You're breaking my heart ;)

I did say why I voted no - it's about having more data to analyze. As you noted, I like analysis.

As for me giving info about myself, the only thing I can tell you at this time is what everyone will also say: I am Liberal.
Do you have any questions?

You not knowing my alignment and that frustration you are feeling? You should be feeling that about every single other player.

Anyway, between the apparent sincerity of this emotional response and your earlier dropping the info that you were checking on strategy guides for the game, I actually am reading you as a slight town lean. Liberal.

So congrats, if it's theater you have put a good show. How does my praise make you feel?



For everyone else, take that as a reads list. Although I have some pings here and there it's all very inconclusive. Greek just managed to standout a bit, in the positive direction. Unfortunately, he can't be in the 2nd government. So for now, my vote will stand at No.

I missed your post earlier while typing - didn't refresh before posting. As I understand you have played IRL, what are your experiences with the cycling strategy? Have you seen it tried often? If yes how did it work?

I have seen it used successfully in late game, after a majority was reasonably sure of the liberality of the players involved. It is also regularly suggested early in the game, but I've never seen it carried through for an entire game. Because:
a) it is suggested as often by fascists as by liberals
b) there WILL be instances in which the president draws 3F cards and has no choice but to pass on 2F, which will cast doubt on the president/chancellor combination after which the rest of the players will not be willing to go along. And rightfully so because
c) fascists will use exactly this excuse: 'I have drawn 3F and couldn't pass along anything else!'

So, we can try the cycling idea, but it's too early to say if greek, scene +at least two more are the correct people to trust.

Also Brasas is right, trusting me with the 'power play' option of being first chancellor and then president is a risk for the liberals, since they don't know that I'm liberal. However, the fascists DO know that I'm liberal and so have even more reason to oppose me in the 'power play' position.

But the 'power play' scenario isn't as dangerous as it may seem at first, since if I were elected chancellor and then pass a fascist policy, the liberals can still vote me out of office when it is my term to be president. So the danger isn't as much one player passing two fascist policies in an unstoppable way. The danger is rather damaging my reputation, if you want to call it like that, if Scene should turn out to be fascist after all and passes 2F to me, in spite of having a choice himself (which no one but him will know). So I agree that there are reasons to skip this government and go directly to me being president. However, I think there is a good chance that Scene is actually liberal and that would increase our chances of passing more liberal policies early and I think that chance is worth the risk it comes with.

@all: keep count of which policies are out of the deck so that we can estimate how likely claims of having drawn 3F are true.

Currently we know that
-1L is out of the stack
-at least 1F is out of the stack as well, since both P and C said that 1F and 1L was passed along.

-if we trust greek's statement, 1L and 2F are out of the stack. But if you don't trust him, 2L and 1F are also possible, even if mathematically less likely.

So, most probably stack composition at the moment is 9F and 5L (less likely, but also possible: 10F and 4L)

Thanks mate, appreciated.

I actually had no (intended) comment on the "power play". I agree with you that I don't see it as a large risk. With the little I know right now I'm ok to give you carte blanche next government formation IF this proposal from Scene fails.

As a final pedantic comment - we could have 3L out as earlier discussed. Although if that was the gambit the card distro is the least of it, whitewashing Hitler and giving him a strong signal of being on his team would be the main point I imagine.

Not only that he's provided useful statistical analysis too but the only 3 things I know for sure are:

1) That I am Liberal
2) That fascists know I'm Liberal and would lie about me being Liberal where possible
3) Fascists lie

So if GW believes I am Liberal it is either

1) He's liberal
2) He's a fascist double bluffing to gain my trust.

So from my outlook, yes he is the most eligable candidate on that basis.

Regarding your choice to vote for Lift over myself you haven't said why you see him as more eligable. You also haven't stated who'd be your preferred choice for chancellor and why.

This 2) is called pocketing and it is far from uncommon... the scum faction (Fascists) is a minority so they ALWAYS need town (Liberal votes). Although RW as Fascist would typically be more subtle at it IMO.

Anyway the general point is made if you consider this - who is more likely to trust you?
Another Liberal who can't be sure? Or a Fascist who will never be embarrassed / tripped up by you doing something truly Fascist because he knows you're Liberal...

As a Liberal, I am particularly suspicious of those that seem eager to trust me... but hey, that's just me. You want to do it the other way round, and IF you're Liberal, I hope it works out.

PS: @RW - the above is not an implication that I think you are eager to trust Scene. I haven't read you close enough to judge.

Hey, I found a nifty tool to gauge the likelihood of certain card combinations:

https://nerdbucket.com/statistics/hypergeometric/

For example, the likelihood of drawing 3L at the start is about 3%

It looks like some of you have figured it out for yourselves.
I for myself have not yet seen anything conclusive so far. And as a townie I'm not sure about anything except that scene and greek have passed a liberal policy and that the last vote 50-50. As I haven't played this game before I'm not sure, but I do guess that sometimes fascists vote alike, but of course they might not necessarily do so early in the game.
As for rotating the same people it sounds like a fine strategy, however first we have to somehow be fairly confident of those people.

Thanks for cutting my wait short Lift.

I was online for Scene's edit and it seemed to me a post merge. He posted everything but the last paragraph and I can't see any changes.


@Scene

I don't see Lift as more eligible than you - the opposite actually since you have passed a L policy. But he is the 3 possible president for the 2nd policy, and for now that's my preference - to have as many votes on governments as possible for each policy pass.

As for chancellor preference, that would be Greek as I just mentioned and myself since I know I'm Liberal. But to be clear, even if you pick me, I'll vote No. Because.. .see previous paragraph.

That's a great tool, bookmarked. So if the scene and greek both told us the truth, there is a 49% chance of having at least one liberal card in the next draw and only a 23% one of having a triple fascist one.

Actually 77% of having at least one liberal and 49 having just one liberal.

*slams fist on table*

WE SHALL HAVE NONE OF ZE VERDAMMT EDITING! YOU SHALL BE LET OFF ZE HOOK ZIS TIME, BUT NEXT TIME, I SHALL BE FORCED TO PUNISH STRUDEL!

Let's put it this way...

I trust Scene and Greek as liberals until I see cause to believe otherwise. They did pass a liberal policy which has more weight than the rest of us just talking. Thus they are currently in my liberal pile.

I would be honored to be your chancellor and given than the deck seems in our favor, it would mean a >80% chance we get a liberal policy.

As to ZFR or another choice, I'm also not opposed and I would vote "Yes" to such a government. There is value in expanding the liberal pool. I voted "No" last time because the odds just were not very good that both Kusu and ZFR are also liberal if the 3 of us are. And if it failed, it would likely be unclear which one (or both?) was not to be trusted. I'd rather see a failure situation where we might have a better idea which side might be the guilty party.

In other words, I will most probably vote "yes" to any government that includes a person with a positive record in office. And I will most likely vote "no" if it's two unknowns. Leaving a little wiggle room just in case I think I've picked up on something I don't like just from this thread or the voting record.

That seems like a sound strategy. And yes, one unknown is better than two. Until proven otherwise, you're liberal so you'll have my vote.

Also you probably should re-post the nomination bolded to make it official.