Secret Hitler (Game Over)

[Ausuka]

Election 7:

Player	Vote
xReckonerx	Ja
Not_Mafia	Ja
BuJaber	Nein
inspiratieloos	Nein
Something_Smart	Nein
mallowgeno	Ja
Klick	Ja
2 718281828459	Ja
Mitillos	Ja
NicoRobin	Ja

The government has been voted in!

[Ausuka]

A

Fascist

policy has been enacted.

President

Mitillos

may now use his Presidential Power of Execution- he may execute a player to remove them from the game. If that player is Hitler the game will immediately end in a Liberal win; if not the dead player's role will not be revealed and the game will continue.

[xRECKONERx]

im so fucking titled right now.

[BuJaber]

What happened to following the plan?

[2 718281828459]

Well, do not shoot Not_Mafia or xRECKONERx unless you

really

think one of them is a vanilla fascist.

[Something_Smart]

OH WHAT A SHOCKER.

Also Mitillos should have zero credibility in anyone's eyes right now, and thus you should not be recommending he act on his own feelings at all; deciding his own shot rather than agreeing to be leashed should be taken as a scumclaim.

[xRECKONERx]

Nah, Mitillos knows that he can't claim that I'm scum here.

He knows he passed me double fascist. So he has to support my claim and just claim "aw gee shucks, I got triple fascist" because if he claims I'm lying, then he shoots me, I flip liberal, and he outs himself.

[Mitillos]

So, once again, Reck had no choice in the policy, and neither did I. 3F, which puts as at a deck with 3F3L (or 4F2L, if nsg lied).

@Reck: What is titled?

@BuJ: I believe that your plan involved Reck picking someone between the four people involved in investigations. This doesn't mean we skip three times, and get a random policy first. That would have been a waste of an execution, something desirable only to fascists (*cough* inspi *unconvincing cough*), since it reduces the likelihood of a liberal wincon. The plan can still happen, now that it doesn't take 3 neins in a row to carry out.

@2.718: Of course I'm not shooting N_M or Reck. They are not Hitler. Shot goes on Hitler.

As I mentioned before, I think that Hitler is one of 2.718 and NR. mallow has been too careless and blasé, inspi was pretty content to stay out of government if it meant keeping BuJ out of government, S_S was similar to inspi with the added bonus that he accused me for pretty much no good reason (since it might well mean he'd be constantly kept out of government), plus S_S indirectly protected 2.718 and NR (as I pointed out in the past).

My instinct is to go with NR. She has been completely gone, and is therefore unreadable. 2.718 has been making an effort recently, and even though I have had reservations, it's at least something (and I might just be a bit paranoid). Furthermore, NR is next, and I'd rather we simply go straight to Reck's presidency; executing NR would expedite this.

Obviously, I'm not going to make the decision like that. I would like to see some discussion, and in particular if there are any others which are more likely to be Hitler (and why).

Edit: @Reck: If I shoot you, you just flip "Hitler" or "not-Hitler". We don't see your actual alignment. And since you're 100% not Hitler, you're 100% not getting shot.

@S_S: Presumably you're saying I should have zero credibility because it is unreasonable for 6F3L to yield 3F. Even though the probability of this is about 23.08%. That's some really valid reasoning there. Anyway, I already said ages ago that I wouldn't be deciding the execution myself if I happened to get one (I believe this was when 2.718 joined the game and was discussing executions), and that I'd want to see discussion and reasons as to whom I should shoot. So, I'm not sure what points you're trying to score here, since I already covered all that. And no, I won't agree to be leashed, because e.g. I won't shoot you. Although it's not impossible you're Hitler, I don't think it likely; you seem a cleverer player than that, and I want to minimise the possibility of wasting a shot on a non-Hitler target.

[Something_Smart]

@S_S: Presumably you're saying I should have zero credibility because it is unreasonable for 6F3L to yield 3F. Even though the probability of this is about 23.08%. That's some really valid reasoning there.

So the odds of you being town (already objective low in my opinion) just were made 5 times lower. In a game of probabilities like this, that ought to round to zero.

Anyway, I already said ages ago that I wouldn't be deciding the execution myself if I happened to get one (I believe this was when 2.718 joined the game and was discussing executions), and that I'd want to see discussion and reasons as to whom I should shoot.

I'm not asking for you to have discussions and reasons. I'm asking for you to have literally zero say in who you shoot. Are you saying that if Reck and Not_Mafia and Klick decided they wanted you to shoot me, you'd trust your own opinion (even knowing that I am fascist) over theirs?

[Something_Smart]

(*objective

ly

low in my opinion)

[xRECKONERx]

you should shoot SS

[Mitillos]

@S_S: The probability of 3F from a 6F3L deck is 23.08%. The conditional probability of 3F, given that Reck got 2F (and assuming that you don't think he's lying) is around 30%. Neither of these numbers is 0, and both are in fact high enough that their occurrence is not abnormal. What you think multiplying 1/5 by whatever unnamed number you have in mind actually means, I have no idea (and I suspect that you don't, either). Also, I think you're confused about the word "objectively". Your opinion is automatically subjective, given that it is an opinion.

Anyway, yes, if Reck, and N_M, and Klick all simply told me "shoot S_S", I would ignore each and every one of them. On the other hand, if they explained why you are likely to be Hitler, I would look at their explanations, and see if I could find any flaws to argue over. If I could not, then I would agree to shoot you. The goal here is not to find the player that most people claim to think should be shot. The goal is to find the player most likely to be Hitler (which is different to "the player most people think is Hitler"). And without actual reasons and discussions, we are not finding that at all. I wouldn't trust anyone's opinion, if it came without an explanation. Thereby, I wouldn't trust anyone else's opinion (without explanations) over mine, because I already gave clear explanations for my position. Just because I believe that Reck, N_M, and Klick are lib, it doesn't mean that their gut reactions are correct. So, no, I don't want naked opinions. I want reasoning, I want arguments, and I want explanations. In fact, if I were a fascist, I would probably be cool with just going with the majority without any such discussion, because that can be easily manipulated, by simply ignoring those players I would falsely claim are fascists. Therefore, explanations, please.

@Reck: Why, or are you just trolling?

[2 718281828459]

Reck, if you were really just trolling, you should have suggested to shoot Ausuka.

Mitillos, we

also

have selection bias in play here which makes it literally impossible to figure out actual hard probabilities.
Like, as a simple example, you can say that the probability of drawing 3 reds from a 6-blue 11-red deck is about one in five, but if someone claims it to excuse a fascist policy, then that de-weights several possibilities (e.g. clearly LLL did not happen, and neither did FLL unless both in the gov are fascist and wanted to burn liberals), and those probabilities are immeasurable. So the FFF claim is much more likely than one in five purely because you know that someone dared to claim it.

[Mitillos]

I'm going simply by the probabilities of drawing from the deck, given what we know, and under the assumption that nsg didn't lie (an assumption which actually minimises the probability of 3F). The probabilities can definitely be measured, and have nothing to do with our perceptions. I'm not interested in what previous claims were made before the deck reshuffle, because they are irrelevant to these probabilities. The probability that I drew 3F, given that Reck got 2F, is equal to the a priori probability that I got 3F divided by the a priori probability that I got 3F or 2F1L, from a 6F3L deck. All of these can be calculated, and no amount of bias would cause the numbers to magically change.
In any case, my point is that S_S is claiming I should have no credibility now, because an event occurred which is not particularly unlikely. His position is a silly one and the probabilities are one way to show this.

[xRECKONERx]

i was trolling i literally have no idea what is going on other than me being mad

[Something_Smart]

Your opinion is automatically subjective, given that it is an opinion.

I mean my opinion of how an observer with no information should see the game. So while it is subjective, in some sense it is objective as well. (My subjective opinion, of course, is that there is a 0% chance you are town.)

I mean, if we did calculate this probabilitistically, the objective chance you are fascist is a little over 50% to account for the case that I 1v1 you when we are both fascist, which already cuts your probability in half. Not to mention the factors can't be measured exactly, like, you know, the fact that my government was voted down while yours was voted in.

[Mitillos]

Except I'm not talking about the probability of me being fascist, but about the probability of me drawing 3F. You are claiming that others should think I am fascist based on passing a fascist policy, despite the fact that, from a third party's perspective, there is a reasonably high probability that I simply got 3F, and therefore had no choice but to pass a fascist policy. Also, I should point out here that you were president in a government that passed a fascist policy when the deck was claimed to have been 5F3L, which gave you a lower chance to get 3F than I had. So, really, to the extent that you might be considered to have any sort of point there (and you don't), it would mean that you are even less trustworthy to a third party than me (so I guess you're lucky that you actually don't have a point, then).

And no, your opinion on how an observer "should" see the game is still completely subjective, unless and until you can come up with explicit and objective explanations as to *why* they should see the game that way. All you said was that me getting 3F was "A SHOCKER", which is just an appeal to sarcasm, without any substance or validity.

[BuJaber]

@BuJ: I believe that your plan involved Reck picking someone between the four people involved in investigations. This doesn't mean we skip three times, and get a random policy first. That would have been a waste of an execution, something desirable only to fascists (*cough* inspi *unconvincing cough*), since it reduces the likelihood of a liberal wincon. The plan can still happen, now that it doesn't take 3 neins in a row to carry out.

That was my first plan when I thought reck can't pick NM if we skip 3 times. And I wanted someone else to do it even before the 3rd fascist policy was pased.
New plan was we skip until reck then reck picks NM then NM picks nsg

[BuJaber]

First of all glad Rrck is not hitler.. I started to get paranoid him.
So Reck should be conf town to everyone.

Secondly Mitilos you are severely underestimating how much each vote matters. Yes we can shoot NR or 2.7 and if we hit hitler we win, but if we shoot a liberal we lose a vote which is huge right now. So if you really are a liberal you need to shoot the most likely scum by majority's opinion. I am telling you Inspi is scum. That's who we should shoot. Though if we are going with the 50-50 risky play my gut says 2.7 is town after the gambit. I don't think a fascist comes up with that reasoning for neining their own presidency. They'd be more concerned with how it'd look bad.

That said I don't think you should treat Inspi as non-hitler either. Yes it is true that he has made considerably more posts than the lurkers but also most of them are just opinions on what he claims is optimal play. As in mostly objective discussion not many reads. He also hasn't tried to advocate for anyone to be voted in at all like not even a little bit except for reck and NM which now that they're both 100% not hitler doesn't make sense except if he wants to get town cred.

I don't think SS or you is hitler because you maximized your chances to be voted in as a president by picking the most townread guy. Means you lost your chance to be hitler. SS because he chose to butt heads with you. See unlike inspi who I investigated so he had no choice in the matter, SS chose to check your alignment and then claim you are fascist. If you are not noth fascist which I doubt is the case, SS's behavior has been rather too brazen to be hitler.

For the record mitilos doesn't need votes to shoot. He has full authority. I really think if scum he'd go for the 1 for 1 trade and shoot reck or NM to cripple the libs even if it exposes him. Consider the evidence against him. Government voted in despite the less risky plan I laid out that only votes for confirmd non-hitlers. Butting heads with SS so already 50-50. Fascist policy passed while he is president. He is already on shaky ground. 4:5 fascist to lib is easily winnable because even if he outs himself and we shun him from elections we can't block his vote. From a strategy perspective he's wasting fascist time if he is fascist and doing this bs acting.

[BuJaber]

Plus you know.. inspi and SS and their weird association, and we know now that reck is town for sure so he wasn't the one that threw the liberal.

Pretty sure the fascist are Inspi, SS, mallow and NR (or 2.7 but less likely).

[2 718281828459]

I will say a few things:
1. Your opinion to shoot inspi comes from your POV; we need inspi to think of the opposite viewpoint.
2. A shoot of NicoRobin does seem to be fine with me. Nico seems to be the common enemy; everyone else is in weird arguments that I am struggling to untangle.
3. If Mitillos is exposed, then we also lose all credibility in the people that Mitillos reads as town, and those that Mitillos reads as scum will suddenly seem very liberal (or at least some of them).

[BuJaber]

I still can't believe that a guy involved in a 1v1 investigation conflict got voted as president.
You test people by picking them as chancellor in the first several elections not as president when there's a killing power.

[Klick]

Without having much understanding of the stats/details of everything going on, I Ja’d Mitillos/Reck because Reck is obvtown and I have a townread from Mitillos’ recent posts, while a skim has made me feel uneasy about SS pretty much all game. Every game of Secret Hitler I’ve seen revolved way too much around attempted setup breaking and not enough around reads.

I think there’s scum motivation in trying to direct gameplay solely via what’s statistically likely, because it limits opportunities to obtain reads.

[BuJaber]

I agree with you just not on killing power presidencies. Those go to conftown if we have them or most townread by majority.

[Mitillos]

Secondly Mitilos you are severely underestimating how much each vote matters. Yes we can shoot NR or 2.7 and if we hit hitler we win, but if we shoot a liberal we lose a vote which is huge right now.

And this is why discussion is good. You are correct: I was completely ignoring the potential effect on votes, and I should reconsider this.