It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
It's more about odds and placement about the board.
I agree, for the most part, with Scene's general strategy. You want to find Liberals throughout the group so as the Liberal policies dwindle after the shuffle, you have reliable pairs you can jump to from one to the next. That said, I'm not in favor of mechanical play. We are Mafia players who play the game to read and react to posts. I believe we should try to establish Liberals spaced out throughout the draw, but also use our intuition to dodge players we don't trust from their posts.

Plus, I have a few questions about Scene. Namely, that his complaints about GameRager's choice still left open the jump to ZFR and back to GameRager which works to cross the group in the fewest steps as possible.

Also, the strategies as I've read say it's better to have one tested person in each selection. As to how this affects the odds, assuming 6 of the 8 players will pass Liberal policies at this stage (5 Liberals + Hitler), assuming Gamerager is also liberal leaves 4 out of 6. Meaning the odds of Joe/ZFR to be 2 Liberal/Hitlers was (4/6) * (3/5) = 2/5 or just 40%. I thought skipping Joe and the 40% chance would be preferable so we could move to the (4/6) - 67% chance I select someone who would pass a Liberal policy.

Now, I could have argued this, but at the same time, my reads of Joe and ZFR, I had no objection. Plus, it tested ZFR who I was going to select myself anyway. So I played the odds, but didn't want to push the issue because both players I have suspicions about were not part of that government.
avatar
Lifthrasil: As ZFR asked: what was the third card you drew and discarded?
avatar
JoeSapphire: It will be forever a mystery
Oops. Silly me.

Now that RW has answered, I also have nothing against a second round of RW+GR. After that, I could nominate either ZFR or Joe.
As to my selection...
The choice seems to be between:
1) Selecting an untested player. Raw odds assuming all passed governments contain (L/Hs) = 2/4 or 50%, cards be willing.
2) Selecting GameRager who should be 100% unless he was a sandbagging Fascist at the start. Even as Hitler and an impending 3-0, he'd still have to pass a Liberal card.

I'm strongly leaning GameRager but am willing to hear other opinions. The cards have been very favorable so far with 4 F's discarded. The deck won't look this good after the shuffle, so I think it's best to guarantee as many L's as we can while it's still favorable. It should stand at 4 L's and 7 F's if all reporting has been accurate. Odds of 3 F's = (7/11) * (6/10) * (5/9) = 7/33 or just 21.2%. 78.8% chance to have an L to pass.
I'm in favour of GR.
I personally am finding it difficult to fault Scene's logic, even if I don't always agree with it. However the whole "skip to Joe" vs "skip Joe" thing bears looking into.
However, ZFR has struck me as being L this game and as such I had no objection--yet.
@RWarehall, where do you get the 4F discarded? I didn't see the 4th.
I have no objection to GR or Joe being Chancellor--yet.
GameRager - Post 115
Joe confirmed the 3rd card was an F - Post 191.
It's been 17 hours and there seems to be no counter-argument.
I nominate GameRager as Chancellor
I hoped to hear scene's input first.
avatar
ZFR: I hoped to hear scene's input first.
He's on record in post #185.
But if this goes like other nominations, I'm sure we'll have some time to discuss it.
avatar
RWarehall: GameRager - Post 115
Joe confirmed the 3rd card was an F - Post 191.
Thanks....I likely didn't see that before going off.

avatar
RWarehall: It's been 17 hours and there seems to be no counter-argument.
I nominate GameRager as Chancellor
You KNOW I only get on here once a day. o.0

And yeah I am ok with it, I just wanted to have my say beforehand, is all.

Later all.....*The Shadow struts out of the room, his cape fluttering slightly*.
President RWarehall has nominated GameRager for Chancellor. Make haste and submit your PMs.
avatar
Microfish_1: [...] However the whole "skip to Joe" vs "skip Joe" thing bears looking into. [...]
What is that thing? I must have missed it
I'm hiking today, so I won't be posting here until tonight or tomorrow.
avatar
Lifthrasil: Yes, of course, everyone is held accountable for the policies they passed. But part of the game balance is, that players who were in a government can't be nominated as chancellor. So you don't get the same players in two consecutive governments. Also there is the mechanic that after three down-voted governments a random policy is passed. Which benefits the Fascists, since there are more fascist policies in the pile. Making someone chancellor who will be President in the very next round is a way around the 'no player in two consecutive governments' idea. That may be good if you trust the player very much. But if the first round government passes an F, we would be forced to veto the very next government which would effectively shorten the vote-track by one. ... So, it's no hard danger if we risk such a double government. But I have the feeling that it gives one player too much power to be in two consecutive governments and that that shouldn't be done unless that player is very much trusted.
Thanks for explaining.
zeo used to post on who has voted so far. Maybe that's an idea?