Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[faust]

What do people think about giving the Chancellor a choice, rather than forcing a specific type policy?

I don't know, man. Giving the Chancellor a choice implies that you drew 2L1F. If you did that, and the Chancellor decides to enact the fascist policy, that means we cannot get 5 liberal policies before the reshuffle. That seems like a major problem, especially early on, when the next reshuffle is far away.

[A Drowned Kernel]

What do people think about giving the Chancellor a choice, rather than forcing a specific type policy? Obviously forcing a liberal policy near the end of the game would be the best move, but I've read that forcing players early game to make that commitment is a valid way to detect individuals. Also, I think all Presidents should not try to get fascist policies passed so that they get a power...that should be a side affect and not the goal.

If the President draws Liberal-liberal-fascist, I think passing anything other than a liberal is a bad idea. The more liberal policies are enacted, the bolder the fascists will have to act.

[faust]

I kinda think Arch is towny for asking that question though. I feel better about giving him my vote. ghost is a decent choice, obviously not as good as me.

[Archetype]

What do people think about giving the Chancellor a choice, rather than forcing a specific type policy?

I don't know, man. Giving the Chancellor a choice implies that you drew 2L1F. If you did that, and the Chancellor decides to enact the fascist policy, that means we cannot get 5 liberal policies before the reshuffle. That seems like a major problem, especially early on, when the next reshuffle is far away.

Not necessarily. They could've draw 2 F 1 L, discarding 1 F.

What do people think about giving the Chancellor a choice, rather than forcing a specific type policy? Obviously forcing a liberal policy near the end of the game would be the best move, but I've read that forcing players early game to make that commitment is a valid way to detect individuals. Also, I think all Presidents should not try to get fascist policies passed so that they get a power...that should be a side affect and not the goal.

If the President draws Liberal-liberal-fascist, I think passing anything other than a liberal is a bad idea. The more liberal policies are enacted, the bolder the fascists will have to act.

I suppose, but if they did enact a fascist policy it not only gives the President a pretty good idea of what that player's alignment is, but also gives them a power that could potentially reveal more information.

It may be statistically better to force a liberal policy, I don't know, but I imagine it'd be difficult to quantify the information gained from presenting a choice. I'll wait for a few others to chime in.

[faust]

What do people think about giving the Chancellor a choice, rather than forcing a specific type policy?

I don't know, man. Giving the Chancellor a choice implies that you drew 2L1F. If you did that, and the Chancellor decides to enact the fascist policy, that means we cannot get 5 liberal policies before the reshuffle. That seems like a major problem, especially early on, when the next reshuffle is far away.

Not necessarily. They could've draw 2 F 1 L, discarding 1 F.

I think it should be obvious that you would discard F in that situation, so I didn't think your question encompassed that scenario.

[Archetype]

What do people think about giving the Chancellor a choice, rather than forcing a specific type policy?

I don't know, man. Giving the Chancellor a choice implies that you drew 2L1F. If you did that, and the Chancellor decides to enact the fascist policy, that means we cannot get 5 liberal policies before the reshuffle. That seems like a major problem, especially early on, when the next reshuffle is far away.

Not necessarily. They could've draw 2 F 1 L, discarding 1 F.

I think it should be obvious that you would discard F in that situation, so I didn't think your question encompassed that scenario.

Fair point.

Unvote

[ghostofmars]

It may be statistically better to force a liberal policy, I don't know, but I imagine it'd be difficult to quantify the information gained from presenting a choice. I'll wait for a few others to chime in.

As I've said before, I expect to gain information mostly about the president. I don't think the chancellor will enact a fascist law when the president gives him a choice early in the game. If the president claims 2F1L and the chancellor claims 2F, I would put neither the president nor the chancellor on any further mission. The town majority improves from 5-4 to 4-3. That being said, I would still pass 2L if I drew 2L1F, just because definitely needing the reshuffle would suck.

Regarding the claims: Do you think the president or the chancellor should claim first? I have the feeling there could be some situation where it is beneficial that one claims before the other but I cannot pin it down. The important part is that Hitler/liberal do not know if they are paired with a fascist or not. So by forcing the order, we can avoid (half of the time) that Hitler waits until the other player acts first.

I find ghostofmars towny, so I'd be likely to invite him to be my Chancellor.

I would vote for that government.

Tables would you like to tell us your likely chancellor so that people can make a more informed choice?

[faust]

Regarding the claims: Do you think the president or the chancellor should claim first? I have the feeling there could be some situation where it is beneficial that one claims before the other but I cannot pin it down. The important part is that Hitler/liberal do not know if they are paired with a fascist or not. So by forcing the order, we can avoid (half of the time) that Hitler waits until the other player acts first.

Well, arguably a fascist President wants to nominate a fascist Chancellor. Maybe they nominate Hitler, but that seems very dangerous. So the more likely scenario is that President!Hitler nominates a fascist Chancellor by chance (haha). Which would mean we want the President to claim first, right?

[ghostofmars]

Well, arguably a fascist President wants to nominate a fascist Chancellor. Maybe they nominate Hitler, but that seems very dangerous. So the more likely scenario is that President!Hitler nominates a fascist Chancellor by chance (haha). Which would mean we want the President to claim first, right?

I would disagree; as a fascist president I would want to nominate a liberal chancellor. If a fascist law is passed both parts of the government will be held responsible. The only possibility where FP + FC is better (from a fascist perspective) is if you draw 2L1F and can discard 2 liberal laws.

But you are right - I think - that it is more likely that Hitler accidentally nominates a fascist chancellor than that a fascist president nominates Hitler. So I would agree that president should claim his cards first.

[Kirian]

Also, I am getting much better at spelling fascist, few post earlier I had like 2/10 accuracy, I am at least at 6/10 now

Be glad you're not trying to spell "fuchsia."

Google "fuschia" and you'll find multiple companies that use the misspelled version in their legal name.

[Hydrad]

this all sounds good to me!

[Archetype]

Alright. I'll do it.

Nominate: ghostofmars

[faust]

I would like Tables to announce his nominee though.

[Tables]

I would like Tables to announce his nominee though.

I don't have one just yet. Nobody has really stood out to me as especially liberal, and the votes here could make a big impact on who I want to nominate (those of you who know how I play resistance/mafia like games know I tend to put more stock into solid information like votes and results than I do into reads). I do have one somewhat pro-liberal reads; ADK, whose recent posts especially seem quite pro-liberal to me.

[A Drowned Kernel]

I would like Tables to announce his nominee though.

I don't have one just yet. Nobody has really stood out to me as especially liberal, and the votes here could make a big impact on who I want to nominate (those of you who know how I play resistance/mafia like games know I tend to put more stock into solid information like votes and results than I do into reads). I do have one somewhat pro-liberal reads; ADK, whose recent posts especially seem quite pro-liberal to me.

Why?

[Kirian]

Still waiting on votes from ADK, EgorK, Grujah.

[Tables]

I would like Tables to announce his nominee though.

I don't have one just yet. Nobody has really stood out to me as especially liberal, and the votes here could make a big impact on who I want to nominate (those of you who know how I play resistance/mafia like games know I tend to put more stock into solid information like votes and results than I do into reads). I do have one somewhat pro-liberal reads; ADK, whose recent posts especially seem quite pro-liberal to me.

Why?

Asking things like that when someone has a good read on you has just cemented that read a little more. But mainly it comes down to:

1)

I voted yes because uh. I dunno we don't have any info yet and I figured that would give us some info.

Based on this post I would be more likely to vote for a team with hydrad on it

This observation seemed good to me, that Hydrad's argument seems to be pushing for more information. I'm still unsold on Hydrad, but taking the initiative and stating you had a good read on him from this, itself gave me a good read.

Also... uh, nevermind, I think it probably was just that one post that stood out to me. The last post before this was, sure, pro-liberal, but it's also something I think anyone would have said. That last one is something you could have easily kept quiet about if you wanted to, and that gave me a good read.

[faust]

I voted yes because uh. I dunno we don't have any info yet and I figured that would give us some info.

Based on this post I would be more likely to vote for a team with hydrad on it

This observation seemed good to me, that Hydrad's argument seems to be pushing for more information. I'm still unsold on Hydrad, but taking the initiative and stating you had a good read on him from this, itself gave me a good read.

Also... uh, nevermind, I think it probably was just that one post that stood out to me. The last post before this was, sure, pro-liberal, but it's also something I think anyone would have said. That last one is something you could have easily kept quiet about if you wanted to, and that gave me a good read.

Meh. The above post is classic Hydrad, and ADK, having played Mafia with Hydrad before, should know that. It does not say anything about Hydrad's alignment.

Thinking people are on your side because they agree with you is a trap.

[faust]

So. I don't trust Tables. I don't feel great about ADK. Egor, ADK, Grujah - I encourage you to support this government.

[faust]

Is there a way to get the activity level up? Have all people voted? What do you think of my read on Tables/ADK? Talk, talk, talk guys. Talk is how you win a deduction game.

[A Drowned Kernel]

I voted. I don't have terribly strong reads on anyone at the moment. If there's anyone I don't trust right now, it's probably Tables.

[gkrieg13]

I don't know what all your reads are based on Faust. I think we need something to actually happen before we can all give reads about who is good and who is bad

[faust]

I don't know what all your reads are based on Faust. I think we need something to actually happen before we can all give reads about who is good and who is bad

I don't buy this like at all. You play forum mafia. Do we just randomly lynch someone on D1? No. We can have the same here. You are just lazy.

[Grujah]

Can you please replace signup order with play order in post #1, it is confusing the hell out of me. (plus I have to search for play order all the time).

[gkrieg13]

I don't know what all your reads are based on Faust. I think we need something to actually happen before we can all give reads about who is good and who is bad

I don't buy this like at all. You play forum mafia. Do we just randomly lynch someone on D1? No. We can have the same here. You are just lazy.

The big difference is we can look at voting patterns, and how people react to other people.  I think that is lessened here because you want to vote for townie people as opposed to the people that look bad.  I agree that you can get a feel for someone's alignment based on their interaction with others and what they say, but I don't think it can be as strong as your reads seem to be.