Yes I do, but it's my first time playing this so I'm mostly flowing along.

The big difference I already see is the Hitler as chancellor dynamics, I did no calculations but from reading what others posted it would seem 3 Fascist policies will happen very likely, and then government formation will be fraught with risk. So although I didn't spell it out replying to Dedo, if/when 3 F are passed already, I'm fairly sure my voting pattern will change.

Also, the dynamic in Resistance where you sometimes vote Yes to get two baddies on the team (trolling them so to speak) so they trip themselves up does not apply here at all.


Yeah, in Resistance I mostly do. Although I expected the meta here would be very different, so I did consider voting Yes. Then I thought I'd just rely on my more familiar mental grooves regardless of it sticking out. Hence why I even decided to announce it.

So far I'm getting a good vibe from ZFR mostly because most of the stuff he talks about are in line with my own reading of the game. I wouldn't mind vote for him although it's intriguing that he wouldn't, so I'm also curious about the thought process behind that and by extension - the follow-up to this:

Not impossible, but very unlikely. Since he and Greek agree on what policies were handed to Scene. So if he got 2L that would mean that both lied and that would only make sense if both were Fascist - and a Fascist president handing 2L to his Fascist Chancellor would only make sense if he drew 3L.

By the way, that's a side note that should be obvious: Liberals shouldn't lie! Like in usual Mafia, catching people at lying is one of the most important ways to flush out Fascists. So if you are a Liberal and lie, you muddy the waters and oftend end up helping the Fascists.


@cristigale: yes, I Fascists sometimes DO enact Fascist policies in the first round. Especially if the President is a Fascist, who will then pretend that he drew 3F. Especially in such a large setting it has the added benefit that the president can investigat another player when placing the first F policy. A fascist president can use that in multiple ways. (throwing dirt at another player, clearing a Fascist, or buddying up to a Liberal player). Of course there are also more cautious players who wouldn't enact a fascist policy in the first round, even if they are Fascists. It all depends on the player.

Actually that wouldn't be a bad play for a Fascist president to start Round 1. Make Hitler the Chancellor, so that Hitler can establish himself as liberal guy who already enacted a liberal policy.

My NO got officially passed to zeo. A bit on the fence though.
Im on mobile now. So in short:
Cons:
I get more info by observing others in government.
I could be set up for a trap and blamed for it. I have no reads on kusu but maybe if hes fascist im the perfect scapegoat.

Pros: if scene and kusu are legit then we get a secind liberal vote and term limit on kusu ends so he can select greek and we get either a third liberal vote and confirmation that scene and greek are legit or exposing greek as fascist.
Make of that what you will.

Slightly Suspicious of scene. Details at home on pc. Voted No.

OK. I'm unsure about this. ZFR's NO might be a LAMISL and/or it might be a precaution in case he does get elected in spite of his NO, so that he can pass a fascist policiy in case he is handed 1F and 1L while saying: "I told you this would happen, Kusus gave me 2F and is now using me as a scape-goat"

Or his motivation of not wanting to rule and wanting to be more useful as an observer is genuinely liberal.

In the fist case it would be good not to rule him, in the second case I'm fine with letting him do what he wants to. So: NO in either case.

What is LAMISL? I have been googling it but found nothing relevant.

Voted no because I don't trust someone who nominated Bishop Bling. Amd he did it really fast without waiting for our opinions. I think from now on, liberals should discuss who we want to be a candidate for chancellor. I didn't do it in the first round because we had no info and most members of the council had said that they would vote yes anyway. But now things are different. If you nominate a chancellor without getting a few yes before, you deprive us of info.

Fellow liberals, is Bishop Bling's strategy legit? I don't really like it. There are 10 members so it seems difficult to discover all fascists and especially Hitler before 3 fascist policies pass. So shouldn't out main strategy be to discover enough liberals to cycle the chancellor between us? If Bishop Bling is liberal he doesn't know whether Boss Kusu is liberal, so if he is, we lose an excellent chance to pass a second liberal policy. We are at 0 fascist policies so passing liberal policies even without gaining info seems like a free play. And why would he be afraid of a setup? If he passes a fascist policy or if there is a conflict, we remove both players out of the candidates and we are still good. And if a government was elected, I would be eligible for chancellor again, which would be good with Mr Scene the next president and if Mr Scene did not nominate me, he would immediately become suspicious. Btw Mr Scene not knowing a basic rule could be a big bluff because the automatic 100% sure conclusion from his claim is that he is liberal, I don't like this type of "mistakes"

I'm not too familiar with how these government things work, yes. I choose my candidate based on the thought they provides in discussion.

At first my plan is to choose either Basil the Lifter (Lifthrasil) or Bishop (ZFR) since both provides good advice on how to win this. But there are things about Basil that makes me choose Bishop instead.

Those who witness my banter with with Basil would see that he either is suspicious at me for being a Fascist because I call myself Boss, or he is a Fascist and try to drive people suspicion to me. If I nominate him and 2nd scenario takes place and a Fascist policy is passed then I'll be in a very bad spot.

So I choose to nominate Bishop (ZFR) instead, because he provides what to me looks like a good explanation / strategy / overview of the situation right now

Nope. You misunderstood something there. That was pure fluff-banter based on the characters the mods gave us. I thought that was clear, since basing suspicion on a title that the player didn't even have control over would be quite stupid. Just like I don't think that Cristy is an imperialist just because she is called 'Count' or just like you shouldn't expect me to come from Australia just because my character does.

@greeklover: LAMISL is 'Look At Me, I'm So Liberal'. A variation of the common Mafia term 'LAMIST', which wouldn't fit here because we don't have a Town faction.

So, who hasn't voted yet?

My opinion is that we try to ride the Greek/Scene trains as long as we can in passing liberal policies. My issue with the currently proposed government is as follows...

For the moment, I'm happy with the possibilities that Greek and Scene are both liberal. Until either of them are involved in a government passing a fascist policy, that is the assumption I'm going with.

If both Scene and Greek are liberals and since I know I'm one, that leaves 3 liberals and 4 fascists which makes the chance that both Kusu and ZFR are also liberals be 3/7 * 2/6 = 1/7 or 14.3%.

The odds are actually better than that as there is the distinct possibility one of them is actually Hitler which as far as I can tell is expected to play as a liberal. Chance that neither is Hitler = 6/7 * 5/6 = 5/7 or 71.4% (28.6% one of them is Hitler)

If we assume Hitler will play as a liberal regardless, that moves the odds to 4/7 * 3/6 = 2/7 or 28.6% chance we get a liberal policy out of the new government (assuming the cards allow it). Still not good odds. Thus, I have already submitted a "No" vote.

I voted yes, because this way we can somewhat test ZFRs alignment. It's clear that he knows the game and has played it before. He also has lots of Mafia experience. And if he is liberal (which I hope) he'll pick a liberal policy if offered. If he picks a fascist one then either he or the president might be fascists. I hope my reasoning is ok so far.

I have neither played Resistance nor Secret Hitler before, but personally, I think the better strategy is to maximize the chances to pass a liberal policy over testing anyone for being a fascist. I would imagine that any fascist would gladly trade being outed in exchange for a fascist policy getting passed and getting one step closer to electing Hitler.

When I compare the chances of this government to the next...

Kusu/ZFR = 2 Unknowns
Scene/????? = Passed a liberal policy/Unknown

The proposed government after this one seems to stand a better chance of passing a liberal policy.

Asking what is LAMISL is LAMISL... ;)

Isn't the point of the early game to find out as much as possible about the other players?
I have to admit though that I'm not very sure about what I'm doing, nor whom I can trust. ZFR for example seemed very knowledgeable of the game, thus would be a big asset if proven liberal. Unfortunately he could also be Hitler and is just setting himself up for a later Chancellorship.