If someone has to say something before a draw about a certain scenario, he can say it on his own. I don't think the president has to ask people. You have a thought/idea/suggestion you say it. Asking for the majority to agree on every decision is great for the liberals but it would take a really long time to finish the game.

Both agreeing doesn't isn't enough proof, though. A fascist president may be lying about pulling 3 F and if they both are fascists they can lie together about the whole thing. That was my point, if we go with the cycle how can we tell what is happening having the increased chance of actually pulling 3 F?


I'm sorry to step in, but isn't the draw automatic once the government is elected? It was triggered by the last vote coming in (which we waited almost 24 hours for). Granted, he could have discussed more during that period but why do you inquire about it now and not earlier?

I considered raising the possibility of discussing what to do about the possibility of drawing 2 Liberal policies beforehand. I didn't do so partly as I thought it was unlikely which was an oversight. Also you can't legally post here once the cards are actually drawn. When the question was initially asked most said passing both liberal policies was the best course of action. My position has always been very clear, to pass Liberal policy at every opportunity, so I would be renegging on this not to put both policies through.

@ZFR if the fascist policy had passed, yes I at least would have 2 pieces of information on yourself and RWarehall. However if RWarehall is fascist he'd state my credibility in relaying that information to the team. Would the team believe a President who had passed fascist policy over the Chancellor? If they don't the information on ZFR is also useless.

And instead of being 2-0 up, we would be level pegging at 1-1. Being 1-1 is actually down in the game because the probability of drawing liberal cards is smaller as the game goes on. The Liberals would be up against it to win having lost 3 Liberal policies from the stack or cards

Let's also put this game in the real world for moment. Yes we get more information for passing fascist policy as do all leaders who stamp on the civil rights of their civilians, but at what cost to civil liberties? At what loss of confidence from the public?

The fascists are now in a position or nearly in a position where they have to 'out' their position in their voting.

Indeed he can. So maybe let HIM answer the question?
See also reply to Dedo for more.

By all means step in.

Why would I ask it earlier? It happened now and I was not the president, nor saying open government is all the rage.

I mean, there was some discussion of it (Lift at least?) and why should I be the one to prioritize it further?
Also you might have noticed I have been more engaged in discussing approaches to the government votes themselves.

I'll wait and see what Scene replies. He could indeed have discussed it more, he could even have kept his vote until all other votes were in precisely to control timing of the discussion and ensure he could openly collect thoughts from the "liberal majority" (his wording even).


Let me a bit blunt here. Are you (both) worried Scene can't handle a bit of questioning? There's really only one strategic reason for that...


Meanwhile I see Scene posted, not changing the above anyway.

Fair answer. I will not argue with the results so far. I have two follow ups:
1 - can you please go back and quantify the bolded? How many people actually said anything on that? Most of those that opined or most of everyone?
2 - have you played this IRL? Often?

Guys while your free to continue questioning me should we also start discussing Liftraisal's Presidency and the best candidate for? The Greek has passed Liberal policy

Just to confirm with Mods that The Fascists don't win with Hitler elected until 4 Fascist policies are first passed. What if Hitler is chancellor when the 4th is passed?

The chance in the next round of drawing at least 1 L policy is 64%.

Let's take scenarios after that because we can weigh up the truth with statistics:

Round 4 (after round 3)

If 2F and 1L are pulled in round 3 it drops to: 49%
If 3F are pulled in round 3 though that would drop to 76%:

Round 5

....could be high or low chances depending on prior draws

As the odds drops we may wish to focus on only voting for presidents that we think are likely to be liberal because they are more likely to shed light with the unavoidable fascist policy rather than confusion by lying as the fascists will do. We have to look at how likely a FFF draw is when judging someone but an FFF draw is always possibility.

Also you have to look at the probability of a Liberal President from the remaining draw, if we've had:

2 liberal presidents - 50% chance of a Lib president
1 liberal president - 63% chance of a lib president
0 liberal presidents - 88% chance of a lib president

Ofcourse if Boss Kusu was liberal too the odds drop further.

@Brasas

1. I think it was a single reply, it might have been 2. But everyone was free to reply to The Greek.
2. I've never played this or any game of it's type online or in person, nope.

Great. Another liberal policy. I can understand that Scene prioritized getting a liberal policy enacted over testing RW. I probably would have decided differently so early in the game, but for now I put Scene as 'probably liberal, possibly Hitler'. Because Hitler would act in exactly that way to establish himself as prime liberal chancellor material. But I can't choose him as chancellor anyhow.

I'll wait a bit before nominating my Chancellor. First I want a confirmation from RW, that he got 2L. Then we know that at most 3L are left in the pile. I think the greek would be a valid and somewhat known choice as chancellor (unless he drew 2L 1F and had no choice but to give Scene a choice). Or I could try to test one player who is unknown so far. So, what strategy do you think is better?

Exactly. So, when two fascist policies are on the board it is actually a good play for a liberal president to nominate someone they suspect as being Hitler as Chancellor. Hitler has to keep pretending to be liberal and will probably enact a liberal policy if he can. And even if he enacts the third fascist policy, he is term-locked and can't immediately be chosen as Chancellor. But as of now that doesn't factor into my choice of chancellor, since we aren't in that situation yet.

This 3 is quite concerning because the odds make it seem likely 2 Fascist policies will be drawn in the next 3 rounds with the increased odds of no Liberal cards being drawn and the increased odds of Fascist presidents gaining power.

We have to be careful with which Presidents we elect but Lifthrasil has my support for now depending on his running mate.

Ahh I was remembering 4 from the following but it does state 3:

A) Hitler is elected as chancellor after at least 3 fascist policies are passed.
Yeah, that.
That should say "4". I slipped up because 3 is the usual number, but if I remember correctly (I'll have to look it up), with 9-10 players, that boosts to 4.
...hm. That's odd. The rules say 3, but the board looks like 4.
I'll get back to you on that one, but anyway, did I answer your question?
Ok, nope, it is 3, my mistake. We're good. The design of the board was just throwing me off a bit.
Apologies for the confusion.

So it seems even the actual game board has it's filthy fascist leanings

I can't speak for greeklover but I commented on something that attracted my attention. I haven't said Scene shouldn't answer the questions raised to him, though.


Does that mean you took note of the non-discussion back then but purposefully waited for the enactment to go off so you have a concrete argument to base the questioning on?

I appreciate the honesty as my recollection is that apart from Lift there were perhaps 2 more people in that back and forth, perhaps 3. And 30/40% is far from a meaningful majority. So I will take it that you somewhat exaggerated - but ok, it's only human.

Considering which, I'd like to follow up on this:

Can you elaborate a bit more on the likelihood oversight. I think you were the one yourself that posted numbers on that. Do you recall them? What was the chance for drawing 2L? Almost 1/3?


greek as chancellor obviously, it's not like they are "known", and the odds at least lean a bit in their favor. I'll still likely vote no though, because I have no real reason to prefer you to ZFR or Dedo. Unless they would not go with greek, which I can't be sure of in advance anyway. And who knows, the votes might actually show some slips.

Kinda yes?

Come on Dedo... you know scum hunting may require a certain posturing. And I might say also a certain timing for effect.

Let me point out though, that fundamentally your question is: "so you noted X and waited for X to ask about X?"

Because if you are really asking why I didn't ask about the non-discussion... please... what is that even? That's almost like proving a negative. Non discussion of this type is not some Sherlock Holmes clue like dogs not barking in the night. And as mentioned, the tent needs to actually get stolen so that waking up and being able to see the stars even matters. (I hope you know the joke I'm alluding to)

So it means I asked "on something that attracted my attention" - that being the discrepancy between rhetoric and effect. Ofc I don't ask on everything that attracts my attention, because the same thing - no discussion after the draw - had attracted my attention on the first government. In that case Scene was chancellor instead of pres, and he was the one with the open government spiel. And in the end, I hadn't groked the rules so it was not as serious a discrepancy in play as it seemed now that he was the pres.

I did, in fact, receive 2L. It doesn't prove much at all except making it unlikely we are both fascists. And I already know that, so didn't learn anything. Still good to be ahead of the game.

To be precise though (assuming all cards reported thus far have been true and we have 3L left out of 11 cards..
Odds of 3F would be (8/11) * (7/10) * (6/9) = 56/165 or 33.9% leaving a 66.1% chance for a L to be pulled by a full liberal team.

I absolutely understand this and it makes perfect sense, but there can be two reasons behind doing it - you're waiting it out so you can catch a guilty culprit red-handed and pressure them based on concrete evidence or see a potential misstep from an otherwise innocent player which can be presented as the same concrete evidence when it's not in reality but it works in this case because of said misstep.

Eh, this probably came out more convoluted than in my head but I hope you get the gist. Long story short - I'm trying to figure out the motivation behind the questioning but I'm in no way trying to block it.

How do you figure that?

If he was fascist, and knew RWarehall wasn't, then he knew a liberal policy would be passed no matter what he does. Why should he pass LF then and clear RWarehall. He'd rather pass LL so RWarehall isn't cleared and on top of that scene becomes "look, I'm so liberal I removed a fascist policy".

If he was Hitler, he practically had to pass LL. He couldn't risk passing LF and throwing bad light on himself.
As you said "Mr Scene seems the most trusted member right now." Who is most likely to be elected chancellor after 3 fascist policies are passed and we're in a tight spot?

Emphasis on if. Again, I'm just showing some things aren't as obvious as you'd think. You have to realize fascist will try their best to appear as liberals.

Fuuuuurk I am such a newbie, I didn't think of that:)