Secret Hitler 2 (Game over!)

[Mitillos]

/in

[Mitillos]

Hello everyone. Let's try to get some healthcare and education reforms, before we go dividing the country, shall we?

Having said that, @Shrek: you seem overly defensive. This is, in a sense, a mafia variant, so of course people will bring the way they play mafia to this game. Anyway, how can initial conversation hurt? If the president is a liberal, and this helps him find a second liberal to nominate for Chancellor, then that would give us a decent chance to start with a liberal policy.

I like gbt, so far. They look like a fighter for the people.

@rando: You had a libread on gbt. Even gbt themselves is not sure how you got it. Care to explain?

[Mitillos]

@Think: And now that the flavour fluff is out of the way, got anything game-related to add? Because you've made 4 posts, yet only one of them discusses the game in any way, and even then only barely.

@Shrek: The thing is, mafia variant as a category is ill-defined. In one sense, it encompasses games where people try to figure out each other's alignment. In another, it only means those where people vote others out, based on said alignment reads. Games like this one and Resistance kind of straddle the line, and don't fit well into the mafia subfora. In any case, even if this is not to be considered a mafia variant, that doesn't change the fact that mafia-related skills are relevant here. Your insistence to divorce the two serves no purpose. Also, you seem to be ignoring my other point: Initial conversation is good, irrespective of whether this game is like mafia or not.
While we're at it, do you have any reads you wish to share, as yet?

[Mitillos]

@pabs: The two are not mutually exclusive. And I'm "baiting" (as you incorrectly put it) Shrek to see why he is opposed to conversation. Frankly, looking at your posts, I could ask you that too. As well as the following:
In post 33, you agreed with random's post 22. Was that serious, or? If yes, do you still agree with that? If so, why? If not at any point, what are your actual reads? What is the point of our subsequent posts?

[Mitillos]

@pabs: I disagree with your assertion that Shrek was going somewhere productive. Where he went was that the ideal gameplay is "Waiting until the first policy gets passed/neined and then seeing how people react to it.", or "at least until voting on the proposed government begins.". This is hardly productive. It is a position against conversation, and one that is worse for liberals. I want Shrek to explain what his objection to conversation is (as I consider it anti-lib), which is why I keep going back to that point. Also, I'm not redirecting the entire flow to you. We can have more than one line of interaction going on at the same time. As for you saying that I am not giving much direction, I have said and shown that I am in favour of conversation and reads before the nomination and voting. The only reason my line of questioning seems empty is because of posts like Shrek's 70 and 73.

Also, @Yoshi: First time for me, too.

[Mitillos]

@Shrek: OK, fair enough. Here's the thing: People will form opinions on others, based on what the latter say or don't say. This should be fine, and part of the game. People will then interact with each other, and possibly change their opinions, or reinforce them. This should also be fine, and part of the game. Your responses, however, have been very defensive, and opposed to the existence of such reads, at least on yourself. You speak of accusations, as if a few people not trusting you early on is equivalent to you being blocked from everything. You also appear to be saying that we should wait until after NM nominates, before we start making any non-fluff conversation (based on posts 58 and 59). These are things that look suspicious to me, as they recommend tactics which I believe would put the libs at a disadvantage.

Incidentally, anti-liberal is not the same as fascist. One refers to behaviour, the other to alignment. A liberal-aligned player can be behaving in an anti-liberal manner, for example by responding to questions with non-sequiturs.

@NM: Can you explain your three reads? Also I assume they are libreads of yours, could you confirm or correct this?

[Mitillos]

@Shrek: Which part do you believe makes no sense? I will be happy to explain my position more clearly, if necessary. I will even be happy to change it, if it is shown to be incorrect.
You are right in that last bit, about active and accidental anti-lib behaviour, of course, but that's kind of the point, here. I am questioning your views, to see what the situation is.

[Mitillos]

@random: Meme? Do you mean the picture? Also, there is no voting people out of the game, so bandwagons don't apply. If you consider me questioning Shrek (or indeed anyone) suspicious, then how exactly do you expect the game to proceed? You say that you gave a non-serious read to get the ball rolling, but it's meaningless if there is no further discussion afterwards. The ball is supposed to go uphill, so you can't just get it rolling and then stop.

Incidentally, were all three of your reads non-serious? Do you have any other reads, besides the one on me?

[Mitillos]

Damn it... a kindred spirit.

[Mitillos]

Yeah, OK, I'm leaning lib on random now, too.

Would not mind seeing something of substance from Yoshi, mallow, Not_M, RC, and Think.

[Mitillos]

@Yoshi: They can if:
1) they have a really good reason to suspect that random or N_M is fascist and will be likely to pass a fascist policy, or
2) If they do it as a matter of course, every time, as mallow said he does. I generally do this too in rl Resistance games, but I'd rather not do it here if there'd be two of us like that.

[Mitillos]

@mallow: It doesn't in this case. It would only matter if there were multiple games to be played, because then it would be possible for Fascists to use that information. I once had one Resistance game where that happened.
Call it a quirk of mine.

[Mitillos]

To reiterate the important questions here, for everyone's convenience:

random: Policies you got? Is N_M telling the truth?
mallow: Are you confused about the gamestate? Because GBT wasn't supposed to pick anything.
RC: Was your fascread on random serious? (And if so, what did you base it on?)
think: Why the rush to nominate GBT?

[Mitillos]

@Umlaut: For clarification, when do the discarded policies get reshuffled into the deck? Do passed policies also get reshuffled in, or do they stay in play permanently?

[Mitillos]

Thanks.

[Mitillos]

I'm awake, I'm awake.

@random: The fact that you could have claimed 2f1l doesn't mean you would necessarily have, so the possibility that there were 3 lib cards is still there, as is the possibility that either or both of you are fascist-aligned. So, RC is technically correct.

Testing the nullreads is probably alright, and I'm mostly fine with GBT's pool.

Before that, though, I'd like to ask RC why he is claiming to have forgotten to PM Umlaut in post 194. Umlaut's 190 announcing the votes seems to have come almost 6 hours before the deadline listed in 189, so it would be reasonable to conclude that everyone PMed Umlaut by then.

[Mitillos]

@Mod: 1) Did the voting for the second government finish approximately 6 hours before the deadline? 2) If yes, would this happen if some player or players had not yet PM'ed you their vote?

[Mitillos]

Figured it out. The timer reverts to UTC when the deadline is reached. My bad.

[Mitillos]

Sith and Jedi are both fascist, though.

As for TB, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Sure, his quick pick is a bit suspicious, but it could also just be a "GBT is so immensely lib to me, that I've already made up my mind", without thinking about how this would appear to everyone. That's not necessarily fascist. His disappearance now could be just coincidence, or even annoyance to the fact that most of us suspect him, and everyone but him and RC neined his pick (and RC says he intended to as well, so that's basically everyone).

[Mitillos]

So, Shrek and mallow. Could you favour us with explanations for your neins, please?

[Mitillos]

Welcome, new player.

[Mitillos]

Shrek just went from null to null-town.

[Mitillos]

@RC (and Shrek to a degree, as well): If you want your reads to be taken seriously, you'd better explain them.

[Mitillos]

1) Pass the Presidential Candidacy
At the beginning of a new round, the Presidential Candidacy moves down one slot on the player list (even if that player was in the last successfully elected government).

Shouldn't Pablito be the next president, instead of me?

[Mitillos]

Just to be clear, if we 1) nein pablito's pick, 2) we ja! my pick, and 3) a fascist policy passes, then I don't think I will investigate either Shrek or pablito, unless someone can convince me that this is somehow significantly better than getting a fourth person involved in the investigation thing.

[Mitillos]

He is asking if you are cold.

[Mitillos]

Yoshi is my libest read. He's almost certainly getting nominated.

[Mitillos]

@RC: Are you suggesting that Shrek got a lib card that he discarded? Or perhaps that he did not discard it, lied about that, gave it to pabs, who then discarded it?

In any case, there is every reason for me to be super-stingy with my nomination. I want to maximise the possibility of a liberal policy, because I want to delay getting the third fascist policy as much as possible. Yoshi's posts do not make me suspicious, and he passed a liberal policy when he had the option of getting a fascist policy out and locking GBT in a 1v1 with himself. I see no reason not to trust Yoshi. Besides, you ja'ed him before, when GBT nominated him. What has changed since?

Also, I told you before: If you want your reads to be taken seriously (at least by me) justify them. You claimed that Yoshi isn't trustworthy. Why? You claimed that Shrek is 100% fascist. Why? You claimed that N_M and random were 1f1l. Why?

[Mitillos]

Well, that's a compelling argument. I guess I'd better nominate RC, instead.

[Mitillos]

So... now is the time for everyone to either try to convince me not to take Yoshi, or voice their support for taking Yoshi, or voice their indifference in the matter.

Also, in case a fascist policy passes, you may suggest people for me to investigate, with reasons as to why you suspect them.

[Mitillos]

@RC: Are you even trying to think here?

- Of course everybody neined pabs: Shrek claimed a fascist result on his investigation. Also, pabs nominated Alisae, whom most people have a fascist read on. The universal neins in no way imply that pablito is town.

- You say nobody is pushing to skip me. Firstly, you are. Secondly, you are also claiming that mallow is scum, so presumably you want us to give 3 neins in a row, despite the fact that there's at best a 50% chance of the next policy in the pile being liberal (and even that is only the case if N_M and random lied about having 2 liberal policies for some reason - the actual probability is more likely to be either 37.5% or even 25%). Not to mention that if we do this and get a fascist policy, we lost the second investigation. I'd rather risk letting a fascist do the investigation and use my reads to determine if they're lying or not, than not get the investigation at all. Thirdly, if most people are libreading me and Yoshi (and, again, you still haven't given any reasons as to why they should not) of course they will not push to skip me. And most fascists would know better than to try that shit right now, immediately after a universal nein.

- You say that if you're town then so is GBT. That isn't just an unsubstantiated claim (like all your other reads), that's absolute crap. But hey, I'll take you at your word. If we get a fascist policy, I can investigate GBT, and if they are fascist, then by your own words, so are you.

- "The president must do exactly what I say, or they're fascist". Yeah, no. You don't get to dictate shit. Your protestations of having made a correct read and everyone should listen to you are nothing but inane drivel, with nothing to back it up, akin to a stopped clock situation. Explain your reads, and then we can start seriously discussing your plans. Until then, you will be treated like a white-noise machine.

Basically, you have said and done almost nothing that is pro-liberal this game. If you really are liberal, start backing your words with actual reasoning.

[Mitillos]

Nominate: BigYoshiFan

[Mitillos]

What Yoshi said. Mallow claimed he'd ja in 563, and even gave his reasons (after a fashion), but then neined.

Also, I was given 2f1l, for those who want to keep count.

[Mitillos]

...RC is clearly saying that he wants to nein your presidency and go to Yoshi's, instead.

You say that you would rather decide the policy yourself, even over your lib reads. Does that mean that you want to keep neining every government, until it gets back to you? This is decidedly anti-lib. It looks more like you were hoping that enough people would nein, that the presidency would go to you, and then we'd have to ja your pick, to avoid a random policy.

In general your voting pattern has been anti-lib. I can understand voting nein for the first government as a playstyle, and for tb/GBT given the speed with which tb made his choice without any discussion. But after that you voted nein for GBT/Yoshi. You were asked why, and said that Yoshi was sketchy. Normally this would be alright, except that afterwards you voted ja for Shrek/pabs, having claimed no reads on Shrek. How was Yoshi more sketchy than Shrek? Then came me/Yoshi: you neined, and could no longer say Yoshi is sketchy (he passed a liberal policy having been ostensibly given the choice not to do so), and you can't say I'm sketchy because you already called me a lib read of yours. So, instead, you move the goalposts to "I wanted to decide the policy myself over two people I'm lib-reading because of reasons", ignoring the obvious problem this creates (refer to the previous paragraph).

And now you are saying that random is trustworthy because he was involved in passing a liberal policy, when he himself has correctly said that, given his lack of choice in the matter, it was a completely null action. By the same token, why not take N_M who claimed to have forced said liberal policy, instead?

Between all this and your low amount of posting (smallest number of posts, none of them with more than 3 lines from you, and a good chunk of them being either fluff or pointless repetition), I can't really see you as anything other than fascist, and will be voting nein for your government.

p-edit: OK, so this post took a while to put together, so I got ninja'd, but whatever, I'm not modifying it.

[Mitillos]

@mallow: None of what you are saying makes sense.

- You are forced to accept governments not involving you, unless you are willing to take the random policies. So, you either ja me/Yoshi, or you later ja some other government, that you supposedly don't read as liberal. Given this choice, you should accept the governments you read as liberal, and only nein the governments you read as fascist.

- There is no logical fallacy except in your claim. You are claiming that random is trustworthy because he passed a liberal policy. random himself claims that he did not make this choice. N_M is at least as responsible for that specific policy as random, and possibly more so. So nominating random based on just that and nothing else is suspicious at the very least.

- Why are you reading random as trustworthy? You only gave the passed liberal policy as a reason. Do you have other reasons? In fact, do you have any reasons for any of your reads?

[Mitillos]

To clarify:

Known cards: 3 liberal, 1 fascist passed.
Claimed discards: 1 liberal, 7 fascist.
Cards remaining: 5. If everyone told the truth about their discards, there are 3 fascist and 2 liberal left.

[Mitillos]

So, Yoshi. Mentally prepared for the hat-trick?

[Mitillos]

@N_M: Actually, complete opposites.

[Mitillos]

*shrugs* Perhaps.

[Mitillos]

I would ja GBT or RC, and somewhat reluctantly ja N_M or random.

I currently think that the fascists are (one of Shrek/pablito), mallow, Alisae, and (one of N_M/random), in that order.

GBT and Yoshi could potentially be playing me, but I see no reason other than good old paranoia to not trust them at the moment. RC is playing as he did in N's N. N. N., where he was town.

[Mitillos]

INvestigate gigaTrou

You're both fascists soooooo......

Pretty sure RC, GBT and ALisae are fascists at this point, but I don't think any of them are Hitler, maaaaybe GBT but I doubt it. Did all fascists vote nein?

He's a total faceist

I would nein GBT.

It's awkward when you can't even fake reasoning for your bullshit

[Mitillos]

@N_M: No idea what happened with the text size. However, is that really the important thing, here?

@Alisae:
Alisae: I don't like the fact that people have a fascist read on me.
Yoshi: Play the game so that people can have more to go on.
Alisae: But I don't wannaaaaaaa.

Most of the players have had a fascist read on your slot since before you replaced in, and obviously that's not on you. However, you've basically done nothing to mitigate that.
Why is pabs more scummy than Shrek? Why is RC fascist, instead of just shitposting? Why am I fascist?
Explain your reads and interact with people more, or expect to continue to be read as fascist.

[Mitillos]

Uh, what? You claimed pabs is fascist in post 715. How is he a confirmed fascist? The only reason to accept he is fascist is by saying that you absolutely believe Shrek. Why do you believe Shrek? Why do you think Shrek is liberal?

RC made too many posts for that. Besides, you're shifting the burden of proof here. You are claiming that RC is fascist. Show me how you came to this conclusion. It doesn't have to be comprehensive, just give me a few posts and explanations.

Your gut doesn't think, except in the sense of regulating digestion. "Gut" is a completely meaningless dodge that people use when they realise that they can not adequately explain their reads in a coherent manner. In short, guts are full of shit.

My lib read on RC is based on meta, so it's fairly weak. It's just that I have better fascist reads elsewhere. Yoshi has said that he's null on RC. Shrek scumreads RC. N_M scumreads RC. Where did you hear RC is super liberal? The only person saying that seems to be RC himself. You seem to just be trying to shift attention here.

[Mitillos]

- The question is not why you should not believe Shrek, but why you actually do believe him, since that's the cause for your pabs read. You are shifting the burden of proof, again.

- You seem to be having difficulty understanding me. I said that I have a meta read on RC, and that this makes for a weak read. The point is not that I have a lib read on RC. The point is that nobody seems to be reading RC as superlib, which is what you are claiming. You are simply deflecting here, and not backing up your position.

- Gut reads could potentially be correct. So could a horoscope, or a read based on a die roll. But even when these are correct, there is no reason to trust them, if you do not give something more substantial to back them up. Gut reads by themselves are useless, because they do not help the rest of the players understand your thought process.

Do you have anything that doesn't involve a fallacy to offer? Because so far that's all I see from you.

[Mitillos]

@Mod: Per post 105, can we have one more day for this?

[Mitillos]

All the compelling reasons you have provided thus far notwithstanding, how about something more coherent to us mere mortals?

[Mitillos]

Looks like a pretty decent list from RC, actually.

[Mitillos]

@Shrek: Mallow and Alisae are very likely fascists, you and N_M are likely fascists, list is alright. A bit too certain, but what can you do?

[Mitillos]

@Shrek: One of you and pabs is fascist. I think it slightly more likely to be you than him. If I'm wrong about you, then I'm also wrong about pablito, and then nothing makes mallow or N_M more fascist than pabs. But if I'm right about you, then pabs is almost certainly liberal, and then everything makes mallow and N_M more fascist than pabs.

To see why I think mallow is fascist, look at posts 633-640. To see why I think N_M is fascist, first refer to post 710. Then look at N_M's ISO. He constantly switches between fluffing and sniping, giving reads with zero justification, deflecting points made against him, and offering nothing that is in any way pro-liberal.

Incidentally, I have two questions:
@Everyone who intends to vote nein on this, except Shrek and mallow: You voted ja for the same two people before, and they gave us a liberal policy. What exactly are you reading as fascist, since then?
@Shrek and mallow: The same two people as in this proposed government gave us a liberal policy. Why are you opposed to them?

[Mitillos]

True. The questions still stands, though.
What exactly makes you think GBT is fascist? In post 404 you said that explanations for your reads would come later. I think it's been long enough. I'd like explanations for your current reads, please.

Same for everyone else who hasn't given explanations for their reads.

[Mitillos]

@Yoshi: I think Shrek was suggesting that RC believes or has claimed that 3 fascist cards are impossible to get. Some crossed wires there, perhaps?

[Mitillos]

@Yoshi: I don't think RC has claimed that either. If Shrek is saying that then I believe he is using two common fallacies. The logic goes "If Shrek is liberal then he got three fascist policies" (since there is no reason for him to lie, if he's liberal). RC is saying that Shrek is fascist, and Shrek is committing the fallacy known as denying the antecedent, by saying that this means that RC is claiming that Shrek couldn't have got three fascist policies. Then Shrek is also committing a hasty generalisation fallacy, by saying that this further means that RC is claiming that nobody could ever get three fascist policies.

However, you could be right, and what I said in post 801 may be completely off. If so, Shrek can correct me, by telling us whether or not that was what he meant.

[Mitillos]

The problem with that reasoning is that there would be no confirmations either way. It would all depend on the trustworthiness of the person investigating you.
Also, having either you or pabs confirmed fascist isn't really that helpful right now. We're already not letting either of you be on governments, since we know that at least one of you is fascist. Even if we found out that a specific person between you is definitely fascist (which we wouldn't), that wouldn't change our current behaviour, so such an investigation would be a complete waste. I'd rather have a second associative connection between two other players.

[Mitillos]

What Yoshi said.

[Mitillos]

mallow: You said you would nein, then you voted ja, and then you said you don't like that this was unanimous.
N_M: If you wanted neins, why didn't you provide any, yourself?

In fact, there are four categories here:
1) Players in the proposed government, who would clearly vote ja, given their reads so far. (Yoshi, GBT)
2) Players who have been libreading both the players in the government, and who would vote ja. (Me, RC, Alisae, pabs?)
3) Players who didn't want this government but reluctantly voted ja, possibly because of what Shrek said. (Shrek, N_M, random)
4) Players who said they'd vote nein, but voted ja. (mallow)

If anyone is upset at the unanimous ja votes, the players in the last two categories are the ones you should be concentrating on, since that's where the neins you hoped for could have come.

[Mitillos]

mallow: I don't like that it was unanimous.
pablito: Whom did you expect to vote nein?
mallow: GBT is scum, or maybe Yoshi too.

Let me introduce you to my friend Mr. Sequitur, first name Non.

[Mitillos]

I have a friend for you, as well. Mr. Ignore The Context, given name Shrek Can't Help But.
mallow ignored pablito's post. Quoting me and saying something unrelated doesn't make his post not a non-sequitur. And even if you want to say that he was somehow responding to me with his irrelevance, that still doesn't address the fact that I basically repeated pabs' point to everyone who is making a fuss about the unanimity, at the end of my post. So, no, your attempt to imitate my post and score a cheap shot there is completely invalid.

Now explain your reads.

[Mitillos]

Post 769.

[Mitillos]

mallow claimed he would vote nein. mallow voted ja. mallow said that he didn't like the unanimity.

mallow not liking the unanimity is at best hypocritical, as he was the only person who claimed he would nein. Saying that the unanimity makes him think that GBT or Yoshi are scum comes after the vote itself, so it does not address the fact that

everyone but mallow claimed they would ja, and mallow says he basically doesn't like the fact that everyone but him followed through with what they said they intended to do

, making his response a non-sequitur to the situation.

[Mitillos]

Nah, I don't like bussing, so I wouldn't do this if I were fascist.

[Mitillos]

@Shrek: If everyone says they will vote for this government, and one person says they will not, and then vote for it, then no, they can't dislike it. If they are liberal and thought that this government was not acceptable, their job is to explain why the government is not acceptable, and vote nein.

Sure, every fascist voted for this government. Here's the thing. You, random, and N_M claimed to be voting for it reluctantly. Alisae and pabs have been townreading GBT and Yoshi for some time, and would have trouble justifying a sudden switch. mallow voted the opposite way from what he said he would, for the third time this game. Since that pretty much covers all the people who are potentially fascist in my view, I'm cool with the unanimity.

[Mitillos]

@Umlaut: Many happy returns.

@GBT: I agree with N_M and RC. If it were me and I got 2l1f, I'd have forced a liberal policy on you, just in case you did happen to be fascist, after all. The thing is, if you're going to screw us over the first chance you get, I'd rather let it be later. If you did turn out to be fascist, we'd have a serious problem with regard to the sequence of Alisae/you/Shrek/pabs, coming up eventually. In such a situation, I'd rather let you mess up a policy then, since this would become inevitable anyway.
Also, having to pass 1 out of 2 liberal cards from a total of 12 in the next 5 rounds is better than having to pass 2 out of 3 liberal cards, even if there's still a question mark over you. Information is good, but information on you specifically at this time is nowhere near as important as getting another liberal policy passed.

This is all theoretical anyway; let's see what Yoshi says he got.

[Mitillos]

@Shrek: I don't think RC was suggesting that we *should* pass a fascist policy. I think he was saying that if we're going to risk a fascist policy, we should at least get an investigation out of it.

@RC: There are 10 fascist policies left. If the first e.g. 6 cards happen to be fascist, we need them to be eliminated as quickly as possible. Consecutive neins would just leave us bogged in the first few cards. The only way that consecutive neins would actually help now is if there's liberal policies in the first couple of cards, and even then only if we can't find a halfway trustworthy government to elect.

[Mitillos]

@N_M: Are those the claims so far?

Gov 2
GBT: Liberal
Yoshi: Fascist
Passed: Liberal

If so, that's not the case.

I was given 1 red and 1 blue btw.
Have at it, Alisae. Fite me.

Can confirm, I also discarded a fascist policy

2f1l > 1f1l

[Mitillos]

@RC: There were two cards nobody ever saw. I think at most one person lied, and it had to have been a president. If someone did lie, it's possible that it was N_M or Shrek, but the possibility of 0 lies is definitely there.

@N_M: Based on just the claims there, it is still possible for me to be fascist and for Yoshi to be liberal.

[Mitillos]

Why

are

you so scummy? Don't you realise that in this sort of game you should try to appear less scummy, so that people can trust you?

[Mitillos]

@pabs: Yoshi > GBT > RC. These are my libreads, in order of strength. Technically, you are also a minor libread of mine, but I can't risk you being on a government, given the fact that {you/Shrek} contaiins a fascist. So, if Yoshi was unavailable, I'd have nominated GBT. If they were also unavailable, I'd have nominated RC.

[Mitillos]

So, rereading your question, I realised it wasn't asking for my current reads but my reads at the time. I think back then my third pick might have been rando, but since then he's moved down (mainly due to low activity/lurking) and RC has moved up. Yoshi and GBT were still first and second respectively, though.

[Mitillos]

@pabs: I think part of it was me rereading the game I mentioned earlier (N's Narcissistic Nonsensical Namesake, or whatever it was called), and realising that I was seeing basically the same RC as then. Part of it was random moving down enough for the switch to happen.

@Shrek: Assuming I'm chancellor, I will do my best to oblige.

[Mitillos]

I trust random a bit more than N_M or Alisae.

@pabs: Could you explain your vote?

[Mitillos]

...Why not wait for everyone to chime in?

[Mitillos]

my pov is if alisae is scum we have autowin by giving him the thing

Explain?

[Mitillos]

N_M scum
Random scum
Guaranteed 1 scum in [Shrek/Pablito]

so potential for 1 more scum

if Alisae is scum and we make him match up with GBT, the worst he can do is discard 1 liberal policy. Then he has a choice.

1) scumclaim by sending the government to me (the most disruptive action) but then all 4 scum are locked and we can do another random flip and GBT/Miti/BYF end he game.
2) Fail to do so and just lose in the same manner.

If he's town then it's POSSIBLE that Mallow is town and one of BYF/Mitillos/GBT is scum so it would be helpful for him to take it and either end the game before they can do anything or for there to be proven scum in the pair of them, thus allowing Mallow to replace whoever he was paired with in the townblock and autowin.

This doesn't make sense to me, even if we assume you're liberal. Say we do as you say, and Alisae is scum. He does a fascist policy, then passes presidency to N_M. If you're right, we basically have to get another fascist policy, either by neining three times, or letting in a fascist president (assuming they don't get 2 liberal cards). Then we're at 4 fascist policies, and any remaining liberal policies might not ever even be seen. Similarly, if Alisae nominates someone else, instead of GBT, and we have to nein, and again get a random policy.

[Mitillos]

That is not what I said. Read the last sentence.

[Mitillos]

@RC: I'm not sure how any of that helps. Alisae might not pair with town, there might only be 1 liberal policy to discard, and we'd still have the issue of three neins causing two cards not being seen, making everything moot.

@random, N_M, Alisae: I would like each of you to give me all your reads, with explicit explanations for them, and your top three choices for whom you'd nominate as chancellor.

[Mitillos]

@Alisae: You told us your fascist reads. I asked for explanations for them.

@N_M: Those are not explanations.

[Mitillos]

I can see only two options from here:

1. We let one of {random/N_M/Alisae} and GBT be the next government, and hope for the best.
2. We nein three times in a row, and hope for the best.
Afterwards, GBT nominates me, I nominate Yoshi, Yoshi nominates GBT.

Cons of option 1: The president can i) discard a liberal policy, setting us back, and ii) send the presidency to RC or random, putting us in an even worse situation than we are now.
Cons of option 2: It's possible that any liberal policies left are at the bottom of the deck right now, in which case we will definitely get 3 more fascist policies, and might have to rely on veto power a couple of times.

If we do go with option 1, I don't know whom I would distrust the least for president. I don't really know random, N_M, or Alisae, and I'm reading them all as somewhat scummy. I would basically be looking to Yoshi and GBT for help on that front.

Thoughts?

[Mitillos]

@pabs: I was neining mallow, and I believe this was clear from my case on him. As for the question of special abilities, quoting the rules (emphasis mine):

Election Tracker: The Election Tracker begins at 0. Every time a government is rejected, it increases by 1. If the Election Tracker reaches 3, a frustrated populace takes matters into its own hands. Reveal the policy on top of the Policy Deck and enact it.

Any power granted by this policy is ignored

, but all players become eligible to hold the office of Chancellor for the next Election.

This is why I said that giving the presidency to one of {random, N_M, Alisae} includes the possibility of a bad presidency shift as a con. That won't happen if we nein 3 times.

Also, I asked why you neined RC/me.

[Mitillos]

@GBT: The thing is that I couldn't care less about the third power. It's the least helpful one, in our situation. What I'm worried about if we 3*nein is the possibility of us never seeing a liberal card again, due to bad luck with the shuffles.

I personally prefer 3 neins to a scumread president, but I don't know if I missed something which would make this a bad choice.

[Mitillos]

So, I'm not comfortable with an RC government at any stage. There's a fascist in {RC, random}, just like there is one in {Shrek, pabs}. I'm not confident enough in my reads there to justify believing one side over the other completely.

Good lord you two, one post at a time, with all the info, please.

[Mitillos]

@GBT: Even if e.g. N_M and random get shot, BYFpres to GBTpres is two neins, and only ever happens if there's a veto, making it impossible to get there.

[Mitillos]

Veto advances election tracker by 1.

[Mitillos]

@RC: Or 3 neins replacing the first government, because, again, the president of the third fascist policy could throw it back at RC, and force us to repeat the RC/random/N_M/Alisae slog.

@GBT: No, we don't, because of the neins between governments also increasing the tracker.

[Mitillos]

If we give it to Ali, and he passes the presidency to random, we have to nein three times in a row, and get a fascist policy, losing the execution power. I'd rather lose the presidency shift than the execution.

@GBT: You're counting it wrong, anyway. Even if I e.g. execute N_M it won't work. The counter goes to 1 at Yoshi/GBT, if there's a veto. Then 2 at RC, and 3 at Alisae, forcing the final card.

My reads might not be the best, but I know maths. :Þ

[Mitillos]

@Alisae: Yes, but you could be fascist, and if you are, you could be lying about that.

@GBT: Scenario: Yoshi/GBT is elected. Yoshi gets 3f, gives you 2f. You veto, he accepts (because otherwise, that's the 6th fascist policy, and it's over). That's a veto usage, and the election tracker goes up by 1.

[Mitillos]

@Ali: That's not the thing I said. You could nominate GBT, pass a fascist policy, and then PASS THE BLOODY PRESIDENCY TO FUCKING RANDOM FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

[Mitillos]

Sorry, I don't know what came over me.

[Mitillos]

And I'm done. I'm neining every government, until it gets to GBT, and they nominate me. I suggest that all liberals follow suit, or present a cogent, consistent, and coherent argument as to why we should not, which addresses all the potential problems already laid out.

[Mitillos]

@RC: No, I don't think they're both town, in fact I'm scumreading both of them. However, I disagree with your assertion that the best play is letting Alisae be president. The thing is, if Alisae is fascist, giving the presidency to him is bad.

I will lay it out, to clarify.

Scenario:
- Ali/GBT pass fascist policy.
- Ali gives next presidency to rando.
- We are effectively forced to nein rando, N_M, Ali, getting a random policy, probably fascist, losing the first execution power.

In this scenario, Alisae scumclaims, but it doesn't matter to him, because the presidency doesn't get to Alisae ever again in any case, and he's already not getting nominated. At that point, he can afford to scumclaim, because he literally has nothing to lose and everything to gain (up to 2 more fascist policies, 1 less execution that could hit Hitler).

[Mitillos]

@Alisae: If you're scum, you could be lying about not giving the presidency to rando. Why should I believe you? Also, thinking that not both of N_M and mallow are town is not the same as thinking that both of them are scum. It is possible for one of them to be scum with you. I am scumreading both of them, but I could be wrong about either one. Technically, I could also be wrong about both of them, but I think that's less likely.

[Mitillos]

And once again, you devolve into fallacies.
- You are not explaining why I should believe that you are liberal here. You are simply deflecting.
- My scenario is what happens if you're fascist (likely), get fewer than two liberal cards as president (very likely), and behave in a way that maximises your chance to win (don't know how likely, but I would expect quite a bit). It has nothing to do with a slippery slope argument.
- Natural formation of a scenario is a meaningless term you just made up. I am giving a worst case scenario I think we should guard against, and all you can say is basically "oh, but it's unlikely that it will happen, because I'm liberal".
- How do you differentiate between someone "trying to win a debate" (whatever the hell that means in the context of a discussion-heavy game), and someone making an argument that they consider valid, particularly if the only attack on said argument doesn't address the argument itself?
- My open-mindedness or lack thereof has nothing to do with the situation. I know for a fact that at least one of my scumreads is incorrect. I scumread you, N_M, and mallow. At least one of you three is liberal, given the investigations.

If you want me to believe that the action of letting you be in a government is liberal, you have to give me something more substantial than the irrelevancies you've been offering so far.

[Mitillos]

@Yoshi: Thoughts on my suggested course of action? To reiterate, we nein 3 times in a row now, then have GBT/me, me/you, you/GBT as our next three governments.

[Mitillos]

Yeah. The thing is that if you are in a government you can only be in the next government as a president. So, if the next government is GBT/you, I won't have anybody to nominate any more when it gets to me (assuming we skip the Shrek/pablito presidencies again).

This is basically why conversation is important and why reads should be clearly explained and laid out for everyone to see; you have to accept governments that don't involve you, so the faster you find who is trustworthy, the faster you can mitigate this.

[Mitillos]

Prodge.

[Mitillos]

Me/n_m/shrek is a solid townbloc now for being the only ones questioning rc

The only people really objecting to it were me shrek and nm who dont exactly make up a powerhouse bloc

Shrek is obvlib tbh

i fgot nm and shrek confused

Make up your mind. Are both N_M and Shrek solidly lib? Or not that solidly? Or is only Shrek obvlib? Or is it only N_M?

@pabs: I had asked you about your reason for voting nein on RC/me. I don't think you ever responded. Also, any thoughts on the 3 neins in a row plan?

[Mitillos]

Hmm.

[Mitillos]

Nice pattern.

[Mitillos]

Note the banner. It implies that I am leaping over the pond.

[Mitillos]

Back, and I still can't decide if N_M or Alisae is the fourth fascist.

[Mitillos]

I am mostly surprised.

Good game.

[Mitillos]

That wonderful warm feeling when Yoshi and I agreed on most things.
That terrible sinking feeling when Yoshi turned out to be playing the long game.

[Mitillos]

Whom. Also, Yoshi corrections for earlier posts: whomever, whom, whom, whom, and whom. Also, an earlier correction for RC: who. Sorry, I do this a lot. :Þ

All that aside, thank you for saying that. I liked your liberal façade; it was very convincing.

[Mitillos]

I agree with faster deadlines for voting. Not that sure about the deadlines for nominating.
Does the physical game have any way to deal with presidents not wanting to nominate a chancellor, or taking too long to do so?

[Mitillos]

Two reminders, after 24 and 48 hours, then replacement within some time frame else auto-loss?

[Mitillos]

I have no easy answer.