Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dustan Hache]

Nay.

[Luckyowl]

Nay.

What do you see that made you vote nay? do you think one of them is the fascist? or perhaps both of them are the fascists?

[Dustan Hache]

Hector specifically. Too new for me to trust quite yet. Would prefer a previous president/chancellor, icytea, or myself.

[Cnidaros]

Hector specifically. Too new for me to trust quite yet. Would prefer a previous president/chancellor, icytea, or myself.

This seems backwards. I picked hector because he's new and I want to find out more information about him. Do you think we should continue picking the first four people (me, Luckyowl, Icytea, flazeo) who have been in government already for all subsequent turns? Because it would be a miracle if these four just so happened to be the four liberals (not to mention, this means you're a fascist).

Yes, we run the risk that hector might be a fascist. But the objective of this game is to find out who's fascist, and at this stage in our game, you can't do that without picking new people as Chancellor and giving them the L/F cards. Don't forget that the game will become more difficult for the liberals as more liberal policies are implemented and taken out of the deck. And I'd rather have information about more people than fewer when that happens, instead of just knowing there's one or two fascists in us four and having zero information about the other three (you, hector, Shadowclaw).

Frankly, your logic just seems to be "I'm voting Nay because I'm not in the government". Which is actually a reasonable position for a liberal to take ... if that liberal has a good idea of who all the fascists are already, and there's no way you've deduced that in two turns of play. The fact that you're trying to disguise that as an objection to hector being too new is even more suspicious.

[Dustan Hache]

1: All of the previously mentioned players have had part in passing a liberal policy, and while it does not clear them from suspicion it does make them ever so slightly more likely to be liberal. A facist would have  tried to pass a policy that was facist and affected the game, or a policy that is liberal (which narrows the chances of getting a liberal policy and therefore slightly increases the chance they hit fascist policies) in a attempt to blend in.
2: As i have said before, i am more interested in confirming my status as a liberal, or confirming someone else as such, with a preference to those who have been in power at least one time. This is Not a game of mafia, our goal is to complete the objective before they can complete theirs. Revealing Fascists is much less valuable and far harder to capitalize on than confirming a liberal.

3, i wont claim to know the Fascists, but i have a reasonable cause for suspicion of shadowclaw and hector respectively. Thats two out of three, which is significant in and of itself if correct.

Edit: upon closer inspection of your post, you seem to be trying to play devil's advocate for giving hector
a chance in power when there are at least two viable and likely safer targets for chancellorship. This is setting off serious alarm bells in my head, since the last thing we want to be doing is varying our government after we confirm a liberal. With that said, I believe Cnidaros to be fascist.

[Luckyowl]

Edit: upon closer inspection of your post, you seem to be trying to play devil's advocate for giving hector
a chance in power when there are at least two viable and likely safer targets for chancellorship. This is setting off serious alarm bells in my head, since the last thing we want to be doing is varying our government after we confirm a liberal. With that said, I believe Cnidaros to be fascist.

You do have a point varying the people in power is pretty dicey and I do agree we should be looking for the liberal instead of the fascists. It does make sense, if we can get a confirmed liberal it would be a big boost than knowing who is the fascist.  But we don't have a confirmed liberal yet.   who do you think is the most viable candidate for chancellor?
 
If you ask me it's all up in the air for me. I don't think any of us are confirmed yet. But from your attitude I feel like you're the liberal. So I at least know I can trust you a bit.

Hector being new though, shouldn't be a reason to say nay. will admit I'm tempting to vote nay when it's Hector's turn only because the one Hector replaced felt a bit like he was nervous when Icytea expected him to be the fascist.

[IcyTea31]

A facist would have  tried to pass a policy that was facist and affected the game, or a policy that is liberal (which narrows the chances of getting a liberal policy and therefore slightly increases the chance they hit fascist policies) in a attempt to blend in.

Yes, those are the options a fascist would have. How do you separate them from the liberal's "option" which is basically just to play a liberal policy if possible?

3, i wont claim to know the Fascists, but i have a reasonable cause for suspicion of shadowclaw and hector respectively. Thats two out of three, which is significant in and of itself if correct.

What is the cause for this suspicion? You've shown that you believe in investigation through mechanical action, but neither of those players have done or have had done to them anything mechanical.

With that said, I believe Cnidaros to be fascist.

It seems hypocritical to say this after advocating choosing one of the players known to have played liberal policy.


This is a complete gut read which I haven't fully analyzed, but I can't shake the feeling that this is a staged spat between DH and hector, which would make them both fascist. Probably too early in the game to call it either way yet, though.

[Dustan Hache]

@luckyowl,
1: As i said previously, You, icytea, flazeo, and myself are all ideal candidates for chancellor. This list formerly included Cnidaros, but now i have reason to suspect their intent.

2: The reason i suspect hector is twofold: first off, we have already cycled four players in power at least one time. At least one of those players is likely a fascist given my role (if people will ever believe me on that) But such a result is mostly okay as long as the existing candidates can be cycled or investigated soon. The second is as i said before, they are new.
 This means that his role is likely the same as Ctsun before him, who was very quiet and dropped out due to feeling his mindset was "alien". Its a gut feeling with 60% certainty, though it was less certain before Cnidaros broke the existing cycle.
@icytea
1: because they won't do it twice in a row. There is now an 11:4 total ratio of fascist/liberal cards, with at least one being discarded already. There is a high chance they will pick a fascist card because roughly 1 in three will be a liberal, and the remainder will be fascist. They have no need to blend in beyond the first few elections because doing so will advance the liberal goal too quickly for them to win.

2: it's because of the mechanical actions of other players that I suspect them. We have already cycled four players into office in varying positions, and most of them have acted liberal in their policy passing, though Cnidaros has recently come under my scrutiny for not continuing the cycle of existing power.

3: As i stated before in my ideal strategy, the best thing for us to do is confirm a liberal and keep them in power as long as possible. we already have three potential liberals and at least one fascist that is just blending in that have taken power. We should not be deviating from that unless it is discovered that one of those four is fascist, or one of them is confirmed liberal (in which case our goal becomes to keep them in power over any other players when possible). this is not to say that hector is a confirmed fascist yet, but the deviation by Cnidaros raises my suspicion on both of them drastically, moreso for Cnidaros than hector.

[Cnidaros]

1: All of the previously mentioned players have had part in passing a liberal policy, and while it does not clear them from suspicion it does make them ever so slightly more likely to be liberal. A facist would have  tried to pass a policy that was facist and affected the game, or a policy that is liberal (which narrows the chances of getting a liberal policy and therefore slightly increases the chance they hit fascist policies) in a attempt to blend in.

You're saying that passing a liberal policy makes the four of us more likely to be liberal, then in the next sentence you say a fascist is motivated to pass both fascist and liberal policies. You are contradicting your own logic, and I don't see any point in what you're saying.

2: As i have said before, i am more interested in confirming my status as a liberal, or confirming someone else as such, with a preference to those who have been in power at least one time. This is Not a game of mafia, our goal is to complete the objective before they can complete theirs. Revealing Fascists is much less valuable and far harder to capitalize on than confirming a liberal.

Then we must disagree. You've previously shown your standard of confirmed is for someone to be confirmed liberal by two different people (both of which you trust). If you want to confirm all four liberals to that standard, that is simply impossible to do in this game, and I suspect you're just trying to waste time and political power. Furthermore, it is easier to reveal a fascist than confirm a liberal, given your extraordinarily high standards for confirmation. And revealing fascists allows us to avoid them and narrows down the possible liberals; they are two paths to the same outcome of knowing players' allegiances, but you insist on taking the more difficult path.

3, i wont claim to know the Fascists, but i have a reasonable cause for suspicion of shadowclaw and hector respectively. Thats two out of three, which is significant in and of itself if correct.

What is this reasonable cause?

Edit: upon closer inspection of your post, you seem to be trying to play devil's advocate for giving hector
a chance in power when there are at least two viable and likely safer targets for chancellorship. This is setting off serious alarm bells in my head, since the last thing we want to be doing is varying our government after we confirm a liberal. With that said, I believe Cnidaros to be fascist.

We have serious differences on how we think the liberals should win this game. By your own standards, we have not confirmed anyone to be liberal. Yet, you insist that I should have picked one of the other four who have been in government, or yourself, which is a massive contradiction in favour of yourself again. I dearly hope you aren't a liberal, but I'm pretty sure you're a fascist.

You do have a point varying the people in power is pretty dicey and I do agree we should be looking for the liberal instead of the fascists. It does make sense, if we can get a confirmed liberal it would be a big boost than knowing who is the fascist.  But we don't have a confirmed liberal yet.   who do you think is the most viable candidate for chancellor?
 
If you ask me it's all up in the air for me. I don't think any of us are confirmed yet. But from your attitude I feel like you're the liberal. So I at least know I can trust you a bit.

Hector being new though, shouldn't be a reason to say nay. will admit I'm tempting to vote nay when it's Hector's turn only because the one Hector replaced felt a bit like he was nervous when Icytea expected him to be the fascist.

I have already explained why Dustan Hache's approach to playing is a complete waste of time. I don't know how you can think he's a liberal from attitude alone. From a purely mechanical perspective, which he himself is advocating, the four of us are more trustworthy than him, since we have passed the liberal policies. I urge you to reconsider. If you want, I will again explain why keeping the government to just the four of us until someone reveals their fascism is a losing proposition.


@Dustan Hache's new post:

What is this "existing cycle of power" that you speak of? And how do you think I should have continued it? Are you referring to selecting another one of the four (Luckyowl, flazeo, Icytea)? This again contradicts you saying that I should have picked you, which by your own logic is suspicious since you did not pass any liberal policies. You seem to switch between advocating for a purely mechanistic approach and advocating for yourself to be picked, which are exactly contradictory.

[IcyTea31]

3: As i stated before in my ideal strategy, the best thing for us to do is confirm a liberal and keep them in power as long as possible. we already have three potential liberals and at least one fascist that is just blending in that have taken power. We should not be deviating from that unless it is discovered that one of those four is fascist, or one of them is confirmed liberal (in which case our goal becomes to keep them in power over any other players when possible). this is not to say that hector is a confirmed fascist yet, but the deviation by Cnidaros raises my suspicion on both of them drastically, moreso for Cnidaros than hector.

2&3:The issue with picking and judging a strategy in this game is that it's like comparing Classic mafia to games like blood on the clocktower or Among us. the translation is partial at best, and malignant at worst until multiple matches have played out and a definite grasp has been attained on both sides of the match. There are still reasons to be suspicious, namely lack of interaction with discussion, but that is really one of the very few parallels that remains true.

You can't in good faith argue both that someone deviating from your strategy is suspicious, and that judging someone's strategy is currently a poor way to scumhunt. Bad faith is the most reliable scumtell I know: it, coupled with my past reads, makes me believe that either the motive for your argument now is to discredit Cnidaros without a point that you actually believe in, or your earlier answer on strategies was something you don't actually believe in.

Either way, you've lied.

[hector13]

Your logic here is all messed up: you believe the most liberal people so far are the people who have been in government and passed liberal policies, except one of the fascists is one of those people. PPE: also the most suspect of the four is the presidential candidate. Had it been me as president that chose cnidaros as my chancellor, would you feel the same way?

As above, you seem to think that the first four members of government are the best four to keep in government, which is effectively you saying the fascist team is you, shadowclaw, and me.

You said earlier:

2:There is also the issue of meaningless communication, which by pursuing this particular topic you are engaging in. You can rag on about how someone isn't talking for multiple rounds, but you also need to know if the information is relevant or even meaningful. In this case, it was to explain why i feel scumhunting/townhunting via pure discussion is a flawed and pointless strategy, and why i want to start investigations ASAP.

This, to me, seems like you’re saying the discussion part of the game is the less reliable to judge someone’s alignment from, yet your two main suspects prior to this were Shadowclaw and myself and we were suspect because we hadn’t engaged in the discussion part of the game. Bonus points for suspecting my slot more because the person I replaced (why would you think I would replace in with a different role?) decided to stop playing because they found the mindset required to play “alien” to them.

To sum up, your logic seems to be that you think the most liberal people are the four that have been in government, except, conveniently, the one that is the presidential candidate now, and you think that because they haven’t put forward one of the other three former government players, even though that is you admitting you’re fascist.

On the other hand, the people you most suspect of being fascist are the ones that haven’t engaged in the discussion portion of the game, even though you think it’s the least reliable way of judging someone’s alignment, but you are 60% sure one of those players is fascist because of what they said when they decided they didn’t want to play anymore.

PPE: I’m sorry to pile on like this as IcyTea and Cnidaros also seem to be poking at you quite hard. I’ll read their posts now.

[Dustan Hache]

@icytea Maybe i'm not making myself clear then. I do not like the idea of trying to evaluate a strategy in the first game of what will likely be a series when the rules are different from a typical mafia game. That is not to say I have no strategy, nor that my strategy is correct, but it is still against my interests to avoid deviation from existing power unless one of two conditions is met: someone is confirmed a fascist or liberal (and thusly avoided or favored appropriately) Or the outcome would put me in power, thusly giving a chance for me to prove my alignment.
My motive is to get at least one person who has already been in power confirmed. Deviating from the existing cycle of power goes counter to this motive, and thusly is something I do not trust. you are free to accuse me of lying as much as you like, but I am dead certain that Cnidaros does not have liberal interests at heart.

Edit to include hector:
1:No, as in this case you would be adhering to my logic of who could be reasonably trusted given that there has yet to be an investigation of any player, previous candidate or not. As for who i suspect to be fascist, i will say again that i am liberal. If maintaining a 3:1 majority in a cycle of power requires me to remain outside of it, i will not contest it nor feel obligated to contest similar arguments against having me enter power.
2: the discussion phase (and this abrupt and discordant secondary discussion phase post election) Is definitively unreliable as a means of hunting either faction in my opinion.

3,quoting for reference:

To sum up, your logic seems to be that you think the most liberal people are the four that have been in government, except, conveniently, the one that is the presidential candidate now, and you think that because they haven’t put forward one of the other three former government players, even though that is you admitting you’re fascist.

That is correct, except the part where you think i am admitting fascism. The liberal faction has four players while the fascists have three, therefore a cycle of at least four players has three different outcomes: 4 liberals, which is the ideal outcome for the liberal side, 3lib 1 fas, which is the realistic outcome, 2lib 2 fas, which is another equally likely outcome, or 3 fas 1 lib, which would be the worst possible outcome for the liberal side. Given that i know for a fact i am liberal, I can eliminate the 4 lib scenario and am contented to hedge my bets on 3lib and 1 fas and use that model to try and determine the fascist among them via observation of their actions.

@Cnidaros,
1,To clarify on the existing cycle: You, ironyowl, Flazeo, and icytea have all taken turns being president or chancellor, and from this cycle you have two choices on who to take as chancellor without causing deviation: Flazeo, or ironyowl. Arguably the best one to pick is Flazeo, because selecting ironyowl could be seen as reciprocation, though that is not inherently suspicious in and of itself.

2: as i said before, my stated role is liberal. While I am unfortunately not in the cycle of power stated above and thusly reasonably removed as a potential chancellor candidate, it is still in my best interests to be elected at least one time. If I do receive presidency, I will likely select a chancellor in the following order of priority to maintain the existing cycle: Icytea, Ironyowl, Flazeo, Hector, Shadowclaw, You. Note that unless the first three are executed or have already been chancellor the previous turn, I will not ever select Hector, Shadowclaw, Or you Cnidaros.

[Haspen]

Please refrain from discussion outside Free Talk phase ;v

3rd Government:

President Cnidaros
Chancellor Hector 13

Now sending policy cards to the President.
EDIT: President discarded a policy, now sending the rest to the Chancellor.

[IcyTea31]

I do not like the idea of trying to evaluate a strategy in the first game of what will likely be a series when the rules are different from a typical mafia game.

If you don't like evaluating strategies, what are you doing in these?

ideal strategy
--
the best thing for us to do

The only issue with that plan is

the best way to prevent fascists from taking control of the game is
--
In my opinion, the best approach to scumhunting in this setup is

My motive is to get at least one person who has already been in power confirmed. Deviating from the existing cycle of power goes counter to this motive, and thusly is something I do not trust.

The only purpose questions serve for me is to provide insight into the tactics I am using and the perceived tactics of others, which does not provide an alignment tell.

While I would accept (if disagree with) these motives in a vacuum, they contradict each other. You simply can't believe both "a player who doesn't follow my strategy is scum" and "a player's strategy is not alignment-indicative."


Addit: Ah. I did ask if talking outside the discussion phase was allowed, but received no answer.

[Haspen]

Addit: Ah. I did ask if talking outside the discussion phase was allowed, but received no answer.

Wouldn't be the first or last time I missed something, really.