On the other hand, sometimes I don't.
Though the fact Joe suddenly went wall-of-text-defense for Pooka suggests they are both f. That's where i stand with it all.
A lot of the wall-of-text was on the assumption that Pooka is F. Is that a little thing worth jumping at, or are you going to remain firm in your decision (even if it's wrong)?
Remaining firm in your decision (even if it's wrong
) is better than jumping at every little thing.
Can you expand these examples? Why is one better than the other?
What do you mean by 'better'? Indicative of L alignment? Or easier to follow, more convincing, et cetera?
Well it's a read. So it could be wrong. Don't just trust it.
False. It's based on a conflict. So if ZFR is L, there is no way his assessment of Pooka's alignment could be wrong. A liberal wouldn't lie about the cards he passed, just as a l wouldn't lie about the cards he got. So if ZFR is l, Pooka is f. And vice versa. There is a slight chance that both might by f - but I don't see any reason to assume that. And there is no chance that both are l.
That's true. If trent trusts ZFR then he should be confident shooting Pooka.
Also in your list you placed one point in the wrong category. Here's a fixed list, the fixed point is bolded. I added a point and some questions and removed the invalid point. If ZFR didn't reconsider his opinion, he would still see you as more likely Liberal than me. Remember?
I'm putting my point back in the "Is he L?" list - here's why:
ZFR not executing Joe can be used to argue that ZFR and Joe are F, but that makes no sense with what's gone before. So it can either be suggestion that ZFR's liberal, or it should be removed from the list entirely.
I'm not satisfied by ZFR reconsidering an opinion in response to the results of an experiment of his own design. I think it should go back in.
Lifthrasil: - Created unnecessary conflict in aftermath of 8th government. (What do you mean by that?)
unnecessary conflict with Pooka - claiming to have passed an L when, if it were a lie he might have claimed no such thing. something just occurred to me
If he invented the second L in ZFthrasil government he would HAVE to invent another L now, because if trent turns over LLF ZFR's a proven liar.
Why would he have claimed LLF when he had LFF? To cover for rtcvb's FFF, which he has reason to assume is LFF.
So the hypothetical runs as follows:
rtcvb (F) draws LFF or FFF, passes ZFR (F) FF. ZFR assumes LFF was drawn.
ZFR (F) draws LFF, passes Lifthrasil (F) LF, tells everyone he drew LLF.
ZFR (F) draws FFF, passes Pooka (L) FF. Knows that if rtcvb DIDN'T draw L there is LLF left in the pack.
^ Yup. Doesn't make sense at all. No sarcasm, I was just wrong. You can't invent more Ls to cover for previous L invented. That just makes the situation worse.
- Didn't elect H twice. Was that just an admission, that he elected Hitler once?
:p Twice didn't elect H after 3Fs were passed.
- At the centre of two conflicts: ZFR's second presidency confirmed Lifthrasil's alignment in the public eye, and ZFR's third presidency confirmed PookaMustard's. (Why would that make ZFR F?)
I think an F is in a better position to manufacture conflicts and confirmations than an L is. It does seem that ZFR (L) has had reason to make the decisions he made, which brought him the results he has, but ZFR (F) could have deliberately set out those decisions with the aim of creating the results he did.
Does it make sense?
- nominated Joe as Chancellor in the very first round (explained by random.org usage)
^ This one should go too I guess, as Joe-and-ZFR-can't-be-both-F is one thing everybody should be certain of.