@ZFR look Lift reveals the fascist team is himself, Joe and RFG - although the last one I'm not as sure about.
supplementscene: Good to know that Joe is your Hitler Lift. Why would Hitler be outside of the current set of player? The only possible way is if you think every player who's played is Liberal. Because fascists go into conflict to get Hitler in play.
Voting no to the most Liberal player is outing fascist btw.
Lifthrasil: You? The 'most Liberal player'??? Dream on!
Also: you try to twist my words again. As you so often do. I didn't say that Joe is my choice for chancellor. (Actually I am my preferred choice, which you would know if you would actually read what I write and not what you want to read). I said that Joe is the only available choice out of the great 4. And that's not opinion, that is plain fact, since the other two are term-locked. But it is very much like you to twist something bad out of a simple statement of game facts.
Also, why should we ignore the possibility that Hitler didn't manage to get into the first 4? Perhaps because that is exactly what happened and you want a chance that he gets into government? Of course there is the possibility that Joe is Hitler and of course there is a high likelyhood of at least one Fascist among the 4. However, Micro's initial absence may well have been due to his insecurity how to play Hitler. So I will definitely vote against any government involving his chancellorship. That I will vote against any government involving you, Scene, the most Fascist player in this game, should be quite clear. That leaves me, RFG and Joe as possible Chancellors, as far as I am concerned. Although RFG was quite absent too...
ZFR is the most liberal player, saying you'll vote him down because you don't like his pick is essentially saying you only want a fascist chancellor. The only person I'll vote no to is ZFR-Joe - because Joe is 78%+ chance of being fascist and exremely likely to be Hitler.
You said it's a risk deviating from the players currently in play. When in fact the real risk is picking Hitler, who is most likely to be in the 4 players that have been in government.
The only way Hitler is not in play is if we have 4 Liberals in play. That's the only way, what are the odds of that? It's low but possible.
We know there's a 78%+ chance that Joe is fascist and yet you still want Joe as a chancellor. It's plainly obvious Joe is Hitler and you are his scumbuddy. I take it's Joe, RFG and Lift as the scumteam given you also want RFG for no particular reason.
supplementscene: Do you consider it less likely than 78% or more likely? I mean there is the chance got 3 F Policies as a fascist. But it seems minimum that 78% chance of him being fasc.
I mean 22% chance doesn't mean it didn't happen, I've seen plenty of decks Joe could be Liberal. It just seems unlikely
ZFR: That's not the point.
78% is the probability of cards. Cards.
Imagine this was a 100 player game where only 1 is scum. The probability of cards would still be 78%. Would you, if first two governments claimed FFF, say that there is a 78% chance that one of them is the scum. Definitely not. It's really small that the one scum would just be there.
Now imagine this was a 100 player game where 95 are scum. The probability of cards would still be 78%. Would you, if first two governments claimed FFF, say that there is a 78% chance that one of them is the scum? Heck no. I'd say it's much higher than that. There are 95 scum after all, so at least one of them must certainly be scum.
So if 78% is wrong in a 99/1 player scenario and 5/95 player scenario, why should it arbitrarily be right in a 5/3 player scenario which we have.
You can't take the answer to one question and claim it's the answer to another question because it feel likes it.
So we combine the possibility a fascist isn't in play, so 3/8*3/7*3/6*3/5 = 4.8% (rounded up), so 95.2% chance 1 is in play combined with the 78% possibility.
So 74% chance Joe is fascist, correct? Or is my 4.8% wrong?
