It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionSecret Hitler #1: Legend of the Cows(1420 posts)(1420 posts)
(1420 posts)
Pages:
1
10
20
26
27
28
29
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 20, 2018
Hey everyone, I'm cristi's replacement.

I am a bit busy over the next ten days or so with work and going away but I should have enough time to post and be involved as required as this doesn't seem to be as intense as Mafia.

I have been following the game but haven't had time to do a reread so apologies if my recollections aren't 100%.

Anyway I voted yes to this government. I don't quite trust scene, his arguments against ZFR seem a bit contrived. And if he is a fascist or Hitler I'd rather know sooner than later. When I was just observing I couldn't help but feel there is some trick in the supposed liberal power block and one or more is a fascist buying credibility.
That being said if it is the case they may well have handed us the victory by allowing so many liberal policies through so I could just be being paranoid.
Posted April 20, 2018
avatar
adaliabooks: ...
Yay! Welcome adalia and thanks for stepping in!
Posted April 20, 2018
avatar
ZFR: What I want everyone to realize though, is that if my government fails (and it looks like it will), the situation becomes either-or. We can't risk chaos. Therefore if you are voting NO for dedo, you are effectively voting YES for RWarehall. Don't go later saying "I didn't want to vote for RW's government, but it was either him or chaos so I had no choice." You had the choice when you voted no for dedo.

avatar
supplementscene: 1. ZFR said he would oppose himself being chancellor
2. ZFR said he wouldn't discuss who he's investigate in the event of a fascist card being drawn before it was in fact drawn

Both of these behaviours are highly suspicious.
avatar
ZFR: Regarding 1, I already gave my explanations on why I did it. But I find it ironic that you find it "highly suspicious" given the situation you are in now and have two words: pot, kettle.

Regarding 2, why would it be "highly suspicious" not to want to commit oneself before being given more information??
For example, a Presidents selects a Chancellor and is suspicious of player X. But after the voting, it turns out player Y voted suspiciously. Wouldn't it be better to having a discussion there and then on whom to investigate, instead of already being commited to X?
Besides, if I were really a fascist, wouldn't it be simply easy for me to just say "Yeah, I'm going to investingate Brasas if a fascist policy is passed". Would that declaration all of a sudden make me less suspicious? And would you then believe me if I say "Brasas is fascist" or "Brasas is liberal"? Or would anyone else believe me for that matter? After all, I was just part of the government that passed a fascist plicy.

So yeah, please explain on how refusing to commit to a person to investigate is "highly suspicious"?

Now I have responded in detail; I have always outlined my thought process and I have given detailed explanations on why I have made the decesions that I made.

So could you now do me the courtesy and explain the accusations you made against me? Because so far you have stated them at least twice already, without any details, and when asked for clarifications and explanations you just accused me of "not answering questions".
Refusing to discuss who you investigate out of hand multiple times is suspicious because it means you're refusing to be open and discuss. As a Liberal you should have wanted to have discussed who you would investigate but you flatout denied it.

You can reason away all you like but it should have been discussed. Yes you could have discussed it and lied anyway but the fact you have blocked all discussion is the action of someone hiding something.

Why would you investigate your Chancellor if you knew the Chancellor blocked Liberal policy when you know he's probably Fascist already from that little bit of info that he's actually blocked Liberal policy?

RE: The difference between me Chancelorship and yours, well you didn't have any idea the political leanings of the President unless ofcourse you were Fascist. I have a suspicion of your political leaning because of your actions and words in this thread.

RE: Who you accused, I'm not going through pages right now, it may have just been myself and Greek, but it was quite early on.
Posted April 20, 2018
I don't remember if I said it before but if a fascist policy passes, I would like brasas to be investigated because he is the most possible candidate I will vote for the next government
Posted April 20, 2018
@zeo if a fascist policy passes, when does the power get used? Does the president have to use it straight away or are they able to discuss in the thread before they use it?
Posted April 20, 2018
avatar
adaliabooks: @zeo if a fascist policy passes, when does the power get used? Does the president have to use it straight away or are they able to discuss in the thread before they use it?
From the rules

Before using a power, the
President is free to discuss the
issue with other players, but
ultimately the President gets to
decide how and when the power is
used. Gameplay cannot continue
until the President uses the power.
Presidential Powers are used only
once; they don’t stack or roll
over to future turns.
Posted April 20, 2018
avatar
adaliabooks: @zeo if a fascist policy passes, when does the power get used? Does the president have to use it straight away or are they able to discuss in the thread before they use it?
avatar
greeklover: From the rules

Before using a power, the
President is free to discuss the
issue with other players, but
ultimately the President gets to
decide how and when the power is
used. Gameplay cannot continue
until the President uses the power.
Presidential Powers are used only
once; they don’t stack or roll
over to future turns.
Thanks greek, I must have missed that bit.
Posted April 20, 2018
avatar
adaliabooks: @zeo if a fascist policy passes, when does the power get used? Does the president have to use it straight away or are they able to discuss in the thread before they use it?
As has been quoted by Greeklover, the power gets used whenever the president feels like it. The game is locked up until then, though. If I catch the president somehow stalling for a ridiculous amount of time (say, I dunno, a week or more just to figure out who to investigate), I'll force them to get on with it.
Post edited April 20, 2018 by zeogold
Posted April 20, 2018
avatar
ZFR: What I want everyone to realize though, is that if my government fails (and it looks like it will), the situation becomes either-or. We can't risk chaos. Therefore if you are voting NO for dedo, you are effectively voting YES for RWarehall. Don't go later saying "I didn't want to vote for RW's government, but it was either him or chaos so I had no choice." You had the choice when you voted no for dedo.

Regarding 1, I already gave my explanations on why I did it. But I find it ironic that you find it "highly suspicious" given the situation you are in now and have two words: pot, kettle.

Regarding 2, why would it be "highly suspicious" not to want to commit oneself before being given more information??
For example, a Presidents selects a Chancellor and is suspicious of player X. But after the voting, it turns out player Y voted suspiciously. Wouldn't it be better to having a discussion there and then on whom to investigate, instead of already being commited to X?
Besides, if I were really a fascist, wouldn't it be simply easy for me to just say "Yeah, I'm going to investingate Brasas if a fascist policy is passed". Would that declaration all of a sudden make me less suspicious? And would you then believe me if I say "Brasas is fascist" or "Brasas is liberal"? Or would anyone else believe me for that matter? After all, I was just part of the government that passed a fascist plicy.

So yeah, please explain on how refusing to commit to a person to investigate is "highly suspicious"?

Now I have responded in detail; I have always outlined my thought process and I have given detailed explanations on why I have made the decesions that I made.

So could you now do me the courtesy and explain the accusations you made against me? Because so far you have stated them at least twice already, without any details, and when asked for clarifications and explanations you just accused me of "not answering questions".
avatar
supplementscene: Refusing to discuss who you investigate out of hand multiple times is suspicious because it means you're refusing to be open and discuss. As a Liberal you should have wanted to have discussed who you would investigate but you flatout denied it.

You can reason away all you like but it should have been discussed. Yes you could have discussed it and lied anyway but the fact you have blocked all discussion is the action of someone hiding something.
You either didnt read my post or are obtuse on purpose. I never "flatout denied" the need to discuss; quite the opposite I clearly wrote that discussion is necessary and if it comes to it I wont make my pick my name without giving a full discussion first. Post#319.

By the way, none of the presidents, except you, selected their candidate for investigation. Why pick on me?

PS.
I never accused anyone of being fascist. You make an accusation against me, you back it up with facts. Don't use the number of pages as an excuse. Somehow you did go through them to to find that one time I used the word "genuinly" which cleeeeearly meant I was lying.

PPS welcome adaliabooks.
Posted April 20, 2018
avatar
supplementscene: Why would you investigate your Chancellor if you knew the Chancellor blocked Liberal policy when you know he's probably Fascist already from that little bit of info that he's actually blocked Liberal policy?
Whaaat? Where did I write that the president would investigate the chancellor? Why should he? Except in the event when 3 fascist cards were drawn the president would know the chancellor's alignment anyway.

Do you even read my posts?
Posted April 20, 2018
Does Bookwyrm like Zeo see who's drawn which roles? And if so does that mean adaliabrooks must be Fascist otherwise someone who knows the roles wouldn't be allowed to be Liberal/Hitler? If not disregard this and this may stray into cheating anyway.

This is the post I had a problem with @ZFR and yes I haven't remembered it perfectly. I'm actually quite interested to see how our government does go if we are elected together.

avatar
supplementscene: We also need to demand Presidents declare who they will investigate before they are elected and why they will investigate that person. ZFR needs to answer this.
avatar
ZFR: errrrr.. No.
For one thing, the president might want to inverstigate the chancellor based on how the policy went. For another he might want to to make his selection based on how voting went. I see no reason why the president should be forced to commit himself to a name before it comes to actually making this decision.

Your "ZFR needs to answer this." kind of gives me the impression you're trying to pick a fight. If I answer "scene" you could be "See!!! He was prejudiced against me".

I promise that, if it actually does come to it, I will not officially pick a name to investigate before having a complete discussion and be completely transparent about my choice.
So yes you did state you may investigate the chancellor based on how the policy went I was correct on that

You did say 'I see no reason should be forced to commit himself to a name before it comes to'

The problem is you then didn't discuss who you'd investigate either. You've completely shied away from that discussion.

avatar
adaliabooks: @zeo if a fascist policy passes, when does the power get used? Does the president have to use it straight away or are they able to discuss in the thread before they use it?
avatar
greeklover: From the rules

Before using a power, the
President is free to discuss the
issue with other players, but
ultimately the President gets to
decide how and when the power is
used. Gameplay cannot continue
until the President uses the power.
Presidential Powers are used only
once; they don’t stack or roll
over to future turns.
Ahh ok I was under the impression that because we couldn't post in the thread during a policy being passed that we also couldn't post when the policy was being enacted.

This maybe absolves ZFR a little although I still don't see why he wasn't discussing choices up until now. He's willing to be open about policy so we'll see.
Posted April 20, 2018
Voting.

avatar
kusumahendra: This is even more interesting. Like really really interesting. Calling me ZFR buddy XD
Interesting because I guessed right?

avatar
ZFR: Whaaat? Where did I write that the president would investigate the chancellor? ...
I think I know what he is refering to. I'll try to find it...
Posted April 20, 2018
Right, OK.

Everybody hold your votes! STOP!

We are doing nothing further until we discuss the ultra important topic of whom should I investigate. It doesnt matter that none of the other presidents did it; I have to. Because until that's settled apparently Im Hitler.
Posted April 20, 2018
Sounds like everyone has voted and we're waiting on Zeo to announce the results

avatar
ZFR: Right, OK.

Everybody hold your votes! STOP!

We are doing nothing further until we discuss the ultra important topic of whom should I investigate. It doesnt matter that none of the other presidents did it; I have to. Because until that's settled apparently Im Hitler.
Deflective sarcasm aside:

1. It wasn't requested of anyone else. It is actually an important discussion for liberals to have and perhaps players who've only played the game for the first time are only learning how to play as we go.
2. I stated who I'd investigate, yourself
3. The Greek has stated who he'd be interested in investigating, twice I believe. Both yourself and Brasas
Posted April 20, 2018
avatar
ZFR: ...
Relax mate, you've seemed more and more stressed and I hope it's fascist posturing.
What I understood of the recent rule lawyering is that you can discuss whom to investigate after the policy passes, before you investigate.

Anyway, I got ninja'd by Scene on the stuff I remembered, and I want to push you on that since we're moving ahead again. I was not able to think it through back then, but I did find it odd. What kind of scenario did you imagine where a Liberal president would want to investigate their chancellor after a policy passed because of the result of the policy?

PS: I don't think you're Hitler. I think you're just vanilla fascist. :P

avatar
supplementscene: If not disregard this and this may stray into cheating anyway.
I'm not sure what you're inferring or deducing nor from what. But yes, the way you're approaching such thinking looks like a sort of cryptoclaiming and against the rules. Better drop it.
Pages:
1
10
20
26
27
28
29
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionSecret Hitler #1: Legend of the Cows(1420 posts)(1420 posts)
(1420 posts)