[Itwæs Nom]

Tattersail_, on 07 February 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

Do all fascists, except Hitler, know each other?

Macros, on 31 January 2018 - 09:22 PM, said:

so, Hitler will recieve a PM telling them they are hitler, and nothing else.
the facists will receive a PM telling them they are facists, who the other facists are, and who hitler is.

[D'rek]

Well I don't have a problem with being Chancellor. What's the argument for deliberately nein-ing to skip to Itwaes, not sure I get it?

[Nevyn]

Itwæs Nom, on 07 February 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

Not a fan of Nevyn's approach either because it gives away very little about them. There's never going to be enough facts to guarantee liberals the win, we always have to operate with unknown variables in order to move forward. And it's what you do with the unknowns that gives others hints about your alignment, so because there's always unknowns we shouldn't resort to default votes because that limits the information we give away about ourselves to the minimum, and it might not give away any facts but hints are just as essential to this game as facts.

Also I'm not particularly inclined to vote Ja because what Nevyn said, I'm the 3rd president nominee and I know I'm liberal so there's that.

Its ok, you guys don't get it.

Call me back after you have played 4 or 5 times.

Still catching up on everything, I will comment on proposed government shortly. Have we already called for votes, or still discussing?

[Nevyn]

First things first, has Dolmen confirmed that he saw 2 fascist policies and 1 liberal?

I saw Mess say he saw one of each, and Cause's summary, but on a quick scan through I didn't see this expressly confirmed.

[Nevyn]

Tattersail_, on 07 February 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

So if I am president I get fascist powers? Does that change me from liberal to fascist? I doubt it very much, to win we need 6 liberal policies, so i'd be trying to promote the liberal policy regardless of any powers I may absorb.

The second president to enact a fascist policy (there hasn't been 1 yet), gets a power after enacting it.

Keep in mind that a president doesn't have perfect control of policies. They could draw 3 fascist policies, or pass 1 of each to a fascist chancellor.

[Tattersail_]

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

Tattersail_, on 07 February 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

So if I am president I get fascist powers? Does that change me from liberal to fascist? I doubt it very much, to win we need 6 liberal policies, so i'd be trying to promote the liberal policy regardless of any powers I may absorb.

The second president to enact a fascist policy (there hasn't been 1 yet), gets a power after enacting it.

Keep in mind that a president doesn't have perfect control of policies. They could draw 3 fascist policies, or pass 1 of each to a fascist chancellor.

Dolmen says the next president will have a fascist power if a fascist policy is enacted.

[Nevyn]

Ps> I am planning to vote Nein on Tatts' government, and Cause's too.

3 reasons.

1) As explained, my default voting approach.

2) If we assume first team were both liberal (which is not a lock, but is somewhat likely), a team not including me is even more likely to have a fascist.

3) Most importantly, with Messremb -Dolmen being a successful government, we want to get back to their governments as soon as possible. If we accept 1st presidents we will be trying a lot of new people for no reason.


Have no particular reason to suspect Tatts or Drek yet. But taking this government would be a mistake.

[Tattersail_]

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

Ps> I am planning to vote Nein on Tatts' government, and Cause's too.

3 reasons.

1) As explained, my default voting approach.

2) If we assume first team were both liberal (which is not a lock, but is somewhat likely), a team not including me is even more likely to have a fascist.

3) Most importantly, with Messremb -Dolmen being a successful government, we want to get back to their governments as soon as possible. If we accept 1st presidents we will be trying a lot of new people for no reason.


Have no particular reason to suspect Tatts or Drek yet. But taking this government would be a mistake.

That'd mean that you won't be president. Although you keep saying you'd only accept a government with you in it.

[Nevyn]

Tattersail_, on 07 February 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

Dolmen says the next president will have a fascist power if a fascist policy is enacted.

You misunderstood. What Macros told Dolmen was that if his government HAD enacted a fascist policy, the next president to enact a fascist policy would get a power.

Right now there are 0 fascist policies enacted and there is no power. If you scroll upthread to my tracker picture you should get an idea. I'll try to post an updated image after lunch.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 07 February 2018 - 03:24 PM

[Tattersail_]

Dolmen 2.0, on 07 February 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

Just wanted to highlight what Mac told me. The next president gets powers from any fascist policy this terms govt put through. Alot at stake considering our next president. perhaps we benefit from rejecting the first two govts and dealing with Nom and his candidate?

Well no fascists policy was put through so why is Dolmen acting like the next President gets fascist powers regardless? Why is there benefit from rejecting the next two elections?

[Nevyn]

Since there is still a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about the proposed strategy, I thought I would try to provide an in-depth example so you guys better understand what I am saying.

First, lets be clear, the main thing I was doing was explaining my non support. If you guys choose not to play that way, that's fine, I will still follow my own approach.

Now, because you continually seem to think the approach denies information, an example:

Generic players 1-8:

Scenario 1:

1 proposes 6 as chancellor. Liberals knowing nothing but "wanting information" vote Ja. Only 2 votes Nein, because he/she wanted to be the president. Liberal policy enacted.
2 proposes 8 as chancellor. Liberals vote it down assuming the Nein vote made 2 a fascist.
3 proposes 7 as chancellor. It goes through. Fascist policy. President claims only had choice of 3 fascist policies.
4 proposes 8, it goes through. We are on the 3rd policy, and half the players have not been president.


Scenario 2:
1 proposes 6 as chancellor. Only 1 and 6 vote Ja
2 proposes 8 as chancellor. 2,5, and 8 vote Ja with 5 claiming they voted Ja so they would be 3rd in line for the next presidency.
3 proposes 6 as chancellor, under the assumption that any fascists not on the first proposal did not want 6 on (hence the votes)


Do you get what I am driving at here? You guys are all focusing on getting more information for each vote. But if there are more potential presidents per policy, you see way more proposals of who presidents wanted as chancellor. And you see way more total votes, making it easy to determine a pattern.

It also doesn't mean it is dogmatically followed by everyone. Some people may approve based on being the next 3rd president. Some people could try to cut side deals where they offer to support a president's government if that person then supports theirs.

All that happens, is
1) You generally get more presidencies per policy, which gets you back around to confirmed good players sooner and gives MORE information. And also see more votes.
and
2) You have grounds to question any weird out of line votes where people support governments they ought not. That makes life tougher for fascists. Even when everyone follows and it just goes to 3rd, that in itself provides information about the preferences of the fascists.

That is the point I was trying to make. It is rapidly becoming irrelevant, as once we have enacted 2-3 policies, we will be repeating and avoiding players based on results.

But if you just shrug and approve until you know, you leave a lot of outcome up to random distribution (a couple early fascists in the order can be a big problem).


At the end of the day, you are either choosing to be suspicious of people who vote Ja for apparently no reason, or ones who vote Nein for apparently no reason. But life is really easy on fascists when everyone votes Ja. Easy to get Hitler on an early government and reinforce that they are good (along with another fascist). And it is no biggie for fascists to approve a team of all liberals to hide, because they know in that environment they can get their teams through.

[Nevyn]

Tattersail_, on 07 February 2018 - 03:29 PM, said:

Dolmen 2.0, on 07 February 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

Just wanted to highlight what Mac told me. The next president gets powers from any fascist policy this terms govt put through. Alot at stake considering our next president. perhaps we benefit from rejecting the first two govts and dealing with Nom and his candidate?

Well no fascists policy was put through so why is Dolmen acting like the next President gets fascist powers regardless? Why is there benefit from rejecting the next two elections?

I guess Dolmen misunderstood what Mac said as well.

Or didn't properly understand the gravity of it.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 07 February 2018 - 03:46 PM

[Vengeance]

While I trust Drek and Tatts about as far as I can throw them. I am fine with their government. The only reason I had to vote against Drek the first time is that Dolman would have been in power for two cycles.

[D'rek]

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

It also doesn't mean it is dogmatically followed by everyone. Some people may approve based on being the next 3rd president. Some people could try to cut side deals where they offer to support a president's government if that person then supports theirs.

Ohhhhhhhh so it's one of those "I get to dogmatically follow the system at all times, which excuses all my non-participation, but I expect other people to out themselves"

[Nevyn]

Tattersail_, on 07 February 2018 - 03:22 PM, said:

That'd mean that you won't be president. Although you keep saying you'd only accept a government with you in it.

A lot can change in that time. If nom put me on as chancellor and I put through a liberal policy for example, people may be inclined to want my government. If Nom made a fascist policy, I might get bypassed for Mess's presidency, but then be a candidate to be Dolmen's chancellor if Mess and Dolmen enacted another good policy.

As things stand right now, the only way anyone is taking my presidency with Mess as the next president having passed a liberal one is if I am 3rd.

To be 3rd, I'd have to back Cause's government. And I think we are all agreed that Cause's lie is sketchy as anything right now.

[Nevyn]

D, on 07 February 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

It also doesn't mean it is dogmatically followed by everyone. Some people may approve based on being the next 3rd president. Some people could try to cut side deals where they offer to support a president's government if that person then supports theirs.

Ohhhhhhhh so it's one of those "I get to dogmatically follow the system at all times, which excuses all my non-participation, but I expect other people to out themselves"

Well, if other people don't out themselves, it massively favours the liberal side. That may not be what you want, but I am fine with it.


I don't know if you've noticed, but you and Venge and Nom are really pushing the opposite approach. You are viewing approvals as normal Liberal behaviour and questioning the Neins. You are still all applying a dogma, only the reverse.

A liberal has no information, so a liberal not proposed as part of a government has 3 choices .... always approve until there is more info, always reject until there is more info, or invent a justification out of thin air until there is real info.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 07 February 2018 - 04:13 PM

[D'rek]

Nahh, I don't think it favours Liberal at all.

Quote

Scenario 2:
1 proposes 6 as chancellor. Only 1 and 6 vote Ja
2 proposes 8 as chancellor. 2,5, and 8 vote Ja with 5 claiming they voted Ja so they would be 3rd in line for the next presidency.
3 proposes 6 as chancellor, under the assumption that any fascists not on the first proposal did not want 6 on (hence the votes)

See, how your scenario 2 would *actually* go is:



Scenario 2:

1 knows that no one will vote ja for their proposal. They use a random number generator which picks X as chancellor. Only 1 and X vote Ja.

2 knows that no one will vote ja for their proposal. They use a random number generator which picks Y as chancellor. 2 and Y vote ja. No a 3rd person doesn't vote ja that would be stupid - even if they're liberal this sudden break from the dogmatic pattern would immediately paint them as a fascist to everyone else for lack of any other options.

There is no pattern, as everyone knows that the choices are being made willy-nilly and the voting is dogmatic. 3 proposes Z as chancellor, with Z being exactly as good or bad of a choice as everyone else because no one has any impressions about anyone. Everyone votes Ja because there is no choice at this point. No information is gained from a 100% Ja vote. There is no pattern. Nothing is known.

[Nevyn]

D, on 07 February 2018 - 04:15 PM, said:

Nahh, I don't think it favours Liberal at all.

And you're wrong, but I'm done explaining.

[Tattersail_]

I'd like you to re-buff D'rek please because she makes sense.

[Vengeance]

You know there may be a reason why we can't get new people to play mafia. Being such a friendly and thinking bunch that we are.