Pressed reply too soon.


You didn't answer my question though. My question was why did you say that Hitler chosen randomly is better than him being chosen by a fellow fascist.

Oh, boy. It so doesn't.

a) If president is Liberal, why should a predetermined chancellor have a bigger chance of a liberal-liberal pairing, compared to one selected by him.
b) If president is Fascist, then likelihood of liberal liberal pairing in both cases is 0.

Hypothesis is wrong. QED.

Exactly.

But I guess from previous experience that there is no getting through to Scene. At least where his erroneous perception of chance is concerned.

@Scene: arguing with you seems pointless. So let's take this back to pre-game. You asked whether we play meta. Of those players who had an opinion on that, three were against it and only one - you - was for it. That means you have been out-voted three to one. Which means, we are NOT doing that. You don't get to decide how the others play this game. It's a team-play after all. Rules and mechanics discussions within a running game are bad. They should be talked about before the game and they were. You didn't like the result of that decision, but that is your problem. So please drop it.

Why the liberals, of course.....also there's also a similar chance you're liberal from my pov, as I cannot verify your claim now can I?
==========================================

While I agree he should drop asking OTHERS to do so, if he wants to play that way that is his progative...it's just no one else has to follow his lead and do so as well.

Now that that's all been said, let's all get back to the game. :)

For the sake of argument, assume this is right. Note that getting FFF cards, which isn't improbable, means a fascist and Hitler get put in bad light with one stone.

But, as I said for the sake of argument, say it is advantageous for fascist who is first president to pick Hitler as Chancellor.

Here is the thing: these kind of games generally have a good negative feedback loop, which "smooth" out such advantageous plays.

Taking the example of our assumption, if a fascist takes Hitler as his Chancellor, and is later revealed as Fascist, then his chancellor comes under scrutiny and if is indeed Hitler is put under bad light? Why? Because it is advantageous for fascist who is first president to pick Hitler as Chancellor

The problem with you is that you see only the first loop iteration: if we taken the choice away from Fascist, he won't choose Hitler, but you refuse to see the feedback loop. If we take the choice away from Fascist, then if Hitler is chosen we won't be able to analyse his choice and thus figure out who Hitler is. If Hitler is in the right spot, he's chose with a 100% certainty and our weapon has been taken away from us.

In general, if X is useful for fascist/mafia, then they can try and do X, but doing X reveals them as fascist/mafia, so they should be careful and not do it... etc. The more advantageous it is, the more careful they should be not to do it too often. Negative feedback loop control at its finest.

All that aside, in this game people can simply vote for the government they want, so if the majority want "meta" they can vote for "meta". I don't think that's the case here. I know you're obstinate in such cases but maybe we can just agree that regardless of whether it's good or not, "meta" is not happening this game?

Personally, I am very open to plays that skip governments and cycle back to a given player, but if one wants me to go with them, one has to convince me properly and back arguments with some facts. The whole case for "meta" seems to be built upon logical fallacies and statistically dubious arguments. So, no.

No.

Did you read what I wrote? At all? Fascist nominating Hitler and getting FFF was just a side note and had nothing absolutely at all do with my point.

Well, at least you understood that part correctly. It is a social reads game and I want to play it as a social reads game. You want to turn it into a 'card and logic' game by imposing additional rules. But I don't want to play it as a 'card and logic' game. We don't play it at the hectic pace of secrethitler.io. We have ample time for discussions and deductions here. Therefore we can play it as social reads game, which I am going to do. You may of course base your votes on some inane, fallacious meta-scheme. No one can stop you. But I won't follow any meta-scheme. And I won't let the excuse 'Meta said so' count, should you 'happen' to repeatedly vote for Fascists. After all, what your meta tells you to do is entirely up to you. So I will hold you accountable for all of your votes and nominations.

I pretty much thought this first vote was pretty much a given...I was waiting for the card flips for the game to really start.

I get the concept of a meta, but aren't they group established prior to a game start? Seems questionable suggesting one after roles have been assigned. Furthermore, Gamerager's choice still allows a triangle 136 if we chose to go that way. But really what is the likelihood you get lucky and pick all 3 Libs?

As it turns out, I'm a Liberal, so it would take unusual circumstances for this to be a bad start.

OK well still I don't wholely agree. You have 2 players who play Liberal policy together. Then one of those players get into card conflict with the other players. The 2 players can be either both Liberal or both fascist. It's rare to get a confirmed fascist to the table. Sure the player in conflict knows if those players are both Lib or both Fasc but the table doesn't. More importantly the decision maker who isn't in conflict doesn't know and he's likely to favour the player not in conflict who's played more liberal policies. Or he might go for a player in conflict to try and get a none Hitler pick.

Whether that's a stronger strategy than picking a Liberal and conflicting is debatable but I tend to think it usually is because it tends to work better.

Exactly.

I'm done discussing "meta", except that I'll look at those numbers scene posted closesly if it turns out he's scum.

When we have more info and policies passed we can get back to talk about skipping.

So, finally everybody has reported in. But there are no results yet. So who didn't vote yet?

Sorry, been asleep for most of the day. My inconsistent sleep schedule strikes back! I hope it doesn't bite me during work.

These are the people who have yet to vote in PM.
Rule 4 has been paused in celebration of the New Year. I will resume enforcing it on the 2nd of January. I will still be available while Rule 4 is paused.

Happy New Year everyone!

Happy new year!

Happy New Year, everyone.
May your coming year be full of peace, love, hope, and grace, and may you truly find what you most desire/need--even if you don't currently know it.