@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.