And for the record, gaining information this turn isn’t my priority. We already have data on Rabla.
Well, it isn’t your priority 
I still personally don’t think data on rabla is sufficient, especially with a partner as unreliable as Mr. Koubu
I’m saying that both Eisen and Rabla are the most suspicious right now. Letting Rabla choose the chancellor might as well be signing us off for an extremist policy.
1 Like
Well even if we do let him choose, there’s still the voting period where you can go against that. I frankly see no difference between him choosing and you having chosen a chancellor; because while the chances that you are a radical are less than his, that chance still remains.
It’s the difference between someone involved in a radical policy and someone not. You had no real reason to suspect me, so you decided to go with my decision.
And a vote in favour of the radicals would be heavily swayed by them. I’d feel much more comfortable if Rabla had no input on the nomination. And I’d like to think that I’ve gained some trust, so my nomination should hold weight over other peoples’.
But by all means, I’d like to hear @Necem, @Yerian and @DaBackpack’s nominations too.
Congrats, @Aspirety and @Necem. I’m glad nothing happened this round… >.>
I don’t have anybody to recommend as a chancellor, but I wish the best of luck to whomever does become chancellor. I feel Yerian and DaBackpack have graced us well in the initial round, but it’s ultimately Rabla’s choice, a choice that makes me feel less and less comfortable the more I think about it… ._.
well… the reason why I went with your decision (and all decisions thus far) is for the sake of information gathering. Like I said, at this point, I view you with the same suspicion as everyone else, (albeit rabla and eisen with more suspicion)
Not to me, you haven’t You could have gotten two progressive policies and discarded one, thus it being Necem who solely pushed for a progressive policy.
1 Like
Unfortunately, Lady Lambdadelta won’t grant you her blessing in this gameboard. Certainty will only get you so far. It’s much more productive to act based on likelihoods than certainties. And as far as likelihoods, I’m more likely to be progressive than Rabla.
I won’t blame you for retaining your suspicions, though. Caution is good. Just make sure you continue taking action toward your victory, and don’t sit around waiting for a certainty that won’t come.
So, I’m not saying to blindly trust my nomination, but I believe we should decide on someone either myself, Necem, Yerian or DaBackpack nominates, and nobody else. That is safest. The likelihood of a radical policy rises significantly with any other option.
This is great news that a progressive policy has yet again been enacted and now I know that I can at least trust either Necem or Aspirety.
As for this new election, I’m quite nervous, Rabla certainly is a suspicious one for now and even if he does well in this new government of his, I’m not sure if I’d trust him. My fellow council member, Pepe has suggested little old me as a chancellor nominee for this round apparently, but frankly, I’d feel uncomfortable working alongside Rabla seeing their performance last time. I fear I might be tricked in some way, like say, be given two radical policies and then Rabla lying that he handed me a radical and a progressive one and our information will end up being contradictory and I won’t be trusted and everything. I don’t mean to sound cowardly or anything, I just need a little more information on Rabla’s MO and whilst a good way of learning more about that is working with him, I’d rather not risk that for now. Or you can go ahead and doubt me cause of everything that I said, appearing scared and cowardly is supposed to be a bad guy’s trait, after all. 
As for suggesting somebody, I’d probably suggest @DaBackpack cause they are the most trustworthy player thus far in my opinion. Yerian is a little trustworthy too, but Da Backpack was the one who had the final say so that’s why I trust them a little more. I’d suggest Necem too, but I can’t this round since they were chancellor last round. As for anybody else… hmm, I’ll thank @Pepe for suggesting me by suggesting him, I suppose! 
2 Likes
Ooh nice job guys. Anyways, it seems not many people trust me? Oh well whatever. Hey @Yerian and @DaBackpack, can you guys tell me what you saw in the first government? I’m trying to figure out the current policy count
@cjlim2007 You’re still neutral for me. I don’t trust you any less than the others who haven’t adopted a policy yet.
And I take back what I said earlier. DaBackpack is probably a little more trustworthy than Yerian at this point, so I can agree that he’d be a good candidate.
1 Like
@cjlim2007 I agree with Aspirety, you still seem pretty neutral. You’re not particularly active, but you still have those ‘No’ votes and you are pretty opinionated. Maybe you have something to hide…
not particularly active
I swear I was around a bit less than aspi but oh well…
@cjlim2007 and @Yerian hold about the same level of trust for me, based on what I’ve seen so far. There’s a good chance either one are progressives, but there’s not enough evidence to prove it. I don’t know how many radicals exist in this game, but assuming there’s an even number distributed among the nine representatives sitting here, there’s a good chance that either one is a radical while the other is progressive, or both of them are radicals. I hate to believe in that possibility, but if I plan to help the progressives win like I promised earlier, it’s a possibility I must accept.
Btw we haven’t yet acknowledged the number of people per team. In the beginning Karifean said that there are one or two more people on the progressive side than the radical side so I think we can safely assume that there are 6 progressives and 4 radicals.
Another thing I’d like to point out is that sometimes you cannot fully trust people even if they pass a progressive policy. Drawing in my Avalon experiences again, if there are two bad guys in a group, they sometimes intentionally choose the good outcome so that they can be trusted. Later, they are chosen for different groups and then choose a bad outcome and blame it on the other people in that round. Basically in this game’s terms, it’s possible that dabackpack and yerian are both bad and just waiting to be put into other groups and enacting a radical policy. But hey that’s all just a theory, a game theory. Thanks for watching.
(I don’t actually think they are bad… Yet)
3 Likes
That is right. But think of it this way. If they’re wolves in sheeps clothing, it’s unlikely they’d push for progressive policies twice in a row. In fact, now would be the perfect time to turn on Rabla and blame him for the extremist policy.
However, if a progressive policy does pass, then we can conclude with almost certainty that they are progressive. That’s too big a boon to ignore.
I think the fact that you so willingly put yourself on that list makes you all the more suspicious in my book. Your facts are not wrong; those four people helped enact progressive policies. But you are being suspiciously pushy about it.
A good point! The same can be said for aspi and necem, of course
But at this point, all blame would be on rabla, I wager. The wolf in sheeps clothing would be able to escape fairly clean, all while pushing negative eyes on rabla
I think what’s most suspicious about you now @Aspirety is that when you were president, you were willing to nominate somebody we have no experience with yet, but now you are pushing for rabla to nominate a specific set of people… If your intent was simply to avoid a radical policy, then you wouldn’t be all too willing to test the waters during your turn. Similarly, if your intent is to ascertain whether rabla is entirely trustworthy then, as I told you, voting someone who has a higher likelihood of being progressive will not help much… Unless you can share your train of thought.
That said, at this point, I have no idea what exactly you’re pushing for. Maybe what @cjlim2007 says is true; that yerian and/or dabackpack are actually radical. But if you were a radical, aspi, then you’d know that. And it’d be very easy for you to try and convince these people into the government.
I guess I took advantage of people’s trust there, but it’s not like I abused it. I took a risk with Necem and it paid off for the progressives.
I may as well say it. If Yerian or EisenKoubu or Pepe or DaBackpack or cjlim2007 or Sapphire or Necem were president, I wouldn’t be so cautious. It’s because it’s Rabla that I believe letting them choose a chancellor is too risky. By all means, I want Rabla to prove me wrong, then I know he can be trusted.
Like I said, I don’t mind if Rabla doesn’t pick my nominee (who was it again?), as long as it’s someone nominated by one of the four safest options. Logic would dictate that is safest, and it lends the most trust to Rabla if it works out.
However, you seem awfully resistant to my assertions, and keen to pin suspicion on me. Could it perhaps be that you know I’m right, and want to ensure a Radical is chosen as chancellor? I can’t help but begin to think that way, with how resistant you are to my reasoning.
The same logic would dictate that that would have been the safest choice when you were president, but it didn’t seem as much of an issue to you back then. If your intent is to consistently avoid radical policies, that is the best logical thing to do for every president regardless of how suspicious we may see them.
And that is why I am resistant to your reasoning.