[Itwæs Nom]

You forgot open-minded

[Vengeance]

Itwæs Nom, on 07 February 2018 - 04:55 PM, said:

You forgot open-minded

No I didn't.

[Nevyn]

Tattersail_, on 07 February 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

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

There are two problem's with Drek's thing. First, I have played this just about weekly for a year, with a generally repeated group and there is never complete 'dogmatic' adherence. The notion that it would happen to that extreme is either a strawman, or a result of inexperience. First and second presidents don't resign themselves (liberal or fascist) to being voted down, they try to cut deals. They leave people like Drek who are new or don't like this approach off as chancellors, because those are potential Ja votes from outside. They try to cut deals for votes. All that happens is the general default is to reject.

Second, here is the alternative in D'rek's world:

If the first president is liberal, they choose a random chancellor because they have no information. If they are fascist, they choose a random chancellor because, as president, they can succeed or fail the government regardless of chancellor. Everyone approves because D'rek hates my idea. Liberals have no 'reason' to not approve, because Venge has told them math is evil. Fascists all approve, because otherwise they would have to justify their nein vote. So just like D'rek's complaint about my method, you have a random outcome of whether it is a good team or not, and you learn nothing from the nominations or votes. And the only way it works out well for the liberals is if the game starts with a random long run of liberal presidents.

That may seem like 6 of one, half dozen or the other. In both cases, team quality based on random luck, and no info from votes. But when that is moving at 1 presidency per policy, the liberals have less room to adapt, because the presidency comes around less often to different players, which hampers the liberals ability to adapt to policy results.

For instance, Dolmen and Mess just passed a liberal policy, allegedly with the choice of that or 2 fascist ones. We can fact check that over time as we hear more about the policy options, because we know the deck composition. But the more "dense" our presidencies, the longer until one of those players is president again.



The notion that there is any extra information gained from liberals with no knowledge approving without a specific reason not to is a fallacy. And what's more, the approach still becomes dogmatic. If we play multiple times and people buy Drek and Venge's bad logic, then suddenly it is nein votes that look suspicious, and people start dogmatically approving to not look suspicious.

And when a fascist president knows that their team will by default go through, it opens up a world of options for them.

And again, we have the math. This time, take me out of it. 3/8 chance you have a fascist president. 5/8 * 3/7 chance a liberal president has a fascist chancellor. 64% chance any random team is fascist. The only advantage the liberals have is that they control the balance of votes.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 07 February 2018 - 05:26 PM

[Dolmen 2.0]

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

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.

I understood, Tatts can go ahead as pres and we can still deal with Cause separately. Going straight to Nom kinda echoes your argument to get a known govt in earlier and skipping unknowns but we can still get info in worth having by giving Tatts and D'rek a turn in power. I posed that bit about Nom as a question because I was still working it out.

Also I confirm Mess in my reply to him, I wrote " a Good read" in my response to his nod of approval post.

To make it clear I did receive two fascist and one liberal and Mess went Liberal. I can fact check mess on his claim but no one can fact check me so take my claim as you will.

[Nevyn]

Thanks for confirming Dolmen. The total policy count is important information

This is the most common distribution for a random set of policy options, so no reason (yet) to doubt either of them.

Note that this result is a bit more confirming of Dolmen than of Messremb, because Dolmen had the option to create a fascist policy and simply claim they only saw 3 fascist policies, whereas Messremb cannot lie if Dolmen is a liberal without creating a he said/she said.

Incidentally, I am ready for the vote to be called if others are. Tatts, is your nomination official? Everyone else, are you ready to vote?

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 07 February 2018 - 06:07 PM

[D'rek]

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

First, I have played this just about weekly for a year, with a generally repeated group

Ooooooooooooo I'm shaking in my little pretend politician booties

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

and there is never complete 'dogmatic' adherence. The notion that it would happen to that extreme is either a strawman, or a result of inexperience. First and second presidents don't resign themselves (liberal or fascist) to being voted down, they try to cut deals. They leave people like Drek who are new or don't like this approach off as chancellors, because those are potential Ja votes from outside. They try to cut deals for votes. All that happens is the general default is to reject.

Aaaaaaaand once again we spiral around to how you proposed a system, but it's really only a system for you to justify everything you do and meanwhile you expect everyone else to say they support the system but not actually follow it. What the hell is the point. What benefit is there for everyone else in giving you carte blanche and then not following the system, versus just openly rejecting the system outright?

[Nevyn]

D, on 07 February 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

First, I have played this just about weekly for a year, with a generally repeated group

Ooooooooooooo I'm shaking in my little pretend politician booties

The point was not to intimidate. The point was the benefit of experience. I play all the time, with many who play like me, and it never plays out as you theorize. Just doesn't happen.

But by all means, be a jerk.

Quote

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

and there is never complete 'dogmatic' adherence. The notion that it would happen to that extreme is either a strawman, or a result of inexperience. First and second presidents don't resign themselves (liberal or fascist) to being voted down, they try to cut deals. They leave people like Drek who are new or don't like this approach off as chancellors, because those are potential Ja votes from outside. They try to cut deals for votes. All that happens is the general default is to reject.

Aaaaaaaand once again we spiral around to how you proposed a system, but it's really only a system for you to justify everything you do and meanwhile you expect everyone else to say they support the system but not actually follow it. What the hell is the point. What benefit is there for everyone else in giving you carte blanche and then not following the system, versus just openly rejecting the system outright?

And we are back to your fundamental misunderstanding (or perhaps "strawman"). I didn't "propose a system". I told people how I was going to vote, and why. In fact, I have been very generous in explaining why in agonizing detail.

I can't make any of you do it. Even if most of you did it, it only takes one holdout to make it non "dogmatic". There is no system.

And I don't need ****ing carte blanche from you. My votes are my choice. Feel absolutely free to conclude that they make me a fascist, but I'm voting this way early every game, so good luck with that.

[Tattersail_]

I have nominated D'rek and votes can go to Mac. I have thoughts on what you said but I'm about to do bedtime with my girl.

[Vengeance]

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

Tattersail_, on 07 February 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

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

There are two problem's with Drek's thing. First, I have played this just about weekly for a year, with a generally repeated group and there is never complete 'dogmatic' adherence. The notion that it would happen to that extreme is either a strawman, or a result of inexperience. First and second presidents don't resign themselves (liberal or fascist) to being voted down, they try to cut deals. They leave people like Drek who are new or don't like this approach off as chancellors, because those are potential Ja votes from outside. They try to cut deals for votes. All that happens is the general default is to reject.

Second, here is the alternative in D'rek's world:

If the first president is liberal, they choose a random chancellor because they have no information. If they are fascist, they choose a random chancellor because, as president, they can succeed or fail the government regardless of chancellor. Everyone approves because D'rek hates my idea. Liberals have no 'reason' to not approve, because Venge has told them math is evil. Fascists all approve, because otherwise they would have to justify their nein vote. So just like D'rek's complaint about my method, you have a random outcome of whether it is a good team or not, and you learn nothing from the nominations or votes. And the only way it works out well for the liberals is if the game starts with a random long run of liberal presidents.

That may seem like 6 of one, half dozen or the other. In both cases, team quality based on random luck, and no info from votes. But when that is moving at 1 presidency per policy, the liberals have less room to adapt, because the presidency comes around less often to different players, which hampers the liberals ability to adapt to policy results.

For instance, Dolmen and Mess just passed a liberal policy, allegedly with the choice of that or 2 fascist ones. We can fact check that over time as we hear more about the policy options, because we know the deck composition. But the more "dense" our presidencies, the longer until one of those players is president again.



The notion that there is any extra information gained from liberals with no knowledge approving without a specific reason not to is a fallacy. And what's more, the approach still becomes dogmatic. If we play multiple times and people buy Drek and Venge's bad logic, then suddenly it is nein votes that look suspicious, and people start dogmatically approving to not look suspicious.

And when a fascist president knows that their team will by default go through, it opens up a world of options for them.

And again, we have the math. This time, take me out of it. 3/8 chance you have a fascist president. 5/8 * 3/7 chance a liberal president has a fascist chancellor. 64% chance any random team is fascist. The only advantage the liberals have is that they control the balance of votes.

Yes just like town in Mafia.


So far I have Dolman as most likely a Liberal
Cause as a probable facist.
Mess as a probable liberal
Venge liberal


The rest no fucking clue.

[Nevyn]

I should also add while I am spreading obvious fascist propaganda by explaining the game, that the reasoning behind recent picking of chancellors, and people narrowly rejecting Drek's government is flawed.


To whit, for Dolmen to have been on successive approved governments, he would have had to pass a liberal policy as chancellor when Drek nominated him. So that was not nearly the bad thing that people suggested. There are reasons you don't really want to put up the very next player, but it was not the disaster it was made out to be.

And as a corollary, picking a chancellor based on furthest distance from being president is not optimal either. Again, liberals in this game want to gain and then use information. It is easier to use information about a person who will be president again relatively soon. But I would hate to propose a "system" or be "dogmatic".

[Nevyn]

Vengeance, on 07 February 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

Yes just like town in Mafia.

I've only ever played Mafia once long ago, so can't comment on the comparison.

[Cause]

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

So Cause is advocating no for my government, maybe cause he sees me as liberal it is in his interest to let his fascist mate into term? Do all fascists, except Hitler, know each other?

I'm not advocating against you. I'm arguing it's possibly a viable strategy to always go to the third government. Which forces everyone to vote yes. See what that government passes and then skip as many goverments as possible to only go back to those with track records of passing liberal policies

[Vengeance]

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 07:15 PM, said:

I should also add while I am spreading obvious fascist propaganda by explaining the game, that the reasoning behind recent picking of chancellors, and people narrowly rejecting Drek's government is flawed.


To whit, for Dolmen to have been on successive approved governments, he would have had to pass a liberal policy as chancellor when Drek nominated him. So that was not nearly the bad thing that people suggested. There are reasons you don't really want to put up the very next player, but it was not the disaster it was made out to be.

And as a corollary, picking a chancellor based on furthest distance from being president is not optimal either. Again, liberals in this game want to gain and then use information. It is easier to use information about a person who will be president again relatively soon. But I would hate to propose a "system" or be "dogmatic".

I think I get what your talking about. It is more like rejecting governments is similar to voting to lynch while accepting governments is like going to night. With some game ship thrown in. You get votes both ways but one way there is a chance that someone will die.

[Macros]

All votes are in.
Will post after dinner

[Messremb]

Nevyn, on 07 February 2018 - 04:05 PM, said:

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.

But passing a chancellor is a liberal behaviour. We need more policies passed to win. There are more liberals than fascists. each passed election tells us the choices President and Chancellor made or lied about, giving us either a passed liberal policy or, at this point in the game we get a fascist one which unless I'm mistaken gives the Find power? With that in play and some probable liberals they can be checked for hitlerism by other probable liberal presidents, no?

I'm a big fat yes to D'rek.

[Messremb]

Macros, on 07 February 2018 - 08:26 PM, said:

All votes are in.
Will post after dinner

You're keeping us in suspense on purpose

[Nevyn]

Messremb, on 07 February 2018 - 08:35 PM, said:

But passing a chancellor is a liberal behaviour. We need more policies passed to win. There are more liberals than fascists. each passed election tells us the choices President and Chancellor made or lied about, giving us either a passed liberal policy or, at this point in the game we get a fascist one which unless I'm mistaken gives the Find power? With that in play and some probable liberals they can be checked for hitlerism by other probable liberal presidents, no?

I'm a big fat yes to D'rek.

I'm not sure what you mean.

There will always be "passed chancellors". When we vote, it is not whether or not to do a policy, it is whether this to let this president do it, or hear another proposal. That is capped at 3 by the rules.

The only time policies would not be passed are situations late in the game where the liberals are fairly sure there are a chain of bad presidents, and decide it is safer to get a random policy than to give that president his/her chosen team.

Both fascists and liberals ultimately need policies.

[Nevyn]

Messremb, on 07 February 2018 - 08:36 PM, said:

You're keeping us in suspense on purpose

Well, reading into it, I predict that the result is Ja.

If it was nein he could have just said so, but has to delay because he now has to send PMs to players before we can do anything else.

[Macros]

sorry, still waiting on one.

have pmd them

[Nevyn]

So you lied?

Macros is a fascist!