He did do that. He suggested some meta-strategy that doesn't really work and just makes the game boring. The resulting discussion led to trent threatening to leave (I guess he goes through with that right now which is why Pooka looks for a replacement). ZFR explained to scene in detail why his meta game doesn't work. Scene, of course, didn't accept that explanation, but ZFR was still right. And I am also strongly against making the game boring. Also, the meta strategy wasn't so much about avoiding Hitler as Chancellor, but about changing the game from a social reads game more towards a pure luck, logic and strategy game. As I said, boring. So can we please not re-heat that discussion? Just nominate someone already!

no, I mean a system for once the third fascist policy has been passed.

That's a terribly bad strategy early in the game. The only ones who played a liberal policy so far are term-locked. So this is only a thinly veiled attempt at forcing yourself into a government. What's the matter? Are all the fascists in lower positions in the list? Do you have to resort first to your meta-numbers and now to a blatantly bad 'policy' to ensure that one of you get's into an early government?

@Micro, note that even if the monk/theologian actually had started enumeration from AD0, it wouldn't have solved the "problem". We have 0-99 as a century, then 100-199... etc, but what about the ones before? If we maintain continuity it becomes -1 to -100 then -101 to -200. See? So -2020 would have to belong with "Negative 2010s" decade. Unless we either shorten a "decade" or create an overlap, which depending on the application could cause its own set of problems.

There is no "neat" enumeration method that solves all our problems. Each one comes with its own quirks. Look at your watch on New Year's moment. The time is 00:00 but the date is 01-01. Interestingly, historically time was also enumerated from 1, and in some languages they still say "20 minutes of the second hour to mean 1:20 am.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic, and I'll happily continue the discussion elsewhere, but I'll leave it out of the game for now. I tend to ramble a lot and dont want to distract from the game.


Did you just admit to wanting to vote to skip 3 governments and pick a polucy at random??

What situation are you imagining where it would turn out scene is scum?


Getting seriously bad vibes from this lift.



A system for once a third fascist policy has been passed? anybody?

Yes. Me too. That was the point. Scene is an experienced player. He should know that his 'policy' is very, very bad so early in the game. If we would accept that strategy we would just get random Policies passed for the rest of the game. He is basically trying to force your hand, saying that he will vote NO to all governments that don't contain him.

Which directly contradicts his earlier stated intention that he wanted to skip to your government and vote you into office!

As for preventing Hitler after the third F policy is passed, that's more difficult. I don't know of any foolproof method. By that time we will have more governments that passed an L, so Scene's idea, which is very stupid now, will work then. We can cycle between governments who's members already passed an L. But the problem is: Hitler will be the Liberalest of the Liberals for exactly that reason. He will pass L, given the opportunity. As Hitler, I even passed the fourth L in the past. So, only one card away from losing. Then I used that 'fact', that no Fascist, not even Hitler, would do something so dangerous as a lever to get me into a Chancellorship, winning the game. So there will always be some risk and a lot of WIFOM involved when chosing a Chancellor after the 3rd F. But that's a problem we can attack when we have more information and several more past governments to analyze.

No I admitted to wanting to skip to RWarehall who played a blue policy. I'd reconsider that if I'm picked because I'm Liberal so it increases the odds from my point of view of 2 Liberals playing.

No it isn't a bad policy it's optimal tactics and yes I absolutely do want to force myself into government. It's the best strategy from a Liberal perspective. Why would I want any fascists seated in front of me playing instead of me because I have a bad seating position? If we played meta, I'd resign to the meta. Because we don't I only resign to A) Myself B) players who've played blue. RWarehall has played blue, hence I will vote yes for him next but by voting for others I lock one Liberal, myself, out of government.

So given my stance, that means any fascist before me who hasn't played blue will be neined. And the only players I will ja are players who have played blue. I should look more Liberal to you because I'm not trying to bring any other player into play other than myself. Because if I was fascist I would be voting yes to my fellow fascists, would I not? So the only way I could be fascist would be if RWarehall and GameRager were both fascist. I voted against them for the first governent. Was I distancing Lift?

Also this is the N'th time you've thrown shade regarding my preference for meta. Something I always play. This is a shadey aggressive attack, which I only remember being apparent in the first game of Mafia I played with you where you were Mafia. I will be neining your presidency and be lobbying for you not to be a chancellor.

And throwing shade is an absolutely poor strategy for fascists in this game as opposed to Mafia. It just makes you look bad before you get your hands on the deck and causes you to lose votes.

There's a few strategies. You can pick into card conflict because Hitler is less likely to conflict on cards. Even if you get a fascist they will be forced to play blue. Ofcourse sometimes fascists and Hitler deliberately conflict one another. You can also try to analyse who's genuinely working the game out because that indicates they're Liberal.

Ummm NO you're actually lying now, for 1 it's optimal Liberal strategy to play less hands on deck and keep cycling players who have played blue and you lied about my post

I stated I wanted either/or, let's see what I wrote in post 57:

@joesapphire I would want to skip you and re-test @Rwarehall if this government A) Is elected B) Passes a Liberal Policy

This ensures that A) RWarehall if Liberal plays twice B) If RWarehall is fascist he is thoroughly tested. If someone passes a fascist policy we can block them and proceed with other players.

Did you try to missrepresent what I posted or did you not read the thread thoroughly?

It was a Discord game, so no link.

You know how on Discord you can see how someone is "typing". I was writitng a long wall of text with an explanation of a probability concept that scene was getting wrong. After I did, I decided that walls of text don't belong on Discord, so I said "screw it" and just summarized it in one line.

scene immediately jumped that the fact that I was typing for so long but only came up with one line means I'm scum. I found it so funny that I purposely started "typing" for several minutes after which I just wrote one word: "Indeed", "OK" or something like that.

Later scene made a list of points on why I'm scum:
1. (Yes, he started enumeration from 1).
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. AND THIS IS A BIG ONE! He was typing for a long time but only came with a short flippant response!

(I'm paraphrasing it)

PookaMustard quoted that point in a later game, so I thought he might have it somewhere?

@mod, do you?

I was of course Lib all the time in that game. So was scene. And, surprisingly, Lift.

Did I? I said something that later we might want to do some skipping and work out a system for selecting president once we have more information based on previous governments and passed policies, but that I'm against having such a system from the very start.
What exactly do you have in mind?

A direct conflict with me. Or with a well established Lib.

Bridge that reach once we cross it?

It would really depend on who was in government, who passed what policies, who was in conflict with whom, what cards are left... etc, etc. Why do we have to discuss it now?

OK,. I forgot RW is only term-locked from being chancellor, not president.

Still, your policy "I will only vote on RW choosing me and nothing else" does seem odd. Especially given, as Lift pointed out, that you previously wanted to skip to Joe, and where actually the only one to vote NO for this.

(Can we please stop referring to blue and red cards, and call them Liberal, Fascist?) It's confusing to someone who didn't play with a real board).

You missunderstand. I will vote no to Joe unless he nominates me. I will vote yes for any of Rwarehall's picks as he played 1 blue policy

1. This shows the folly in Lift stating this is a social reads game. It is to a degree but fasc can just stand back, act liberal and let Liberals pick each other apart.

2. Regarding the scenario of me being in conflict with 'a well established liberal'. Consider for a moment Fascist A plays blue with Fascist B, he then plays blue with Fascist C. Fascist A looks very Liberal as he's played 2 of the blues on the board. Fascist A then picks a new Liberal player, ie Scene, and conflicts him. Liberal Scene then looks like an obvious Fascist to the Liberal observers. I'm not saying that will happen but it does happen quite often and early blues don't mean that much. Playing 4th blue as President is about as near as you can come to being confirmed without having 3 conflicts

Please stop using blue/red.

Consider this example: I investigate a player and he turns liberal. You're in conflict with him, so I know you're scum.

Joe asked for examples of situations where it would turn you're scum. I just gave them.

"I'm outta this stinkin' place!" Trent's sudden outburst surprised all of you. "You idjits couldn't tell gold from flies!" He left the stage, slamming the door behind him.

The Puzzlemaster, Grimsby and Bookwyrm looked at each other in confusion.

"That's so convenient." Bookwyrm sighed. "I knew having Trent wouldn't work. Who's the smartypants who brought him?" Zeo and Grimsby pointed at each other. "You guys are so useful. Beatrice, come here."

The robotic lady walked over to the group. "AWAITING ORDERS, BOOKWYRM."

"We need a replacement actor. Pronto!"

"OH, A REPLACEMENT ACTOR? THAT'S EASY. QUERYING DATABASES." She raised her arm, which had a terminal screen installed. The terminal showed a SQL query being typed in before it was flooded with a wall of text. Eventually the last entry in the terminal said that an e-mail was successfully sent. "GIVE HIM SOME TIME AND HE WILL SHOW UP."

"Wait, you just sent an actor an e-mail without TELLING US WHO HE IS?" Bookwyrm held her shoulders.

"YES. THAT'S THE ONLY ACTOR WHO WILL ACCEPT YOUR LEVEL OF BUDGET."

"How the heck do you know?" Bookwyrm let go of her, scratching his head.

"ANALYZING ANONYMIZED CUSTOMER DATA, OF COURSE."

----

Thirty minutes later, knocking could be heard on the door. The trio quickly opened it while the rest of the actors watched in anticipation. A man wearing a black fire shirt with roller blades burst in, laughing madly while he waved a toy gun around. "I'm gonna set you all on Xtreme Fire."

Everyone was speechless for a minute. Grimsby was the first to break the silence, asking Puzzlemaster "Is this dude familiar...?"

"I don't wanna know." was Zeo's response.

"HE'S KNOWN FOR HIS APPEARANCE AS A VILLAIN IN XTREME SUPERVILLAINS."

"Oh. Okay." Bookwyrm sighed again.

----

Xtreme Fire (RedFireGaming) has replaced Tap-Happy Trent (trentonlf).

The game continues.

Now you're just pretending to be stupid. Of course cycling between players that have already played Liberal policies is a good strategy ... but at the moment that is literally impossible! As impossible as it was in the first round. THERE ARE NO ELIGIBLE PLAYERS WHO HAVE PLAYED A LIBERAL POLICY! So all that remains of your statement "either me or someone who has passed a liberal policy" is ... *drumroll* ... you. Which means that you announced that you will vote NO to any government not involving you.

Also you did announce last year that you want to 'Nein to Joe' ... your words. You even explained to me what you meant with that phrase, because I misunderstood it. So, where exactly was I lying?