Any particular reason you’re trying to cast shade? If Lift wants to investigate me I have no issue with that because I know he will get a Liberal investigation, but you seem to want to bring doubt into any investigation done on me. Is it because you know it will be a Liberal result and you want to make sure there’s enough doubt about me that I don’t get voted into a government?


I think Pooka should be investigated. We can’t investigate blotunga again, but Pooka’s investigation will be another way to see if a Liberal investigation result was just given to make sure blotunga made it into office as a facsist. Pooka could have discarded the last L card and been confident that the next government with Lift would pass a fascist policy bringing doubt about Lift so he didn’t make it back into office and then “clearing” blotunga with the investigation he knew he would get to make sure he did.

I said we want a trusty person because there's a big chance of us getting no L, which a scum can take safety in.

You say that means I can't want a trusty person for a different reason: that there's a big chance of us getting L, which a trusty person would put through.

I want both.

Well I wanted both. But y'alls's horrible, horrible plan worked and now we're ruined.

To distinguish it from Q causes L?

hm... I asserted that we don't want an F in power (X) because they can use the large chance of no L to do bad things without consequence(Y)

you assert that because I say I want "X because of Y", then I'm implying Y causes X. (a large chance of no L to do bad things without consequence causes I don't want an F in power)

I asserted that we want an L in power (X). because a large chance of L would be useful to an L government (notY).

I mentioned Y because it was a good point.

It seems you're arguing that because Y causes X, then everything other than Y must cause notX?

How's this for an example?
The governor of the island says "If we continue throwing things into the sea (Y), current wave conditions will mean that stuff that we throw will get all broken up and we want a clean sea(X)."

The people say "I don't get it, tell us again why we want sea that's nice and clean?" three or four times.

The governor, whose name is Joe and who is exceptionally good at governance, says "Look, if we don't throw things into the sea (notY), then our current wave conditions will help us power sea cleaning-filters, and we want a clean sea(X)"

The people say "The first time you explained it I didn't understand but now I agree with you"

The governor says "wait, have you been throwing stuff into the sea this whole time?

I just thought of all the people who no-body had shown any interest in investigating, and your name fit the rhythm of the joke best. No shade here!

Yes. It's because of rounded figures. That 60% was actually 62.5%.

To get it moving quicker I'll nominate a Chancellor as soon as the investigation is done. Although I may aswell do it beforehand because my preference isn't Pooka or Joe. My preference is ZFR or SPF. Any opinions? If you're not voting for me anyway you can ignore this. I'm conscious a few posters haven't weighed in yet though so I'll hold back nominating for now.

But my policies as President will be to introduce gender neutral toilet spaces, to build a giant umbrella over the south poll to preserve the ice caps and to promote a 1 legged black lesbian to vice-president.

I'm probably not going to vote for you, but the results of the investigation might change that. ZFR makes sense as a chancellor though. It's who I'd go for. Pending investigation of course.

No, no, no.
If "Y causes X" then everything other than Y must Not(cause X).
There is a difference between Not(cause X) and Cause notX.

In this case Y and notY both cause X for different reasons.

Your analogy is a bit off it was more like:
JOE: If you have lots of valuable things you, you must not throw them into the sea, because we want to keep the sea clean.
(see? This implies that if you have a few things then throwing them need not be bad).
PEOPLE: What if we have a few things?
JOE: Then we must still not throw things into the sea because that would cause the things to get wet and damaged.


Compare:
JOE: If there is a large chance of not getting an L, we need a trustworthy government (because we don't want to give fascists a chance to pass an F with no consequences).
(only you didn't say the part in parenthesis so ZFR asked about it because your statement by itself did imply that there being a large chance of yes getting an L means having trustworthy people is no longer a priority.
JOE: If there is a large chance of yes getting an L, we need a trustwothy government because we want that L to pass.
ZFR: But that's not what you said before. You still haven't said the part in parenthesis in the first sentence.
JOE: Say the part in parenthesis.
ZFR: Now that we've clarified what each one meant we can all put this to rest and go get ice cream.
JOE: Hooray hooray.

Seeing how this investigation will be coming from someone who took part in two fascist government, there is no way it's going to "clear" anyone.

As per my post to Joe, it's better for this investigation to catch a fascist. You saying "that person is F" is much more useful to us (it implicates either you or him) than you saying "that person is L" (which gives us little info since we don't trust you that much).

Of course you can't trust me after my government track record. Still I would have liked to crosscheck blotunga's alignment by checking Pooka. But that would only clear things for me. But you're right. Checking someone else and trying to catch a Fascist is better. Joe was my other favourite investigation target. But he wants to be investigated, as you pointed out. Sure, if he's Liberal AND still trusts me for some reason, he might want to be cleared to conserve the governmental sequence to ensure the remaining two L policies get passed. However, there are also fascist reasons to cry 'Investigate me!' ... One, it demonstrates that one doesn't fear investigation. Two, it's a chance to sow dissent. Especially if the investigation is done by someone whose reputation is already weakened.

Hmmm. I think I'll investigate him nonetheless. If he is Fascist, you just exclude both of us from future governments. 1 for 1 is good play for the Liberal side. If he is Liberal, well, then you'll have to decide whether you trust my read or whether me clearing him doesn't mean anything.

Any veto to me investigating Joe?

Now hold on a second. If pooka is F that is by no means a proof that I am also F. Or lift. Though burrying a L and then investigating me could be a good F move as he'd eliminate 2 L vs 1 F in case Lift is L (which I still think to some degree). That would leave 3F (with Hitler) vs 4 L. In a way I would be curious about Pooka, but I don't think he'll get a gvmt position soon (he could be Hitler afaik since confirming a L would be a good Hitler move).
I'd go with Joe most likely. That way we can draw up a backup in case he turns out a F.

Goto be between Joe, Trent and Pooka. The problem with Lift investigating Pooka is that Lift and Pooka are likely to be opposite. Because there is a 75% chance of a fascist between them. That leaves a 3/9 or 33% chance that the other is Scum and a 66% chance he is Liberal. So most likely opposite. So if Lift is Scum, he taints Pooka.

Ofcourse there's that 25% chance that both are Liberal. In their favour neither caused a dispute with their Chancellor. It surely couldn't be that Pooka, Lift and Blotunga are all one Scum team could it and we've caught them all already?

Joe is quite an important one as once cleared we can happily interchange him and ZFR to victory. I read Joe as Liberal but I want to be more confident than relying on my reads.

Should I just nominate ZFR for Chancellor already? I wouldn't nominate Joe or Pooka anyway as things stand.

I already know Trent and probably Joe will vote the government down, so not much chance it goes through. Better to get the ball rolling in order to not hold up play.

Wait for the investigation imho.

why?

I see there's more for me to read, but you can explain why Y and Q can't both cause X while I catch up to you.