OK. I have time now to write my thoughts in more detail

(Disclaimer, this is my second Mafia and first Secret Hitler game, but I played Resistance till the cows went home).

I wish I knew how experienced the other players are, because other than the people I saw at Mafia (Lift, dedo, RWarehall...) I can't tell.

Anyway,

In Resistance, no spy in their right mind would vote Fail on the first mission of the first game with new people. I've seen it happen in later games, once we have played through a few rounds already, as a gambit to try something different or when a few experienced players who know each other play with some newbies to throw them off. But in almost all cases first game in new crowd means first round passes.

Now this is different than Resistance, since as blotunga said you could claim you got 3 fascist cards, but it would still be not worth it. If both government members were fascists this would put both of them under heavy suspicion, essentially exposing 50% of their team. I don't think it's worth it. I just don't see it.

On the first round, a fascist who is in a government with a liberal, might enact a fascist policy, since he can try and wiggle out of it "I blame the other guy", "I only got fascist cards", "I only did it so I get a special power at least"... etc. But two fascists? They'd be throwing too much suspicion on themselves.

So, going back to blotunga's statement would a "a fascist president would've nominated a fascist buddy/Hitler as chancellor"?
a) Would he do it in order to pass a fascist policy? No way in hell! He'd be putting both of them under suspicion (50% of the team); and it's an unnecessary risk, since there is a pretty good chance he'd get 2 fascist policies anyway which he can pass to a liberal chancellor, thus he'd achieve same goal of passing a fascist policy without putting 2 fascists under suspicion.
b) Would he do it in order to pass a liberal policy? Yes! This way both appear as members in good standing.
(Incidentally, in case of (a) the fascist president would never choose Hitler, while in case of (b) he might.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another thought, I mentioned it in my previous mafia game, that in Resistance, when playing a new game with a new crowd or with inexperienced players, usually the one who talks most... etc is a spy. And in this game, greek reminded me of that type of player. Especially later with his "elect us again", "vote for Brasas" (though to be honest my gut feeling is that Brasas is liberal due to his NO vote), "mr scene should nominate me"... etc and on top of that blotunga's "the two guys are clearly liberal" statement. It might be an indication that if greek is fascist his buddy blotunga is supporting him, but this seems way too obvious. On another hand I think that if blotunga and greek were fascist buddies they'd try to distance themselves, not the other way round. Not 100% sure what to think here (information on how experience in Resistance/Mafia these two players have would be helpful here!)

(And this is not saying I greek is fascist, as I said this could be just fluff).

My 2 cents.

I admit, that I wasn't thinking of all the facets here.
Never heard of Resistance before. Haven't played Mafia in years. Last time I played Werewolves also here about a year ago... Probably I need to get my bearings.

I play for the first time this kind of game btw, never played mafia or resistance in the past.

And I said the same thing about Brasas before ZFR. And I disagree about the spy theory. The spy would never be a try hard because that would draw suspicion from the start.

On his first turn, if the president is liberal, then he might as well choose the chancellor at random, since he has probably nothing to go upon, unless a fascist screwed up badly and slipped up.

If he is fascist however he has a choice to make.

1) Attempt to enact a fascist policy; will throw suspicion on himself, but will be a bit closer to winning.
2) Attempt to enact a liberal policy; will be a bit farther from winning, but will put himself in good light.

If he chooses 2, he has another choice to make:
a) Choose a liberal chancellor.
b) Choose a fascist buddy chancellor.

There is almost no reason to go 2a. If he is planning of enacting a liberal policy anyway to put himself in good light, then he might as well put his buddy in good light too.

If he chooses 2, again he has same choices
a) Choose a liberal chancellor.
b) Choose a fascist buddy chancellor.

1b practically guarantees that he achieves his goal (unless 3 liberal policies are drawn), but as I said it puts both under suspicion (50% of the fascist team), which can be extremely risky at this stage. I really don't think a good fascist player would do it. 1a is much more practical, since not only there is still a pretty good chance of achieving your goal of passing a fascist policy, but any suspicion towards you gets diluted, and a liberal player falls under suspicion too.

Ok, now it's kinda clear and you're right. We don't know much, except that a liberal policy was passed.

Yes, that's exactly why I mentioned it. I meant to add "as greek said..." but forgot.

Also, I just realized I made a mistake 3 posts up (post 112). Below the part in bold,

"If he chooses 2, again he has same choices "

should obviously have been

"If he chooses 1, again he has same choices"

I hope it was clear from the context.

@ZFR, can you elaborate a bit more on the NO vote? I fail to understand how a NO vote is more likely liberal aligned - I'm not saying it's fascist but how is it something else than neutral this early on?

@Brasas, if I understand correctly you plan to deny governments until you have a good reason not to? If that's correct would you keep doing it if 2 governments fail in a row?

MODS can you confirm Greek is now term locked from holding either Chancellor or Presidential positions in the future of the game? While the only position I'd ever be eligable for would be President?

Now my thoughts. Firstly the strategy and tactics in this game is very basic, the only influence we have outside of voting for our side is for Liberals to shine a light on the truth and for Fascists to sell lies.

I can confirm Greek passed me a Liberal and Fascist policy. I don't know what cards The Greek were dealt, he could have discarded a Fascist card and now be happy to be deemed a Liberal. But if the above understanding of the rules holds true, The Greek has nothing to gain and is in fact likely Liberal. Because if he was Fascist his best policy would be to lie and state I had 2 Liberal policies, losing some trust in myself.

I now suspect ZFR of being Fascist. ZFR is talking about a narative where Greek and myself know we are both fascists which would be cheating on our part because there is no game discussion outside of this thread. He's played other similar games to know this is illegal. For me this is a fascist strategy of creating confussion.

ZFR is also stating a fascist Chancellor would pick a liberal policy, which I wouldn't if I was a Fascist. Because The Fascist wins twice if he passes a Fascist policy. Winning the game is all about so should try to get them past at every opportunity. And he gets information against another player. He can then pass this information to the rest of us and claim that a Fascist is a Liberal and a Liberal is a Fascist. He can claim Hitler is a great choice for Chancellor after finding Hitler. All while stating it isn't his fault he only had fascist choices to begin with.

For the same reasons I believe Dedoporno to be a Fascist

ZFR may also believe he will create trust by being an authority on the game

TLDR So I will be voting against any government with ZFR or Dedoporno and advice my fellow liberals to do the same.
They may not be fascists but they look like they're either the most likely candidates or either their or my understanding of the game rules is wrong, awaiting mods confirmation on the latter.

I'm not sure but think Lifthrasil is probably Liberal because he is talking about the truths of the best Liberal strategies. A tactical Fascist wouldn't be doing this, he'd be creating confussion much like a lawyer, but then what's the difference between a Lawyer and a Fascist?

For me Lifthrasil is the best bet for a Liberal Chancellor, but do we have a Liberal President?

Fascists who are not Hitler know who is who from the start according to the rules. Liberals and Hitler have no knowledge.

Ah ok, that makes more sense.

In which case perhaps it makes sense for the Fascists to remain quiet

It's not. Just gut feeling. Maybe because if a NO vote was indicative of a fascist then no fascist in his right mind would make it.

It's possible for a member of the previous government to become president, but it's not possible for any member of the previous government to be nominated as chancellor. Note that this only applies to elected governments, not nominated ones.
So basically, yes, what you said.

Oh, ok then. I figured there might be something missing since you're the second person to point it out.

I'm not sure I follow how the fascist wins twice. This is my first time playing the game but I don't see how it's a good strategy for a fascist to pass a fascist policy if they were given a choice from an unknown player (if Hitler) or a liberal player. They would basically out themselves to one other player and attract attention for the rest of the game which at best is shared with a liberal player. The gains seems significantly smaller than the benefits to me.

I also don't see why not insta-liberal-reading someone on ambiguous results makes me or ZFR that much more fascist. On the flip-side you seem to condemn the only (or the majority of?!?!) people who are trying to consider more possibilities without giving free passes just because. If that is what is going on I don't like the sound of it, I hope it's not the case.

No, this isn't the case.
Both of you are only locked out of being the chancellor of the next government. Both of you are eligible for president despite being in the last government, and, after the next government is chosen and passes a policy, both of you will be eligible for chancellor positions again, and those two in THAT government will be locked out of chancellorship (but still eligible for presidency).

To make that mess sound nicer:
No member of the previously-elected government can become chancellor. Anybody can be president.