Also, how could the same lying or otherwise misrepresenting the number of players help F?

Also, i should have read the end of ZFR's post before advancing a very similar theory to the one that he did in 510.

In what world would me flipping Fascist help GameRager? Only the party affiliation gets revealed and I would think people would still be worrying about an F/H combo.

You have some of it right, I want to create conflict. I want Joe, if he's a Fascist to have a tough decision whether to claim a conflict or to pass me knowing I'm likely the next President and in line to be a post-3F Chancellor. And if he's Liberal, the truth is a no-brainer.

GameRager isn't a bad choice, as I neglected the complexity introduced by the Special Election. My initial thought was if I were to choose him, we get a free test of him, just before 3F assuming I draw one of those now elusive Ls and following the normal pattern he wouldn't be coming up as a Chancellor option before game end. But with the Special Election, there may be a spot for him as a Chancellor if he were investigated and the draws are poor. I think it's rather unlikely that both he and Joe are F/Hs given all the early Ls, so I think that investigation might provoke a similar consideration of conflict should Joe be Fascist. GameRager is unlikely to be a straight Fascist as he had the opportunity to pass an F the 3rd election, so if he shows Fascist, he's very likely Hitler.

This scenario is extremely unlikely (practically impossible). It would mean vanillaF!RW passed an F policy the second time making it 3-0 knowing that the next government of Hitler!Joe + ZFR (I'm lib, but F!ZFR would have to clear Hitler too) makes it 4-0.
No way RW is doing that in such a scenario. He can easily pass F and claim FFF or pick a conflict with newbie GR.

=============================================================================

@Joe re: The above and other mentions: Go ahead and investigate me then(if you haven't picked someone else already, that is).....then we can move on to the rest of the game.

yes, but... we'd already locked into "these are the two govs until a conflict" so that even if we got to 4L, he'd be in the next gov and could act accordingly. :(

I think he'll come up liberal, but if he does come up fascist that would make winning much easier for liberals.

I'm not sure Joe should be allowed to investigate in RWarehall/Rager. If Joe is fascist and RWarehall/Rager are 2 Liberals that allows a fascist to block a Liberal duo.

I think Joe should investigate ZFR - because they're likely both fascist or both Liberal unless one of them is Hitler.

It's a bad strategy allowing someone to claim 3 fascist policies, keep his teammate in play while conflicting a potential liberal duo.

No it wouldn't if Joe is fascist and Rager is Lib

Because if he investigates ZFR you and Rager get to continue your government and there's a decent chance you find a Liberal card.

ZFR likely plays the hand after yours regardless

Consider the possibility of a fascist Joe locking a Liberal out of government. That's not stopping his fascist partner from playing but it is increasing the odds you pick 1 of his fascist buddies into government. That's sub optimal play

Oops. No clue why I thought we were 10 players in that last post. I must have been not all there. But actually that doesn't change my point at all: any group of 4 players is very likely to contain at least one fascist.

But it is very interesting, how micro tries to twist an error into a 'fascist' reading. Because, if course, liberals are immune to making stupid errors.

@micro: this you have to explain to me. How would such an error, that doesn't even influence the conclusions, benefit the fascists? Or are you just trying to appear scum-hunting after having been called out for lurking repeatedly? Maybe that's why you are grasping at anything that allows you to appear active?

I think if you are liberal and allow yourself to think about it, you will realize that that error wasn't alignment indicative but was just a derp, no matter what alignment you assume about me.

Lol, Lift. If you note, I asked how it would benefit either side in the next note which was an edit bc editing isn't allowed here and i thought something, meant to include it, and then forgot. Please don't read 511 without also reading 512.

However, I also don't wanna back down just because i'm confronted...I've done that too many times in these games when i should'a pushed on.

I was asking. I didn't say it did [affect conclusions], I didn't say it didn't. This is my 3rd game of this (in next format; in which i started the game) and I'm not very knowledgeable about scum strategy, i merely asked if this mistake could be AI, or if it would be stupid for F to lie in this manner, meaning it was an L mistake.

I still find you suspicious, and trust that at least one of the four in government this game is L. One of them. Which one, idk. I suspect 2 of them, tbh, and am trying to decide which 2, if 2.

To answer your next Q: It was aprtly i finally saw something i noticed as maybe being out of line and wanted to find out if it was a mistake, or if it might be a slip. If F's knowingly lying would try to slip the other way (fewer Fs in the game), which would mean you're more likely L, or what.
I saw something interesting and pursued because it had no decent explanation yet in my head. sadly, most things in this game are explained well enough that i don't question them when i prob should.

I do suspect that several of the libs are among the quieter folk; this has been the case in the discord games, at any rate.

Does this answer your question satisfactorily? Sadly (not including the player count thing at all), I cannot tell which way you lean; you're more of a "could be either" to me so far.

Dohoho....we've got us a smart alec, boys. o.0

(Yeah, it's true, I am THAT BAD at these sorts of games....so ANY side I play for is at a disadvantage....still I love playing)
============================================================

If you're so mistrusting of other player's alignments(as you should be, to an extent) why trust ANY investigation not made by one's self?

He said IF I were Fascist, not if I were liberal....gotta read for those words, my man. :)
============================================================

Sounds good(even the bits I snipped to save space....which I mostly understood).
============================================================

Look, I wanna win as much as the next guy here, but i'd rather have fun playing than play as efficiently/optimally as possible....if I wanted to be efficient i'd play a robot simulator. o.0 :D
============================================================

@Op: Has Joe done his investigation or picked a target for such yet? Just checking. Don't want the game to stall too long.

@All players: Done till the latest post....so caught up for now.

And I am considering the possibility Joe is Fascist...
We learn nothing from him investigating ZFR because we will still be stuck wondering if he's covering for Hitler, or has honestly investigated.

If he investigates GameRager or I, and determines that person is Liberal, that result can be trusted outside of a strange scenario where both teams have Fascists yet still somehow passed 4L to start the game.

And if he claims Fascist, we know for a fact, either Joe or the person investigated is truly a Fascist and make sure those players do not ever become Chancellor.

Optimum play to me is gaining helpful knowledge instead of wasting abilities. Joe investigating ZFR only tells Joe something.

Blocking 1 for 1 is good. As RW said, conflict is good; gives us information one of the players is lying.