You missrepresented my whole position. My position was clear. I said I wanted to nein Gamerager to play Joe but if Gamerager and RWarehall played Liberal policy, I wanted to skip Joe to play RWarehall. I was always clear on that one.

If RWarehall played Liberal policy because he's Liberal he has a higher probability of being with another Liberal than the probability or Joe being both Liberal and the player he chooses being Liberal.

The only way I'd now consider voting yes to Joe is if he picks me because then I can guarantee 1 Liberal will be in play. But even then if RWarehall countered and said he'd also pick me I'd nein Joe because there is a higher likelyhood that we'd have Lib-Lib government

Fine. I'll treat it as if you have posted it yourself. Those on the relevant Discord server can look it up in the search to find it:

No. You weren't. Let's see.

No mention of RW.
In Post 65, where you explain the 'nein' term, you still don't mention RW. So no, I would not call that 'being clear on that one'.

Guess who's back
Back again
Xtreme's back
Tell a friend

I have just learned the rules for this game, and I've been reading through the posts. I'm going to start out by saying that scene seems off in a number of ways. His disruption of the game could be a fascist strategy, keeping the focus on him and away from what his fellow fascists are doing. The best way to win as a fascist is to sow chaos, and scene's behavior more than qualifies.

Maybe more later as I keep reading.

Hi

Small request now that Joe made his pick: Can we please *not* state how we're voting in public from now on, after a chancellor is chosen? Keeps fascists second guessing. I don't think it will matter for this government anyway, but it's a nice habit to get into.

(Yes, I know I've stated my vote in public for the first one, but it didn't really matter then. Later however it does give fascists an advantage to know how the others are voting).

oh yeah, sorry. Hi Red! Great to see you playing with us.

Also I'd say it's worth having a quick look at some of the other games scene's played in - making erroneous statements (particularly when it comes to statistics) is neither unusual nor alignment indicative for him, and he tends to cause confusion.


I don't think there's any antagonism in him, though. I think you've just got to get used to the way his brain works.

For example - ZFR asks him not to use the terminology blue/red, and he continues to use it anyway. I recall scene's been asked not to confuse mafia and secret hitler terminology before, and it hasn't made a difference: He's not being deliberately obstinate or antagonistic, I think he just doesn't really analyse what he's writing as he says it.

I'll say this for scene - I only recall him getting personal once, and I think he had reason to. Dispite how people argue he tends to be respectful and good-humoured. I think he's a good bloke.


Is he liberal or fascist in THIS game? I don't know, but I'm leaning liberal. Not based on anything in scene's play, but in lifthrasil's.

What situation are you picturing where not knowing the votes damages the fascists? Are there situations where not knowing the votes may harm liberals?

Example:
LL government is nominated, but some players have expressed doubt about it. Fascist would rather the government to fail. There is enough L cards in the deck.

If fascists know that enough people vote YES for the government to pass anyway, they'll vote YES too since they can do nothing about it. (Then, after the government passes a liberal policy, they might try to throw shade on the one or two people voted NO).
If fascists know that enough people vote NO for them to be able to actually cause the government to fail, they'll do so, thus ensure a liberal government is not elected.

If they don't know, they'll have to second guess themselves. Should they vote NO and risk being exposed when everyoen else votes YES. Or should they vote YES and risk missing a chance of causing a liberal government to fail.

Add to that the fact that they can't communicate. So they have to second guess what their teammates do too.

A fine example, sir, and well phrased. I see how that makes sense, and I see how it makes sense in reverse too - if an F government is to be elected and the fascists don't know if enough people will vote YES or not.

Very good. I had assumed transparency would be best for the liberals but now it seems obvious that I was wrong.

I'd say it's similar reasoning with the problems of any meta. If a Meta is set in stone, no Fascists will break from it either, so there is no information to be gained. This concept that it will expose Fascists is more likely to "expose" Liberals who aren't clear on the Meta and bite us.

And to make matters worse, the game becomes mechanical. All votes become voting by the numbers and reading players becomes discouraged. Since we are here playing Mafia and regularly try to read each other, that's the game we want to play.

Does anyone really want to play the game when 1 always opens picking 4. If that passes we move on to 4 and 7. If it fails, then 2 picks 5...etc. And the game gets decided based on how the cards drop and bad draws.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't make reasonably tactical decisions but they should be based on and around and in conjunction with our reads.

I can see your point, but scene also seems to be more at the center of discussion this game. Personally, I'll be keeping an eye on him.

So on another note, did you pick ZFR because you thought he was a liberal, or because you wanted to test him?

I also have the feeling that Scene if off. He is too experienced to not notice that selecting only players that have passed L before doesn't work that early in the game. Sure, it is possible that he is just confused and confusing in his usual manner. But for now I would be against a government involving him. But since he isn't nominated, that's a moot point at the moment.

By the way: thank you very much for stepping in!