Just one aside on this bit(then i'll drop this here) - Why care what the old year system(BC/etc) did? The new system was just that......a new system...and as such starting from 0 would've solved the debate/issue at least for the new system.

Maybe, but I think he more wants Joe to get a move on.

(But again it's likely all moot till we get a replacement...also it's policy.)
(Pre post edit: We got one...yay. :D)
=============================================

That is all IF you are liberal.....no one(not even me) is proven liberal atm....if you're a fascist then joke's on us.

And what if someone who played a liberal card is a clever fascist? Or you're a fascist using your words here to get into office?

If you are a fascist(IF) then you could've done it to make yourself look consistent with your "meta play" argument from before.

You say this bit right AFTER throwing shade on non-meta players in earlier posts and also just now(the bit i cut out) against Lift....coincidence?

If one is liberal they should ALWAYS(imo) consider ALL others players fascist by default, unless proven otherwise.

Passing a fascist policy doesn't mean both elected are fascists. The president could be so, and pass two fascist cards to the chancellor.....or(rare, but maybe possible?) they both could start with 3 fascist cards.

(More reply to you below, as if I put replies out of numerical order it sometimes borks the whole post)
================================================

Good point, but then why not? It would be better to be prepared, would it not(genuinely asking as this is my first such game)?

(Also it's not like we have much to do for now anyways)
================================================

What if Rwarehall is fascist? Then you'd be helping the fascist team by that play policy.
=================================================

To op: Nice....I assume we should all wait a few days for him to get up to speed? :)
=================================================

To all: More to come soon...I will break it up so as not to go over character limit.

Second Half:

:D :D :D

Now why do I have a craving to listen to old boy bands? Tis odd, it is. ;)

It's nice to see you're getting into this quickly....maybe we won't need to wait for you to learn the ropes for too long, after all. :)
========================================

To be fair you should think everyone else is fascist....even me....to play a proper liberal play(imo). Well unless they're proven liberal, that is.

There was some other stuff but I don't know if it's worth going back over

You could start by saying(if you didn't yet....i'm still reading the other posts) why you picked ZFR. :)

(I will vote based on your answer to this and other factors)
========================================

I myself will be doing it out of habit and I think it's good to do it(again I have little experience so I could be wrong to do this/on this) as to me it would seem to keep some honest.

(Like if we ask someone who they voted and they lie this could be a tell of some sort)
(Pre post edit: Saw your post explaining it....eh, i'm still gonna post my vote in pubic anyways if no one minds. :))
=======================================

So he's like me and sticking to one play style, then(as he said before)? This is good to know and have verified. :)
==========================================
(All caught up....I will vote once Joe explains his nomination a bit/replies, etc)

You're welcome! I didn't know if I would have time for a game before, but I should be able to manage.

I think I'm up to speed with posts. Other than some suspicious behavior by scene, there's not that much to go by yet. There seems to be a good bit of waiting around for other people to finish their actions in this game.

Can you direct me to where I threw shade on those that don't want to play meta? I don't believe I did. I stated I believed it is the best Liberal winrate statistically over a long series of games. Because some draws will favour Liberals and some will favour fascists.

If Liberals lose this game I'll examine how it might have gone different using a fixed meta.

If RWarehall is fascist he has to play fascist policy eventually. Once fascist policy is played a player is soft frozen. It's debatable whether the chancellor is also soft frozen because of the possibility of 'double dropping'. If the deck count can prove they didn't drop they become unfrozen imo. Ofcourse on the other hand it is to Liberal advantage to discuss the merits and failings of potential candidates (as it is for facists too)

It's what I said when I considered him for nomination. I think he's likely liberal, just based on his relaxed unfocused approach to the start of the game. I also think scene is likely liberal but I think ZFR's less likely to get voted down so, sadly, he's the preferred choice.

It's still a missrepresentation when you clearly see I state skip Joe if RWarehall passes a liberal policy It isn't 'only 1 player'. RWarehall will play with another player - then that player will play later if a Liberal policy is passed. How is that playing with 1 player exactly?

The less people that touch the deck the better because you know there's been a small group of players who may have been silent dropped that way. If 5 players touch deck you have no idea who silent dropped

It's still a missrepresentation when you clearly see I state skip Joe if RWarehall passes a liberal policy

But where do I 'clearly see' that? I don't. I'm not psychic and neither are you. So don't assume to know what I see and what not.

I ... don't even understand what you want to say with that or how it relates to the part you quoted. Damn, you are confusing. I really do hope that you are a Fascist. Then it wouldn't be so bad that you are so confusing.

But let's go back to why your 'me or no one' strategy is bad:
- having only players who passed L policies in a government doesn't work in the first or second round. Because there aren't enough players who passed L policies eligible or even none at all.
- while it is correct that each Liberal player knows his own alignment and therefore has a natural preference for being in a government himself, saying "I will vote NO to all governments not involving me" is terribly bad. It stalls the game. If everyone adopts that strategy we won't get any government in office and will just keep passing random policies. Which will most likely lead to a Fascist win.

So your stance 'either me or I vote NO' is not only anti-liberal, it is also anti-game.

There's RW - that's what scene is saying. He didn't say he'd vote NO on governments unless they contained ONLY him or people who had passed an L policy; so a Joe/Scene government or a RW/anyone government would be acceptable for his criteria.

So I'm going to vote NEIN and I'll explain WHY......In order to test players thoroughly you need to limit the number of presidents. This allows you to get a better idea of who the silent droppers may be and you can limit them from government.

So while Joe might well be Liberal I am voting No because I have to vote yes on RWarehall after he played a Liberal policy. Sorry Joe

Now you're stating I'm going to vote down every government. I haven't stated that. I stated I wanted less hands on the deck - so less presidents. If whoever RWarehall picks plays a Liberal policy I will also vote yes on their presidency.

If I vote yes on Joe and yes on RWarehall that means we will have 5 presidents in this deck. Because ZFR will also be prez, as will a player at the back end of the deck, if not before that.

That's terrible play from a Liberal perspective. You want less touchers so you can thoroughly test the players that do touch.

The problem is so many players are newbies so they'll just vote yes on every president and we'll have little knowledge by the time we hit Hitler Zone and end up SE'ing a fascist who played a single Liberal policy in the beggining.

We still waiting on somebody, or just Pooka?

I'm still waiting for PMs from:
- supplementscene
- Microfish
- GameRager

Ah! Thank you for translating Supplementscenese to me. That actually makes it look less bad.

Repeating what I said makes me look less bad. Good to know.

Yes, since you were unable or unwilling to point out where you said it, the fact that someone else apparently saw it makes you look less bad. Slightly. If you could point out where you said so, that would help even more. I asked you before, but you ignored that question.

More importantly. Did you vote?