Why was that okay and not suspicious? Lifthrasil refused a chancellorship when RW was president even though they were both parts of a governments that had previously passed liberal policies. Why was that not suspicious? Greeklover rejected a chancellorship when Adalia was president. Why is that not suspicous? Dedoporno rejected a chancellorship. Why is that not suspicious?
2) He said he would discuss investigations, if and when he was a president that has gained the power to perdorm an investigation and wouldn't cherrypick a player for investigation beforehand. Why does this look like a bad idea to you compared to naming names and causing needless distrust among possible liberals beforehand?


So there's a possibility of Brasas being Hitler, but you still trust him more than ZFR, myself or Adalia. Let's also not forget the "I see what you're doing, keep it up *wink, nudge*" post of yours at Brasas. And again with the assasinations. It's like you can't contain yourself at the prospect. Plus victim blaming - and what's this? "I don't want to spend more time thinking how to convince you"? "If you don't [convince me] and we reach the assasination stage, I will vote against you and we may lose because of this."? Interesting. I didn't know "toe the line or die" is viable liberal play. Looks like something entirely different to me.


Assasinations again. And let me guess, you would be one of those "liberal" presidents? And would be ordering assasinations perhaps?


Meanwhile, since you passed that fascist policy, all you have to fall back on is "I know I'm liberal, so other
liberals will have to make up their mind and trust me or not".


I'm not sure whether the best strategy for liberals at this point would be to try to discover/test for a new fellow
liberal or to try to force the hand of someone they think is most likely to be a fascist or Hitler. Both have
merit. In the first case, I wouldn't be opposed to you being chancellor, but I also wouldn't be opposed to anyone
else of the people that have yet to be part of a government.
In the second case from the pool of scene/brasas/dedo/zfr, again anyone would do for me because they wouldn't be able to do critical damage and they'd be termlocked after. But there's something that worries me with this scenario, and that's what happens if Greek is Hitler or fascist. More on that later in quote 1120. If he isn't, or if he isn't allowed to be
chancellor from now on, then my fears would be somewhat addressed. But only somewhat. I'd rather Greek not be part of any government from now on and would like to hear what everyone else thinks on this matter.

Part 4:
-------

The game rules are pretty clear: there's the liberals, the fascists and the Hitler. So the one who doesn't belong in any faction is Hitler. ;)
Very gracious of you to make an allowance for Scene or myself while you're termlocked and have spend nearly the entire game throwing accusations at RW to ensure he wouldn't be a likely choice for people. Of course, this still leaves you free to be chancellor or president in a following government in which you're dreaming of assasinating people that doubt you. And there's the question of why you'd be okay with Scene as chancellor even though he appears to have been doubting you lately...

As you say, your actions can be interpretted both ways. So just as someone who doubts you can't prove you're definitely hitler, neither can you prove that you are definitely a liberal and you are merely presenting scenarios that are convenient for your interests.


This is where the stance on prefered gov position starts to change. Presidency is suddenly okay. If Hitler/fascist, assasinations obviously big part of why.


This is is the exact type of shitposting that was supposedly such a major strike against ZFR according to Brasas in post 473, quoted earlier.

Part 5:
-------

Here's the thing scene: if you are indeed a liberal I think you dropped the ball here by hurrying to make a nomination without first allowing me, as a replacement player, to get up to speed with everything and express any opinions on this beforehand, even though I quite explicitly said that I wanted to go through the council minutes (aka read the thread) before joining the discussion. Distrusting RW isn't really a valid excuse here.
Brasas is a wild card: he didn't pass any fascist policies himself, but he was "confirmed" as a liberal by someone who did (dedoporno) and is currently being supported as a potential government member by a both player that is suspected as a fascist (you) and a player that is suspected to be Hitler or fascist (greeklover) - and let me add here that you said you also suspect greeklover of being Hitler, yet for some reason you readily support his pick for chancellor. Why is that? Now Greek has also said that he wouldn't have minded you as a chancellor, this is against you considering the above. He also said he wouldn't mind me (RW) for the position, but after all the pains he and you have gone through to throw suspicion and accusations towards RW I'd be very unlikely to be picked, so he can afford to make that "concession" and possibly gain some amount of liberal cred here, while termlocked.
So if you and/or brasas are fascist, and sacrifice yourselves for that 3rd fascist policy, he still has some leeway to get re-elected and either win the game for his team or assist Hitler as a "liberal" president.

Therefore I'd keep the greek away from government positions when he's next elligible, if the next government we end up with has Brasas or any other suspected fascist as chancellor. Of course he's probably planned for this to some degree since he seems to have been making a switch to "It's okay to make me a president too". Again, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

Anyway scene, the fact that lift has left the matter of his chancellor open to discussion while you didn't, makes him appear slightly more liberal leaning ot me. And he hasn't been saying anything about any an unshakable axis of RW, ZFR and Adalia that never doubt each other which is, again, quite simply a lie. You might have meant "not strongly enough/often enough suspected for my liking" but that is not what you've been writing. So I trust lift a little more than you right now. Maybe i'm being tricked, I don't know, but this is where I'm at.


You, Scene and Brasas did your best to position him in that way, after the second election. This doesn't mean he isn't Hitler. He might be. But you certainly made it seem less likely that it being you. Because you can flaunt some amount at least of the liberal cred that Hitler would be seeking to get early on in the game. And ZFR can't do that. Now wouldn't it be funny if that was your angle all along and ZFR turns out to be Hitler?

"Carelessly on purpose"? So you were calculating your posts like a fascist? And that somehow makes you not-a-fascist and the people who mistrust you for it are the true fascists? You pulled an "Organics might get wiped out by AI sometime in the future, so I'll create AI that wipes out organics every X milleniums before they can themselves develop AI advanced enough to wipe out organics" and that somehow means you're one of the good ones?


It's precicely because we're untested that there's merit in us being higher on the list. This is the last chance for any of us to be tested with relative safety. If we're liberals the game is won. If we aren't or if the president pulls an unlucky FFF then everyone in this government should be blacklisted by default from the next ones and then you have a far more tangible reason to accuse us of being fascists. And it doesn't even have to be me or ZFR, there are other untested candidates.


You keep asking "who else". How about all the untested players you've been ingoring? It doesn't have to be ZFR or
myself since we're the strongest dislikes. But why not anyone else? Why do you refuse to entertain them as possibilities for a government with you or lift as president? If it fails then both members get blacklisted and we can move on to the other "trusted" candidates that are more to your liking without losing much. If it doesn't fail then liberals have won, the end, we can all have icecream or something. Why don't you give those players that you actually trust a chance to pick up the slack later instead of risking a blacklisting for them now?

For stepping up, going through the whole thread and making the detailed analysis, you really deserve a win. Let's get that one more policy and be out of here.

(and if you are actually got stuck with a F role and still went through all the trouble, then I'd happily trade my win for your loss after the game is over).

PS, just so I know how to address you, if I read correctly you're female, right?

That's correct yes.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that up, it's not easy subbing in so late in a game.

I'll reply only to what's specifically directed at me. Haven't really been able to read all of it and not sure I'll manage today. Maybe a digest version would be in order: Any significant differences between how you see the game state and how RW did? :)

Is it really? I thought the emphasis was on the rhetorical clapping up to the :) and then on the concluding question - the first ironic, and the latter with its implication that liberal ZFR giving no thought to me being liberal as well is extremely myopic.

As to the liberal majority, I am trying to tell ZFR that he needs to be play for the team, sacrifice even. And I am still surprised you / RW didn't take the angle that I am telling my scum buddy ZFR that he needs to roll over for being bussed. It even makes me wonder if he is Hitler and you can't let him go under.

Indeed reaching. If I was fascist being investigated by a Fascist there is no coordination needed at all. I will either be bussed, and if so will understand why, or I will be cleared and again understand why. So the communication with Hitler is indeed the only angle possible, but what exactly do you see as the information being given to Hitler here?

Well.. he apparently cracked once, so I tried my luck again. So I tease him about letting go, and then double on the Kusu angle. Didn't work though.

BTW, I don't think assassination / execution discussion so far can even be called a wagon.

Thank you, I would not say it's to get specific reactions, more to get reactions to judge in context. Ergo, it's the way I scum hunt. Still I guess this is a difference from RW, who thought (well, did he really?) that I was just throwing shit around.

Still very perceptive analysis of my motivations during the game. And indeed it's pretty much a mix of a b c with some nuance to correct:
a) I scum hunt
b) I'm busy and lazy and the game is moving slow with significant breaks
c) my team is one Liberal policy from winning and was 3-0 with near zero effort from me and 4-1 with some more so not sure how much more contribution I need to provide.

Is this too risky? You say so, but maybe support that judgement, because to me odds are still looking pretty good. I would agree that abrasive hunting can be read as scummy, but one Liberal being judged scummy for his hunting approach is an ok sacrifice for the potential clarity it might get the other 5 colleagues.

The greeks are invading (j/k, I'm also in Athens for a couple of days now).
Welcome to the council ashwald and I think you made a valid analysis of the situation. I also find it a bit weird how some people at times were voted out as untested and yet where has it got us, 4-2 from 3-0. So I'm starting to have my doubts in some of our former governments who seemed well tested. I wouldn't mind giving someone else the chance, as liberals have a far better chance imho of being "lurkers", while the most vocal chestbangers could be fascists setting themselves up to win the game by making us think that we're ahead. Keep in mind that even though we are one policy away from winning, we also are one policy away from loosing if after the 3rd policy Hitler would come to power. So it's not exactly the time for complacency.

Now that's an extensive analysis. Thanks for that effort. The big question is now, which side are you riding in to save? It seems like a genuine analysis effort - so like something a liberal would do. A fascist doesn't need to analyze, but he needs to find hooks for attacking liberals. However, from what you wrote I would read you as a liberal. The problem is your predecessor. RW started to lose it about when things got tight for the fascists. After the 4-th L was passed. I know you can't read your predecessor's mind any more than anyone else. But perhaps you can understand why that made me suspicious of him. It's always very strange when one 'player' suddenly undergoes a personality reversal because of replacement.

Just a few addenda @ashwald:

- yes, that was the point of the questions I asked that you quoted.
- you make a valid point. Voting against the own government isn't necessary anti-liberal. It always depends on the circumstances. So, who one is partnered with and if one wants to skip to a government that is better suited for some plan, if one has one.
- but your insistence on the word 'your' is a bit far-fetched. Do you really think that Brasas would be so stupid to bold it, if it was a slip? Or did I misunderstand your point?

@blotunga: while I do agree that complacency is bad and has lost more than one game, I strongly disagree on your statement 'liberals have a far better chance of being lurkers'. Lurkers are first and foremost anti-game in any mafia-like game. Yes, there are lurking townies and lurking scum and yes there are always scum who write a lot and who try to steer the game. But that being said, generally the temptation to lurk is stronger when one is scum. In the case of this game the Fascists know each other and know who Hitler is. They don't need to find anything out. Liberals, however, know nothing and can only find out more by playing and talking. So the motivation not to lurk should be greater than for fascists.
This is, of course, not written in stone. RL can interfere and there are players who always lurk and who always end up hurting town with that, whether they want it or not. But at least I see lurkers always with mistrust and put them in the 'looks slightly scummy until proven otherwise' pile. In any case the statement that lurkers are more likely to be liberal is just plain wrong.

Hello? ...ello... ello...

Empty here! Where are you all?

Waiting for something to happen really...

Thank You Ashwald for joining in so late on and you have done allot of work but there is clearly an agenda going on....

First off that isn't the major teamplay. The most blatant teamplay was when Adalia was vouching for your predecessor RWarehall and the constant vouching of ZFR/RWarehall/Adalia all for each other.

Why would they assume ZFR/RWarehall/Adalia are all Liberal if they had no knowledge of one and other? I don't assume anyone is Liberal other than probably Lift. But they were all very sure each other were all Liberal all the way through. Only when questioned on this did they try to seem less obvious and state 'maybe one of my buddies is Fascist, but he probably isn't'.

You look like a good player but you've taken over a Fascist team who has played poorly and given themselves away.

Also as for ZFR rejecting his chancellorship. He had no reason to suspect Kusu while the rest of us had reasons to either suspect others or bank on a likely Liberal President. This explanation has been gone over ad-nausium, which you will have read, ignored and spun this same question that RWarehall/ZFR asked again as a defense for ZFR, your Scum buddy. Avoiding discussion is anti-Liberal, that's pretty obvious.

Why exactly are you taking the exact same interpretation as RWarehall and defending ZFR to the hilt? Why is ZFR beyond reproach from both RWarehall's and Ashwald's perspectives? Why would Ashwald himself not suspect ZFR?

As for your claims that I accused The Greek. This is inaccurate. I said there was a possibility that The Greek was Hitler/Fascist from the odds presented to us. Where as ZFR/Adalia/RWarehall all accused the Greek before and after his presidency. Suspecting him prior to Greeks government is poor play on their part as it gives them away when they could have waited and then attacked him.

Heh. Give me one single post where I said RW and/or adalia are liberal.

In fact, I've written more than once that RW could be fascist, and I had little reads on adalia since he didn't post much. e.g. here:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/secret_hitler_1_legend_of_the_cows/page28
(Fifth point). This was early enough and before "only when questioned" (whatever that means).
And again, a little bit later:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/secret_hitler_1_legend_of_the_cows/post577

But as usual scene, just ignore this request. Don't let facts get in the way of your assumptions.