So just to clarify, you want to be in government as an unknown quantity yourself with another complete unknown quantity? Put your hand up who thinks that's a good idea, because I don't.

Yet you think a proven quantity in ZFR alongside the busiest poster in myself is bad? Do you read me as Scum?

Just to clarify testing either of those players won't be any worse than actually giving them a government position. But just maybe you are Scum, know they are Liberal and want to eliminate them as options.

Personally I won't be voting for you with any other combo than Pooka because if you are Scum I don't want you tainting anyone else. Trent was probably right that we should have gone for a Pooka investigation but if Lift is different that isn't entirely helpful. The only way to find out who is Liberal between Pooka/You and Lift is to test you and Pooka together.

If you are both Scum, we can look at your voting records under the microscope and this will help figure out who your 2 other buddies will be. If you pass Liberal policy I'd probably have you as confirmed Liberals and consider Lift as likely Scum.

You quoted a wall of analysis text from me and you're asking why I'm not providing useful analysis? Odd

Why do you think you're being set up?

You're just talking in circles. What would Pooka being scum prove if he were. I am thinking in a strategic way and all I get from some actors is pushes to go in this or that direction. How would a pooka/me government help with choosing the next president after me? Joe is out of the question.

Ley me draw up a worst case scenario. We get now a F president (could be you, could be anyone else). He passes a F (oh gosh, sorry about this, we had a 40% for FFF, i had to pass FF - FLL is very unlikely). Now his scum buddy can become president (he can choose the next president) so that one can elect up Hitler. Who already might be one of the people with a good standing. And poof, we loose. So this is why I insist on testing an unknown with me. If the test fails, I will pick a president that the majority considers best for us.

This is why i want to edit my posts... damn.. now things are italicized when i don't want them to be.

The last two governments didn't matter with the huge likelihood of 3F's. Regardless i don't want to be part of ANY F policies.

But at this point is where lying will sorta be a coin flip, so logic needs to be considered moreso than odds of getting L/F cards.

President=F, Chancellor=L: FFF -> FF, LFF>FF: Claims FFF.
President=F, Chancellor=F: Any F: both (probably) Claim FFF->FF (if either disagree they are idiots for implicating either one)
President=L, Chancellor=F: FFF->FF, LFF->LF. Probably L, if F is passed and they argue, one of them is fascist. (Though 3 L's in place letting a 4th L is unlikely)


President=H, Chancellor=?: If FFF->FF, LLL->LL, Hitler will remain clueless.

President=H, Chancellor=F: ?LF->LF, Chancellor claims FF, signals to Hitler who replies after the chancellor replies, as if Hitler says he got 3F's first he doesn't know the alignment of the Chancellor.

President=H, Chancellor=L: ???->??, Pass L unless given/forced FF, Hitler would know who it is if they claim LF/FF or not?

President=F, Chancellor=H: FFF->FF, LFF->??, Uncertain. L could be passed to protect Hitler. F and claims FF and president reaction would send hidden signals. President won't counter Chancellor's claims unless he has to specify what he had first.
President=L, Chancellor=H: ??L-> LF/LL. If claims FF it's Hitler (assuming we can trust the President)


So my issue is if i say i have FF and was passed FF and the president claims it was LF. Who knows who the fascist is? Depends on odds a little, but more on who is a trusted Liberal or not. If you know who's a liberal and is president you can predict output more. Until you have that, i don' want a fascist policy blamed on me when i have no choice. Though it may add information.

But maybe this is too much thinking. If i was going to be chancellor/president i'd prefer it during when the highest odds of having 1 or more L's per a draw to lower the chance of being forced to place a F policy.

Hmmm... *fiddles with knobs on chest activating Mike the TV mode*

And there you have it, so far all of RT-CB's predictions have all been right. 3L's followed by 2F's.

Does he/she know more than he/she should? Strong logical prediction not random chance? Or were the odds just enough to make the robot a temporary oracle? Or is it just cheating?

Who knows? You (the viewer) get to decide. So far he/she's only thrown out audible vibrations from it's noise maker and not been in any deciding policies in government so he/she could just be spouting a lot of random words to make a paragraph in his/her post seem really really long with not that much content.

You decide...

How many timed do we have to repeat that the probability of 3F's twice was only 25%?

So you'd rather vote down three governments in sequence than risking that a F policy is blamed on you? You are aware that three down-voted governments in sequence mean that a random policy is passed? Why do you fear that possible blame so much that you would risk a random policy which has a high chance of being fascist? As blotunga pointed out, only Hitler has to be so concerned about his reputation. Liberals, however, know that they are part of the bigger team and that it is actually good to enter a conflict that removes both them and a fascist from future governments. A 1 for 1 trade is mathematically beneficial for the bigger faction. So, any explanation for your worry about being blamed and your willingness to risk a random policy?

And here is your fallacy. I forgot about it. If i flip a fair coin and 10 times in a row it landed on head, what are the odds of landing on head again? Still 50% just as any other times before. Because the coin doesn't has memory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

I know about gambler's fallacy. Thats not my point. Did you read what rtcvb said:
He said hes not surprised and in fact expected both govts got FFF because odds indicated this would happen. That's very wrong. Gambler's fallacy doesnt apply here. Its like saying you expected those first 10 tosses to be heads because that's what odds indicated.

For the record, Im not tossing away the idea that both goverments got FFF because it does happen and 25% will take place from time to time (just like for example you shouldnt discard the idea that your opponent has AA in texas holdem) . Im just completely baffled rtcvb is trying to pass it off as something natural.

And 6 (six) of those were passed to presidents. Do. The. Maths.

You seriously expected the presidents to not get it?

6 were given to presidents, 2 were discarded. In which bucket did the L have a bigger chance of appearing???

When you put it that way.... 50/50...

2 leftover... 2 discarded...

Although 4 were discarded, but meh...

Maybe you need to be reminded of fumbles... Or Botches.. except with dice it can come endlessly.

*sigh* 6 were passed to presidents. SIX.

2 were not used. TWO.

I seriously cant believe this...

And there was a 75% chance NONE of them were L.

Did i miss something?

25% chance NONE of them were L.

Seriously, dude.

Yet 87.5% of the cards were still F.

Can't get around that.

But let's assume the L was drawn... that means one of the two presidents is a fascist... since they would have only pass FF instead of LF.

So... which one?