Why not? He could "test" for a buddy fascist and they can claim together that they drew 3F or he could lie he threw away one F and leave us with incorrect statistics which may also be a disadvantage given how often probabilities are being cited.

For the record (assuming again that draws were accurately reported):

Based on 5L9F left
Last Draw odds:
3L = 5/182 = 2.7%
2L1F = 45/182 = 24.7%
1L2F = 45/91 = 49.5%
3F = 3/13 = 23.1%

Based on 3L8F left
This Draw odds:
3L = 1/165 = 0.6%
2L1F = 8/55 = 14.5%
1L2F = 28/55 = 50.9%
3F = 56/165 = 33.9%

Hitler doesn't know his buddy fascists. He can't risk it.

Which makes that a really nice derp from Dedo, or a really nice fake derp from Dedo :D

That's my point, he doesn't know them but he can test for them hopefully finding one in the process. I think I already gave a similar example - Hitler draws 2L + 1F - he can pass down 2L to gain cred and deny the same for the Chancellor or pass 1F + 1L. If the Chancellor passes the F Hitler knows one of his buddies and can cover them by saying he drew 3F. If the Chancellor passed the L Hitler can say a bunch of different things (lie about the thrown card to tamper with statistics, remove one player from the possible fascists pool, buddy them up and so on).


If you're referring to me appearing as if I didn't know how fascist + Hitler worked gaining some L cred I'm happy to refund it as it's not what I meant - see above :)

No it's not, they could be both fascists, but the overall picture would sort that out.

OK. Looking at the discussion I think I'm ready to nominate my candidate. Or do y'all think that we need some more talking before the voting starts?

@Lifthrasil, I think RWarehall and ZFR maybe good alternatives to The Greek, the choice is yours. As President you should discuss how you will use any potential fascist power in advance?

Myself and The Greek would like ZFR investigated. But if you're interested in investigating others please give your reasons.

If your Chancellor chooses fascist policy over liberal policy you don't need to investigate him because you can take for red he's fascist.

I was lacking time but it was an oversight on my part, I think it was 25%-1/3 chance from recollection. I still wouldn't have changed the decision after my analysis on the prior page shows that Liberals would be at a disadvantage at 1-1 due to . Ultimately as President while I'm open to discussion I have to make the best decision I see fit for the liberal cause

Should all future discuss this possibility? You haven't mentioned your thoughts, as the next Presidents could have the same issue. I believe Liberal policy should be put forth whenever possible

I think it will depend highly on who is the chancellor / president pair and I'm not quixotic enough to push too much on what I believe is the correct play. Consider the voting No per default versus voting Yes per default approach and notice I'm not really screaming murder at anyone - well, everyone really - for not going along with what I believe to be the "objectively best way" to play. Different folks different strokes, first time playing this, and respecting others' agency blah blah...

Also I was paying attention to your action as president in particular regardless of outcome, because of what you had said at start. But the relevance of that was for the most part driven by my misunderstanding the rules and what you were proposing.

OK, I'm going to bed and so that the game continues, I'll nominate my Chancellor. I weighed the options of checking another player and going the probably safer route of nominating thegreek. I decided on the latter. My reasoning is manifold.
1) we are leading by two policies and we still have a 2/3 chance to draw a liberal policy. I want to use and extend that advantage if we can and the chances to use it are best, if I have a chancellor that looks liberal so far.
2) a team of one unknown player and one, on whom there is already some data is easier to analyze than a team made up of two unknowns. And I am still 'unknown' to you - I didn't have the chance to prove my liberality yet. So if I draw 1L, the most likely case, I want the justified hope that my chancellor enacts it.
3) in the unlikely case, that I draw 2L, I can enforce a liberal policy without losing so much as we would, when the main purpose of the government would be checking an unknown player. But this is a point that can still be discussed: what should I do if I draw 2L?
4) if I draw an unlucky 3F things look bad for me, true, since Brasas then could only confirm that he got 2F from me, but he can't verify what I drew. But that would be true for any Chancellor.

So all in all I think in the current situation it is better to chose a semi-known chancellor than to test a new one.

@Mods: I nominate The Greek (greeklover) as Chancellor

Sounds reasonable. I"m gong with YES.

Good choice. Now I can go to sleep too:)

CURRENT PROPOSED GOVERNMENT
President: Basil the Lifter (lifthrasil)
Chancellor: The Greek (greeklover)

Please PM me your yes/no votes on whether you wish for this setup or not. There must be a majority "yes" for this to pass.

No reason to pass, so yes.

Voting Yes as well.