Fun fact: the first topdeck at the end of the 1st deck would have resulted in a liberal victory, since the L was the TOP policy in the remaining five cards. Cycling wouldn't have been necessary, though if it was, I swear I would have hibernated until the game is back in action. It would've all happened in a flash on secrethitler.io, where scene's gameplay is based, but we would've been halfway into February at best before the game really continues on GOG.

And yeah, I was lazy to compute what governments 5 and 6 were in my head, so I pointed to them in the Action History.

We would have still had to vote down 3 straight governments and be ready to go for 7 before passing the 8th.

yeah that's one of the reasons I risked claiming gamerager was liberal - there was a two-in-three chance you'd have no L to conflict with him on. If we were unlucky though the game could have gone differently.

Yeah top-decking could have worked both times, I'm a little sad we couldn't have tried it, but glad we won.

The problem is top decking is a mechanical exercise and most people are playing for a game more like Mafia and deduction. Even the basic cycling of governments makes the game boring for those outside them.

I feel I'm missing something. I understand the 3 straight governments thing, but not the going for 7 and passing the 8th parts. Please elaborate.

My thoughts file is almost ready!

Because the usual meta strategy at the end of the deck involves using all the cards from the first shuffle. So you want to top deck twice to get to the last 3 cards.

4th government was ZFR's in the 6 spot.
Top deck 7-8-1; Then 2-3-4; jump to next Core government is ZFR at 6 so skip 5.

Ah, this makes sense now, I added the initial 3 governments onto the 7, not realizing that they are part of the 7, and that's what threw me off. Thanks!

Here's the thoughts file for everyone! (Warning: Not Safe For Your Time)
https://1drv.ms/t/s!Ar6sDvz1zhVkgYkEj7Sz1g-vtwQU6w?e=ATHNZZ

Well done fascists. The thing I will note is the game was weighted slightly unfairly to the fascists. With 8 player I think you need to start with 1 fascist policy down or increase the number of F cards in the deck to balance for the numerical disadvantage.

Although you didn't have to be that obvious. Although perhaps that worked in your favour because ZFR and RW went with your reasoning over my own.

Okay now the games finished can you see the logic? Fascist wins by getting Hitler elected. In order for Hitler not to be in play, it has to be the case that 4 Liberals are in play. Otherwise a fascist would have dropped Liberal cards or got conflict to get Hitler into play

In Hitler zone, you have to try to pick a none Hitler. A possible silent dropper is the worse choice

My statistics may have been off but the logic that someone likely dropped was sound.

Also Lift was obviously fascist very early in his chat

I did twice. Finally I just said screw it, let it end one way or another.

Good game, guys. Especially GameRager.

Yes. When he played his second L policy I was quite worried that that might cost us the victory. But in the end it worked.

Only you read me as scum for all the wrong reasons. That chat which we had in the beginning that made you suspect me, was just my opinion as a player. As I explained, if I had argued purely from a standpoint of utility for my faction, I would have agreed with you. So, you took a wrong argument and by lucky chance hit the correct player.

But even if you sometimes have the correct instinct, you don't help your case in the least by making nonsensical arguments. Your advice:
"Liberals have to avoid Hitler-Chancellor. Therefore if Joe is Liberal, he should reject his own chancellorship and top-deck to GR." is pure nonsense. If you assumed that Joe is Liberal, he should be Chancellor - because that would avoid a Hitler-Chancellorship. Making GR president instead of ZFR would not have solved the Chancellor-problem.

Another advice: whenever you feel the urge to support your views with statistics, don't! Suppress that urge. It will backfire and you will always support the opposing view when you start using maths wrong. It creates the impression "Scene is using bogus arguments to support his view. So his view must be bogus too."
You had the right instinct in this game. But the way you argued, using faulty maths and nonsensical arguments, helped me immensely to debunk you and make you look like scum. So:
-try to stick to instinct more and be honest with yourself and others that it is just instinct, and not some math-whizz.
-when someone points out blatant flaws in your reasoning, don't get angry but try to understand why they think that there is a blatant flaw in your reasoning. And no, the "why" usually isn't "they are scum". Even scum preferably point out genuine flaws in your reasoning. Accepting that there are flaws and willingness to correct them would make you look much more liberal.

Example: when I was scum and Joe kept (correctly) scum reading me, I ISOd my own posts to see what he sees. To understand what made me suspicious. Because by understanding, I could better work against those arguments. Never, never ever assume that you are infallible. You aren't.

That's actually what made Joe look like a normal Fascist and not Hitler...as it turned out. His unorthodox play threw me off. Because no ordinary Fascist is going to normally let the game go to 4L, especially if Hitler is in the 4L group and has to pass it. It made Joe look like the Fascist trying to pass through Hitler.

Not to mention that plan would have lost the game too, because GameRager was Fascist and would just pass the 6th F unless the last remaining L was in the first 2 cards. Which is what I pointed out at the time, you can't simultaneously argue that Ls are getting dropped by the dozen and advocate top decking for Ls you claim have already been discarded...

More advice...instead of telling everyone how bad their planned plays are, offer real alternatives when they are asking for suggestions not after the fact. If GameRager was the best option, why did you go all crazy calling me a Fascist when you thought I picked him? It's funny how putting him in as President is a good idea when you suggest it, but when you thought I did, it must be because I'm a Fascist...

When someone flip-flops like that, they look like obvious scum...

Thanks guys, but I didn't really start from zero. By the time I joined you were in the third government, by then I had a bit of info to work some things out. And the rest was pure guess.

Lift was the easiest of them. Despite his forum title the RNG loves putting him in the scum team so I had him there from the start. :-)
Nah, I expected there would be more conflict up to the point I wrote that post. Since there wasn't much (I don't consider the discussion over meta AI because any liberal could be against meta-play too) I figured the fascists were working more behind the scenes, like Lift is so used to. That feeling held on during the whole game and it was close to a certainty by the time of the 4th F policy..

I'm not sure why my scumradar homed on Joe, I don't think he did anything particularly scummy until that post. But as you can see in the QT I had him as really probable hitler by the end.

RFG's pick was completely at random. In fact I didn't even realize at the time he was Trent's replacement or I would probably give it some more consideration, given I didn't pick any scum vibes from what little of Trent's I had to work with.

The one who got me completely fooled until the end was GR. That was amazing play from him. He was liberal all over in my eyes. I kept smelling a fascist sometimes in micro, RW, Scene until he exploded, even ZFR. But never GR. Well done, mate.
Aw man, you should have joined me there. It was cool talking to Pooka and putting my thoughts on "paper", but Pooka couldn't tell me a lot of things they knew. Also it's good to have someone to bounce ideas from.