Posted February 03, 2022
JoeSapphire: OKay I get the point of scene's question. If a president gets LLF and decides to test the chancellor, but nobody trusts the result of the test anyway then the risk was for nothing.
Lifthrasil: But testing people is the way how we get a picture of who might be who in the game. If the president risks passing on LF it might result in a conflict. Which might lead to locking both players out for starters. Which shifts the odds in our favour. Currently we are 6 vs 3 (+1), with one fascist and one liberal locked out, we would be at 5 vs 2 (+1). Followed by 4 vs 1 (+1) after the next conflict. Which leads to better odds that future governments will be composed of Liberals. So essentially, risking a conflict is good, if you are a liberal president.
BUT we can expect conflicts as you'd expect LFF to come up more than LLF to.
and LLF coming up means certain chance of FFF coming up, IIRC
so with the danger zone approaching it might still be better to force the L through and leave the testing to the presidents with the wherewithal to draw LFF