Octopus Overlords

stessier wrote:

Remus West wrote:

Vorret wrote:You know I'm somewhat surprised people sort of believed me, they shot both Remus and El Guapo all based on my initial scan and RMC's scan. Especially since I kept enacting F policies.

In a way, we got very lucky that I was actually a Liberal.

Yeah, that was a bit frustrating as all of the odds suggested you were lying as did the outcomes of your actions. In fact, I have a PM from someone who shall remain nameless but whose name rhymes with Tarazhud ( ) saying he believed me and that I got robbed.

Really spent most of the game wishing that El Guapo had not passed that second F policy as we needed dissenting scan "results" to make things less clear. His F policy choice made it he and I against V and R rather than the big mess that may have occurred had someone else "scanned" vorret and claimed him Fascist. If that happens then RMC doesn't know where to stand given that he was passed FF. Or, if someone else "scans" vorret and claims to have found him Liberal - that someone else being a Fascist.

Both games both scans were conducted by Liberals. I think folks underestimated the power of those scans and claims based off of them.

Yeah, totally.

It also stinks to be at the end of the list. There's really not much chance of getting to play. The game would be a lot different if Fascists were 2 or 3 of the first 4 slots.

Remus West wrote:

stessier wrote:I'm guessing the Fascists were Remus, El Guapo, Chaos and Hitler?

Yeah, we were your team

Grundbegriff wrote:

Remus West wrote:

stessier wrote:I'm guessing the Fascists were Remus, El Guapo, Chaos and Hitler?

Yeah, we were your team

Ah-- so
F {Chaos, Remus, El Guapo}
H {stessier}
?

El Guapo wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote:

Remus West wrote:

stessier wrote:I'm guessing the Fascists were Remus, El Guapo, Chaos and Hitler?

Yeah, we were your team

Ah-- so
F {Chaos, Remus, El Guapo}
H {stessier}
?

Yup.

And damn you for pointing out that Remus was the totally logical first scan choice. I was like "ok, there's no reason to pick anyone in particular as the scan target here, so what's a rational objective scan choice. Obviously it would be the next president in order, so who's that... DAMMIT!" I was like, "nobody point that out, nobody point that out...DAMMIT!"

Grundbegriff wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote:If forced to do a complete assignment, I'd lay it out this way:

1. Moliere
2. El Guapo
3. Chaosraven (or Hitler?)
4. stessier
5. Grundbegriff
6. Vorret
7. Remus West
8. Holman (or Hitler?)
9. RMC
10. Scoop20906

Subject to change, a lot, if contrary info comes in.

Revised:

1. Moliere
2. El Guapo
3. Chaosraven (Hitler?)
4. stessier
5. Grundbegriff
6. Vorret
7. Remus West
8. Holman (Hitler?)
9. RMC
10. Scoop20906

At this point, I'm thinking: Remus West, El Guapo, Chaosraven, and... Holman?

I have to suppose, with the way things have played out, that RMC really is a Liberal. I do not believe that Chaosraven really drew FFF when I was his chancellor, since the odds of FFF followed by FFF are intolerably slim.

Scoop has been playing like a Liberal. Moliere, despite his contrary nature, seems Liberal to me. stessier still seems sneaky, but that could just be Liberal paranoia. He'd be my guess for fourth if Holman's wrong.

Moliere wrote:How is RW always evil and Grundbegriff always good? It defies the odds.

Grundbegriff wrote:

bb2112 wrote:...

I'm sorely tempted to shoot Chaosraven, since if he's evil he exploited me. However, I believe the deck contained FFF FFF FFF LLL after the reshuffle, and it's possible, if unlikely, that he really did draw FFF (which would leave the current talon at FFFLLL rather than FFFFLL). So there's a risk of being wrong. How much does it weigh?

Objectively, the only claim to certain knowledge of Fascist alignment is Vorret's claim to have scanned Remus West. So it follows that if I buy into Vorret as Liberal, I should shoot Remus. There's a risk that Vorret's evil; how much does it weigh?

El Guapo's a candidate, but there's fog. El Guapo claims RMC gave him FF, while RMC claims he gave El Guapo FL. RMC claims that Vorret is a Liberal. But nothing here is a hook:

• GOOD VORRET: If RMC is evil and El Guapo's good, RMC could still confirm a Liberal Vorret
• GOOD VORRET: If RMC is good and El Guapo's evil, RMC would certainly confirm a Liberal Vorret.
• EVIL VORRET: Evil RMC would confirm him as Liberal.
• EVIL VORRET: Good RMC would expose Vorret. This is the only useful scenario, but it didn't occur.

If I trusted El Guapo, I might shoot RMC; and if I trusted RMC, I might shoot El Guapo. But I trust neither.

In truth, I also don't trust Vorret, and I'm having doubts about my aunt.

Another way to approach the issue is to consider what I can sell while still persuading a majority to trust me (so that I'm put in a position to enact Ls). I think I can sell shooting Remus, since a plausibly Liberal scanner claims to have outed him. So from that vantage, shooting Remus is the safe thing to do. But honestly, my fellow Liberals who are leery of me will probably be unwilling to trust me no matter what, given that I'm now involved in enacting a second F.

I may ask the masses, though they don't seem to line up and nominate/vote on demand in straw polls.

Grundbegriff wrote:I may ask the masses, though they don't seem to line up and nominate/vote on demand in straw polls.

stessier wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote:I may ask the masses, though they don't seem to line up and nominate/vote on demand in straw polls.

I never saw the point of that as either Liberal or Fascist. I always feel like I am being played and such a poll doesn't benefit me at all.

Grundbegriff wrote:

stessier wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote:I may ask the masses, though they don't seem to line up and nominate/vote on demand in straw polls.

I never saw the point of that as either Liberal or Fascist. I always feel like I am being played and such a poll doesn't benefit me at all.

Ah, but it generates the apperance of open-mindedness and preempts later whining/accusations.

stessier wrote: The exact reasons I see no reason to participate.

stessier wrote: So for my team - why didn't you all vote for me for President? It would have been nice to get to play and mess with Vorret.

bb2112 wrote:

stessier wrote: So for my team - why didn't you all vote for me for President? It would have been nice to get to play and mess with Vorret.

This really bothered me. If your team would have voted you in, you would have had the shot. The deck draw at this time was FFF. Both El Guapo and RW voted NO. If they would have both voted YES then you could have shot a liberal. At that time you were suspecting El G, RW, and Moliere as your team. I don't think anyone would have given you too much of a problem if you shot RMC or Vorret. It might have swung the momentum.

Another thing I don't really understand, if a President claims they got FFF, everyone just shrugs their shoulders. CR was the closest to being suspected, but it happened to Grund, Vorret, and Scoop.

Remus West wrote:I voted No because pretty much everyone was saying they suspected me as Fascist. I wanted no part of electing stessier into any office in hopes he would get the important office shot.

Remus West wrote:I voted No because pretty much everyone was saying they suspected me as Fascist. I wanted no part of electing stessier into any office in hopes he would get the important office shot.

Remus West wrote:I voted No because pretty much everyone was saying they suspected me as Fascist. I wanted no part of electing stessier into any office in hopes he would get the important office shot.

Vorret wrote:

Remus West wrote:I voted No because pretty much everyone was saying they suspected me as Fascist. I wanted no part of electing stessier into any office in hopes he would get the important office shot.

But... let's say he's elected, I'm chancy... he sends FF , I enact F, he says he sent FL, boom ,you're in the clear.

bb2112 wrote:Out of the 10 policies passed:

President:
Liberal 9
Fascist 1

Chancellor:
Liberal 9
Fascist 1

Only 2 Fascists were ever elected to a position the whole game.

How does one do a table again in OO again? I will post my tracking sheet.

bb2112 wrote:How does one do a table again in OO again? I will post my tracking sheet.

Vorret wrote:

Remus West wrote:I voted No because pretty much everyone was saying they suspected me as Fascist. I wanted no part of electing stessier into any office in hopes he would get the important office shot.

But... let's say he's elected, I'm chancy... he sends FF , I enact F, he says he sent FL, boom ,you're in the clear.

Remus West wrote:

Vorret wrote:

Remus West wrote:I voted No because pretty much everyone was saying they suspected me as Fascist. I wanted no part of electing stessier into any office in hopes he would get the important office shot.

But... let's say he's elected, I'm chancy... he sends FF , I enact F, he says he sent FL, boom ,you're in the clear.

Ah, I also forgot that he put you in as Chancellor. No way I could vote for you in any role and maintain the claim that you were lying about me. I HAD to vote No on any ticket you were part of.

Isgrimnur wrote:

bb2112 wrote:How does one do a table again in OO again? I will post my tracking sheet.

[ /tcell]

[ /tcell] [ /trow] [ /table] Make sure you end up with the table on one looooong line, or you'll end up with a lot of shitespace below it.

bb2112 wrote:

Vorret wrote:

Remus West wrote:I voted No because pretty much everyone was saying they suspected me as Fascist. I wanted no part of electing stessier into any office in hopes he would get the important office shot.

But... let's say he's elected, I'm chancy... he sends FF , I enact F, he says he sent FL, boom ,you're in the clear.

Exactly. Then it also makes RMC look a little worse.

Zarathud wrote:For being Liberal, RMC was acting damn suspicious particularly when he seemed to have a voting block before the scan -- and then there was the stampede to nail Remus. I suspected a phony initial accusation to clear a Fascist voting block that kept passing Fascist policies "because there was no choice."

Remus West wrote:

Vorret wrote:

Remus West wrote:I voted No because pretty much everyone was saying they suspected me as Fascist. I wanted no part of electing stessier into any office in hopes he would get the important office shot.

But... let's say he's elected, I'm chancy... he sends FF , I enact F, he says he sent FL, boom ,you're in the clear.

Ah, I also forgot that he put you in as Chancellor. No way I could vote for you in any role and maintain the claim that you were lying about me. I HAD to vote No on any ticket you were part of.

bb2112 wrote: Underlined the Fascists. Other than taking a couple bullets, they didn't get to play at all. And they were still 1 policy away from winning due to the deck being so stacked in the Fascist's favor.

Holman wrote:bb2112, thanks for hosting! I really enjoyed the game.

bb2112 wrote: Underlined the Fascists. Other than taking a couple bullets, they didn't get to play at all. And they were still 1 policy away from winning due to the deck being so stacked in the Fascist's favor.

So we almost lost without the Fascists even trying?

Holman wrote:bb2112, thanks for hosting! I really enjoyed the game.

bb2112 wrote:

Holman wrote:bb2112, thanks for hosting! I really enjoyed the game.

bb2112 wrote: Underlined the Fascists. Other than taking a couple bullets, they didn't get to play at all. And they were still 1 policy away from winning due to the deck being so stacked in the Fascist's favor.

So we almost lost without the Fascists even trying?

Actually no. As Grund pointed out you had the Veto power. So even if you got deck screwed again, you had a very good chance of passing a L policy on the next go around. You were going to win the game because your team essentially figured out who to trust and who not to trust very early on and never let the Fascists really get in the game. The last two draws the L's clumped together so you had a lot of F's coming at the same time. In order for the Fascists to win, they have to get elected. That didn't really happen in either game.

Chaosraven wrote:

bb2112 wrote:

Holman wrote:bb2112, thanks for hosting! I really enjoyed the game.

bb2112 wrote: Underlined the Fascists. Other than taking a couple bullets, they didn't get to play at all. And they were still 1 policy away from winning due to the deck being so stacked in the Fascist's favor.

So we almost lost without the Fascists even trying?

Actually no. As Grund pointed out you had the Veto power. So even if you got deck screwed again, you had a very good chance of passing a L policy on the next go around. You were going to win the game because your team essentially figured out who to trust and who not to trust very early on and never let the Fascists really get in the game. The last two draws the L's clumped together so you had a lot of F's coming at the same time. In order for the Fascists to win, they have to get elected. That didn't really happen in either game.

Actually a F or Hitler President could have cancelled the veto, right?

Chaosraven wrote:

bb2112 wrote:

Holman wrote:bb2112, thanks for hosting! I really enjoyed the game.

bb2112 wrote: Underlined the Fascists. Other than taking a couple bullets, they didn't get to play at all. And they were still 1 policy away from winning due to the deck being so stacked in the Fascist's favor.

So we almost lost without the Fascists even trying?

Actually no. As Grund pointed out you had the Veto power. So even if you got deck screwed again, you had a very good chance of passing a L policy on the next go around. You were going to win the game because your team essentially figured out who to trust and who not to trust very early on and never let the Fascists really get in the game. The last two draws the L's clumped together so you had a lot of F's coming at the same time. In order for the Fascists to win, they have to get elected. That didn't really happen in either game.

Actually a F or Hitler President could have cancelled the veto, right?