I don't know if they necessarily do. But having a chat would likely help so it things don't get out of hand and comfort zone.

Oh sorry! I promise I will find you scummy at some point of this game! ;-)

@joppo I voted NEIN. It's nothing personal and I realise testing the next potential president may seem optimal if you are Liberal. But as I'm not in government it reduces my winrate if you or Maxleod is fascist. If you and Maxleod are both fascists it vastly reduces my winrate, even if you both pass Liberal policies. Because as fascists you will be the most trusted players at the table.

Sigh, I see your doubling down on this. I don't think you're being at all analytical. Firstly you are not consistent And then the fact you've skimread the posts on here and the prior and looked for things to cherry pick as criticisms. This is why you criticised a post of mine on page 2, that was a duplicate of a post on page 1 as a criticism. You're looking to cherry pick negativity.

My initial post was initially posted in the sign up thread and was designed to coach Liberals to look out for Fascist tactics pre-game. Microfish I believe advised it wasn't up for discussion there, so I copied and pasted it here. As fascists we won a game against @joesapphire on Discord very easily and it wouldn't have been nearly as possible with more experienced Liberal players. Much like when @zfr heiled joesapphire, that wouldn't happen with more experienced players. That was my intial post in it's simplicity. Instead of discussing strategies that will help Liberal winrate you've instead focused on the fact I stated I was Liberal. I believe you did this is to distract from talking about the best way for Liberals to win.

You outed early in the last SecretHitler game and I think you've done the same here. This isn't a game of Mafia where the main tactics are shade and guess work. Chat conflicts aren't particularly useful in Secrethitler. If 2 Liberals have a chat conflict it essentially results in a Liberal loss.

Despite voting No, I think this government likely passes listening to the chat. I think we need to discuss what to do if a Liberal President gets 2 Liberal policies and 1 Fascist Policy. You can either force both Liberal policies to the chancellor, which won't test him but guarantees a Liberal policy is passed. Or you can give him a choice of a Liberal and Fascist policy. It tests him and he looks more Liberal if he plays the Liberal policy. But if he chooses the fascist policy you have lost 2 Liberal policies from the deck.

I think as a group we need to discuss if we will find the person in the conflict who offered a choice a very likely Liberal if the deck backs up his claim. Otherwise I don't think we should offer the choice as Liberals.

I beat you. I voted TEN.

Then, if you are indeed Liberal, why don't you try to avoid a chat conflict and try to understand what your opponent (me, in this case) is saying? And think, whether my point about your self-presentation isn't true after all? You are either a very, very stubborn Liberal who is incapable of seeing any other standpoint than your own - or you are a Fascist, who has to make use of this conflict and pretend to see me as Fascist.

And I focus on analyzing your behaviour and not on mechanics and winrate, because mechanics optimization is boring. We talked about this pre-game, before anyone had their alignments: we don't want any Meta-game here. If the others had decided to play a Meta game, I would not have participated.

But I guess discussing with you is still as pointless as it was in the past. So I'm going to do what Joe suggested and focus on other players. While you focus on your mechanics.

But first I'll wait for the result of the vote.


While it may be a good strategy for Fascists to take a fall if that secures Hitler a Liberal standing, an intentional conflict would have to be initiated one-sidedly. Hitler doesn't even know who the Fascists are. However, the Fascist know who Hitler is. So yes, if I were a Fascist I could conceivably attack Hitler-Scene, then be outed as Fascist in some way, and thereby give Scene Town credit in a roundabout way. ... But would I then specifically point out that his over-eager 'I am Liberal' statement would fit with him being Hitler? ... Ah well, maybe I would. I've done crazier things as scum in regular Mafia. Only this speculation is moot, because while I do suspect that Scene might be Hitler, I don't know for sure.

Now YOU are the one that looks like they're trying to coach a buddy (part of it as coaching me, part as coaching Maxleod). I suggest you hold these strategies to yourself for now. After all, if you're so knowledgeable as you say then you're just giving fascists the recipe for their optimal play as well. You wouldn't want that, now would you?

I must question the wisdom behind this strategy. You recommend we follow your steps; well if we do it then every government will fail and topdeck is inevitable — or, rather, we will accept every third government. So it gets me wondering why you would think Pooka's government is "more okay" than mine or Dedo's. You might notice that if you're liberal you just changed one uncertainty for another. Of course, your own turn at presidency will come earlier, but guess what? It too will be shot down unless it comes after two failed governments.

That said, I don't think your adhering to this strategy is AI. You laid it down even before the game started; heck I first saw you do almost the same in the previous SH a long time ago.

You said it's nothing personal, and don't worry I don't consider it personal at all. BUT I have to figure out where fascists are and there are a lot of them in this game. I have 9 unknowns and 4 of them are my enemies. if I had to guess right now I would lump you among the more likely fascist players (but not Hitler).

No I look like I'm trying to discuss Liberal strategy. Either we force or we choice. If the choice ends up in conflict we need to establish in advance they are seen as the liberal in the conflict if the deck backs them up. Either that or we agree to force liberal policy. Calling that 'coaching a buddy' is scummy shady behaviour on your part

You've not read the thread. I've already discussed the underlined/bolded. Please go back and read my posts in full if you want to understand my position. I was clear I'd only vote for a government I was involved in unless the alternative was to top deck and you'd have my vote if you picked me. From my perspective you can be a fascist who has picked a fascist to try and confirm them. You are likely to get your government anyway as most people just want the game to start

You're so cool!


Oh right, I forgot about that. A chat would only work for Fs but they wouldn't gain that much from bussing one for the sake of the other. Or would they? I don't know. But yeah, the whole concept sounds less impactful now.

I did read your posts, in fact you forgot to bold and underline the part where I say the third gov would be voted Yes only for fear of topdeck. Which was what you said and proves I read it.

I'm just following the idea to its obvious conclusion. If we all play by those guidelines no government will ever pass, except when the alternative is a topdeck. We can already predict the presidencies: first will be seat 3, then 6, 9, 2, 5, 8, 1, 4, 7, 10, and the cycle starts anew. (In other words: Pooka, Joe, Lift... In fact only GR would be president after you.)

It is no different than if we reorder the seats on that sequence and swear to vote yes every time, which means no actual judgement is being made regarding our trust in the gov's alignment. And I have to question if it is wise. Doesn't look like it is to me.

How does Abstain work? You still need 50% + 1 of Yes, right? So Abstain is effectively a No?

If you really want to coach Liberals you should know your attitude isn't helping. When I read such posts I'm tempted to just do the opposite.

When I read that post I immediately thought of this meme :D

Scene, is your question would we put trust in the chancellor who was given LF and passed L?

I think I would, but actually I'm not sure giving the opportunity to test when, as you say, the results of the test aren't necessarily conclusive anyway is worth the ensuring the liberal policy pass.

So Probably if I was president and had LLF I'd pass LL.



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.