I was just waiting for you to speak up.
I got two radical and a progressive policy and discarded the radical.
Good work there @Wonderlander. It’s reassuring to know that I can trust you.
Okay. Assuming everyone is telling the truth, and I think at least @Wonderlander has to, then there are 3 progressive policies and 8 radical left?
@PocketyHat. Do you want to continue down the list as we were? I’m not certain we can afford to have the next chancellor as a radical.
I honestly don’t see why not, and if something comes up this time around, please do not trust either me or Aspi on this, since we have at least 4 people to trust, in case they’re telling the truth that is. And it would be somewhat possible to check if some of them is radical by voting them.
"And besides!! We don’t have information on all the inhabitants yet! It would be useful for all of the villagers to have the grasp on the responsibility of being in a government!"
That, or I’m being simple minded. But again, if a radical policy comes into play right now, do not trust this government. I won’t try to oppose, I swear on myself.
"Yeah! And I never break a promise!"
Shut up me.
Now that that’s settled,
I nominate @Aspirety as Chancellor.
1 Like
Voting Phase
@thesorceress @Necem @PocketyHat @Pepe @pictoshark @EisenKoubu @Seraphitic @Aspirety @Wonderlander @cjlim2007
Since our presidential candidates has chosen a chancellor, it’s time for everyone to vote.
President: PocketyHat
Chancellor: Aspirety
Do you trust these two to represent you and the entire village of Hinamizawa and enact a policy on your behalf? You have 24 hours to get your votes in.
1 Like
Damn dude, that was quick-
Well my Firefox started blinking =P
1 Like
Of course you don’t want to assume too quickly that the first 4 are automatically progressive. It’s ridiculously risky for a radical to enact a radical policy this early in the game. But anyways, assuming that the first four are telling the truth we now have 3 progressive policies, 8 radical, and 11 total. Here is the current calculation. Whether or not this actually helps is up to you.
- RRR 0.34
- RRP 0.51
- RPP 0.145
- PPP 0.006
I did some rounding which is why it doesn’t add up to exactly 1
1 Like
Honestly, I think I’ll vote no, just because I feel that @PocketyHat is acting too spontaneously, and I’d hate to trust such an off the wall person with such an important position of power.
But he’s abiding by the rule we set out in the beginning. There is nothing really to talk about if everything is going as expected right? Last round there was nothing to talk about really so what would’ve changed?
I agree that was very rushed. It would be pretty upsetting if this was indicative of Pockety’s alignment. Fascists (and everyone really), take note: don’t rush into a nomination like this lest you risk garnering suspicion from everyone. The best way to go about it is to ask if anyone has any objections first. I hope this was just an honest mistake, since she is still following the rules we set out.
That said, the game must go on, and I know I can trust myself, so I think I’ll be voting yes. In the worst case scenario I should be able to ascertain Pockety’s alignment. In the best case, we gain a progressive policy.
1 Like
As long as nothing goes wrong, there isn’t much for us to do. Why should we wait a day or two? Fast forward the game until we have a basis to discuss.
But at this point I find it more suspicious that someone says the nomination was ‘rushed’ and votes no because of that. Sounds like a bad excuse to vote no because the nominated person isn’t to their liking.
I’m still voting yes because we still have no proper lead on who the radicals are. We can’t necessarily discount that the last two governments had radicals within them, but I’ve come to terms with the fact that we actually need a radical policy played if we want more telling evidence. A radical will be either president or chancellor eventually and at least two radical policies will eventually be played, so we should start our investigation from that point.
Ok, having been a passive observer until now I feel like I should speak up.
First of all, I’d like to point out that the fact that we currently have two governments giving us progressive policies means nothing. At this stage it costs radicals little to let a progressive policy or two slip by. You all know this of course. The best course of action for a radical would be to try and get as many progressive policies discarded as possible so that a radical policy has to be forced in later by another government, preferably by a progressive one so as to cast suspicion on them.
To that effect I would like to try and give some possible alternatives to what we have been told.
It is much easier for a president to lie than a chancellor to lie since we have no way of knowing what policy they discarded. At least for the chancellor we have the president to check him even if we might suspect the president of lying instead. In the event that two radical policies were not discarded we would have to alter our odds a little. conditions that I’m giving now are based on the assumption that the chancellor is telling the truth and the president has lied about which policy they discarded:
Two Radical policies discarded (i.e. what we have been told)
Discard pile: 3 Radical policies; 1 Progressive policy
Current deck: 8 Radical policies; 3 Progressive policies
One Radical policy discarded (i.e. one of the presidents lied)
Discard pile: 2 Radical policies; 2 Progressive policies
Current deck: 9 Radical policies; 2 Progressive policies
No Radical policies discarded (i.e. both of the presidents lied)
Discard pile: 1 Radical policy; 3 Progressive policies
Current deck: 10 Radical policies; 1 Progressive policy
Now, it is entirely possible for the chancellor to have lied in conjunction with the president. This seems slightly less likely but might be worth looking at. I’m not going to go through all the permutations since I feel like doing that would make things unnecessarily long. Suffice it to say that I shall choose to trust the chancellors for now until we have a little more evidence. However, everybody bear in mind that enacting progressive policies is in the radical’s best interests right now. Doing so removes them from play entirely.
This has been an extremely obvious announcement from your favorite over-analyst.
2 Likes
The vote has concluded! Here are the results:
- @thesorceress voted NO
- @Necem voted YES
- @PocketyHat voted YES
- @Pepe voted YES
- @pictoshark voted NO
- @EisenKoubu voted YES
- @Seraphitic voted YES
- @Aspirety voted YES
- @Wonderlander voted YES
- @cjlim2007 voted YES
Not unanimous this time, but still 8 votes for YES and only 2 for NO. The vote goes through.
Government Phase
Our new government has once again the obligation of leading Hinamizawa. Let us pray that their choice is in the best interest of the entire village.
PocketyHat and Aspirety, you two may not post in this topic until the government phase has concluded.
1 Like
I mean I was just being a little brat, but why did @thesorceress vote no? I don’t get it? I mean it’s nice for people to see where I’m coming from, but if I learned anything from last game, it’s that I’m critically bad at persuading people.
Could you give your logic @thesorceress ?
1 Like
It’s pretty simple. @PocketyHat pretty much straight out states that they were prioritizing information gathering over getting a progressive vote. I find that attitude suspicious and would rather a different president.
I didn’t really think it would affect anything though and it didn’t. But on the off chance that it would I voted that way.
Well, if that’s your reasoning, then we may have a problem.
I think I’ll be confident enough to use the red:
The Progressives absolutely require information to win against a team of competant Radicals and the Radicals need to restrict it’s flow in order to win against a team of competent Progressives.
In addition The first two or so progressive policies and I’d say the first radical policy don’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.
I don’t need to fill in the blanks do I?
@thesorceress is either new to this game, or a radical. If they had a different reason for voting no then my assertions could be wrong. But then they’d have to tell us why they lied…
1 Like
If anyone disagrees with my red then feel free. But that IS how the game should be played. It’s as simple as that.
There are ways of gaining information without passing radical policies though. And gathering information from the passing of these policies can only be done by the president and, if we do not trust the president, we can’t take the information that receive at face value either. They can lie to us about what they find out can’t they?
Am I misunderstanding something? I am, actually, new to this game, but I don’t think this is unreasonable. It’s important to attempt to pass as many progressive policies as possible right?
After a lot of poking and prodding by the lord of this domain, I will retract the redness of my previous words. But, I will say this in the red, while my previous red is allegedly not an absolute truth according to some people, I believe it to be so.