Why even say it? There is no reason to tell someone that in game, especially him after he did the same thing, unless you are trying to make them look bad or make yourself look like you’re a good liberal/townie. Scene tried to say he didn’t know it was against the rules when he did it so it was ok, but now if someone else does it he can never trust them again even out of game. Doesn’t add up. If he had no problem lying about real life then he should have no problem with someone else doing it. The only reason he would have an issue with it is because that’s what a good liberal/townie would say.

As I said he’s trying to hard and it’s LAMISL

But how??

Maybe you say 'if you're lying now I'll never be able to trust you again' because you want everybody else to think that person is lying and not trust them, or maybe you say it because you think it's sounds like a good thing to say, but maybe you say it because you thought it would be funny or because you want to give them a chance to confess now if it turns out that they are lying or because you have a pathological fear of lying or because you thought it and you say everything that you think or because any number of reasons.

I don't really know why I'm arguing so hard, but it seemed like with blotunga requesting less analysis and you and zfr finding problems there were a bunch of people telling supplementscene to stop so I just wanted to weigh in in favour of carry on.
Also I'm ill in bed and I don't really have anything better to do than get in little internet squabbles.

But I'm bored of it now. Hope I can count on your vote! I'd offer to kiss your baby but you actually have a new grandson and you might think I'm talking about him and think it's weird. (Hope he's well!)

^ whatever I'd have come up with would not be as entertaining as this.

ZFR - how much have you worried about the chance of three fascist poilicies coming up?

Not much. It's not like I like I can do anything about it. Plus I get an investigation.
I'd be more worried about LLL. 2 wasted policies, we're down to 3 out of 14 and next presidents if they're fascist can easily pass F policies without any suspicion. Even LLF is not that hot.

No he didn't (as he's clarified) and wouldn't choose random.org before checking his alignment because if he did that he may aswell not check his alignment throughout the whole game. If you actually think someone would randomly choose a Chancellor without bothering to check alignment then you clearly haven't got your head around the game yet. The whole point of Fascist play is to get Hitler into power roles early so choosing a chancellor before checking means your not even playing the game. The whole point of Liberal play is to pick out potential Fascists positioning a potential Hitler.

Using random.org for the first vote on day 1 is completely different to using random.org for choosing a Chancellor. It's actually akin to using random.org for your whole first day votes. Do you suggest it is good Mafia play for everyone to use Random.org for Day 1 of Mafia from here on in? What about Day 2 of Mafia, should we continue to all use Random.org? When do we stop using Random.org?

Random.org is the perfect tool to hide a Scummy nomination for Hitler.

I realise it's your first time playing this particular game so perhaps you haven't got your head around the importance of nomination yet. Fascists on every occasion when president will try to get Hitler into power.

So incidentally your Presidency is next, are you going to use random.org? And if it brings my name up are you going to be fine with that given you believe my play is Scummy? In actual fact you will go with who you're reading liberal as ZFR should have done from the start after some early back and forth discussion because that is how the game should be played. I haven't said ZFR is fascist regarding this. I've said it's either poor Liberal play or Scummy play.

BTW from my recollection ZFR has been told in prior games he will be punished, ie voted for in Mafia, if he persists using Random.org and it's worse in Secret Hitler than Mafia for the given reasons.

Why would I ever use random.org? I never have and never would for any sort of vote or choice in a game like this. If ZFR chooses to do so for an act he considers trivial like and RVS vote or choosing a chancellor when there is no info to go on then that’s his choice and I have no issue with it.

And no I would not choose you as chancellor.

The fact that ZFR didn’t wait to talk for days before selecting a chancellor means nothing on Day 1, and I don’t think it’s a poor Liberal play or a fascist play. It’s him simply deciding that he wanted to move the game along because there’s no info to go on since no policies have been passed. I probably would have done the same in his spot of choosing someone within a short span once the game started. The fact that you want to make it an issue is more concerning to me than the fact that he did it.

But I still won't know what I'm changing it from or to, so that would be pointless!

This is really twisting things and I have bolded the exact quote you're referring to below. This is making me continually more suspicious of yourself. I accepted ZFR at his word on this issue in the post as he stated it was 'out of game'. I think Bler abused 'out of game' last game but I don't think ZFR would. If I wanted to target him I could have said 'I don't believe you'.

Roles were posted to us at this stage but I don't think as an individual you'd genuinely lie about 'Out of Game' as it goes against the spirit of the game and I do believe you'd 'play fair' and lying about 'out of game' isn't 'playing fair'. While I don't believe you are lying, if you are, I won't be able to trust anything you say 'out of game' in future games.


Now obviously if he is lying and I will re-state, I don't for a minute think he is, but if he is, then I won't give him a pass on anything 'out of game' in future games. How does that not make perfect logical actual sense?

And Yes you should analyse the points in my posts you disagree with and no ofcourse it wouldn't be 'poor sportsmanship', it'd be analytical. But perhaps in reality you don't have any issues with my play and you're merely 'casting shade'. But you could in turn just be confusing various points in a game that is new to you.

Right now I have more confidence in a ZFR presidency than a Trent presidency because I don't remember Townee Trent coming out so aggressively. Where as I know ZFR likes using random.org

So I won't be voting for a Trent Presidency on that basis and I'd urge Liberals to avoid a Trent Presidency.

So you’re saying that if you give an out of game excuse in the future for any reason we shouldn’t give you a pass. Noted

And trying to shift the attention from yourself to me, that’s called deflecting and I wonder who would do that.

We haven't even started and you're already jumping to conclusions. In the last game Brasas was marginalized because he voted no by default for the first few rounds. In the end he was a townie. So my point is that you're getting ahead of yourself. We liberals usually like to weigh the evidence before starting to point fingers. First on zfr for picking joe and now on trent for being what? Active?

How is this 'shifting attention' when you've purposely misquoted me and twisted the truth? Something you completely ignore when it's pointed out to you?

You're the next Presidential candidate and you're all over your place with your analysis, perhaps dishonest and more aggressive than when you're Town and I won't be voting for you as a result. That is another key component of the game. Vote for people you trust in, it's called Democracy.

And no you shouldn't trust me in future if I'm using 'out of game' to vouch for my behaviour. I realise I've done this when I thought it was 'part of the game' without thoroughly reading the rules. And you may wish to not trust my out of game claims now as a result, which is fair enough. So feel free to doubt any out of game claims I make. I'm not sure what you find unreasonable out of any of those positions.

I actually tended to read Brasas as Liberal in that game myself. I did think 'Voting No' by default was an odd position though but I am gravitating towards it now because you have to be convinced to trust the government to pass Liberal policy in this game. It's fundamental to a Liberal win.

Please just cast a vote so that we may move on :)

I have, I even said as much earlier on this page!

Ah ok, then probably we must poke zeo awake :D