Posted January 05, 2020
supplementscene: 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
Lifthrasil: 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?
If RWarehall played Liberal policy because he's Liberal he has a higher probability of being with another Liberal than the probability or Joe being both Liberal and the player he chooses being Liberal.
The only way I'd now consider voting yes to Joe is if he picks me because then I can guarantee 1 Liberal will be in play. But even then if RWarehall countered and said he'd also pick me I'd nein Joe because there is a higher likelyhood that we'd have Lib-Lib government