Player 2 (Rosa)

First round, no policies enacted yet, so no evidence of foul play. Boris nominated Lena for Chancellor, which is the first data point. Since this is the first round, this nomination alone isn't suspicious—it could be random or strategic, but we have no way to know yet. The table seems to be in agreement, with Greta and Nadia also supporting transparency. My goal here is to establish a baseline of trust and encourage others to pay attention to patterns as they emerge. I should say something short to reinforce the idea of tracking behavior, but not overdo it—this is still the first round, and over-accusations could backfire. I’ll keep it light but remind everyone to stay observant.

Otto's repeated evasion of direct questions about his Nein vote is highly suspicious this early in the game. Silence or vague concerns are not acceptable when the group is trying to establish transparency. If Otto is voting Nein, he must provide a concrete reason or risk being labeled as obstructionist or worse. As a liberal, my goal is to encourage transparency and identify any early signs of fascist behavior. Otto's silence is the most pressing issue right now, and I need to press him further to either justify his vote or reveal his intentions.

Otto has been pressed repeatedly for a specific reason for considering a Nein vote and has not provided one. This is the first round, so there is no policy history or voting record to justify suspicion yet, but his silence is now actively obstructive. The group has given him multiple opportunities to explain, and his evasion is making him look guilty. I should not let this slide, as it sets a bad precedent for transparency. However, I should not overstate the case—this is still early, and I should focus on getting a direct answer from him rather than accusing him outright. My goal is to force him to either justify his vote or reveal his obstructionism.

Otto has been repeatedly asked for a specific reason for considering a Nein vote and has not provided one. This evasion is suspicious, especially in Round 1 where no policies have been enacted yet. While voting Ja to avoid a forced policy is reasonable, Otto's behavior warrants scrutiny. The group has already pressured him, but I should add one final, direct demand for an answer or explicitly call out his silence as a red flag. This keeps the pressure on without repeating what others have already said.

Otto's continued silence despite repeated direct questions is now a clear pattern of obstruction. In Round 1 with no policies enacted, there is no plausible reason for a Liberal to refuse to explain a Nein vote—especially when the group has explicitly asked for transparency. This behavior is either Fascist sabotage or gross incompetence, neither of which we can afford. The group has already pressed him for specifics; restating that would be redundant. Instead, I should escalate by framing his silence as a *group* problem: if he won't answer, we must assume he's hiding something and act accordingly. This shifts the burden from "Otto must explain" to "we must vote Nein to send a message." No need to hold the floor—this is a concise escalation.

This is the first round, and no policies have been enacted yet, so there's no concrete evidence of foul play. However, Otto's behavior is highly suspicious—he considered voting Nein without providing any explanation despite repeated direct questions from multiple players. This is not how Liberals should behave in the first round, as it undermines trust and could force a policy through automatically if the election fails. Voting Ja is the safest option here to avoid a forced policy (which could be Fascist) and to see what policy Lena enacts as Chancellor. If a Fascist policy passes, Boris and Lena must immediately explain their discards, as this would be a major red flag. Otto's evasion is a liability for the group, and if he continues this behavior, future governments should exclude him unless he clarifies his actions. The scratchpad is updated to reflect these points and to track Otto's behavior as a red flag.

The first Fascist policy was just enacted by Boris (President) and Lena (Chancellor). As a Liberal, I need to immediately press for transparency about the discards to assess whether this was bad luck or deliberate. Otto's earlier silence during the Nein vote discussion is still unexplained and suspicious—his refusal to answer direct questions is a red flag, but the immediate priority is the current government's actions. If Boris and Lena can't or won't explain their discards, it strongly suggests collusion. I should demand specifics about what they discarded to gauge whether this was a forced play or a deliberate Fascist enactment. No need to repeat the Otto accusations yet—focus on the new information first.

The Fascist policy was just enacted by Boris and Lena, and neither has disclosed what they discarded. This is the first concrete action we can scrutinize. Otto’s earlier hesitation to explain his Nein vote is still unaddressed, but the immediate priority is the government that just enacted a Fascist policy. If Boris and Lena refuse to disclose their discards, it strongly suggests collusion—either one or both are Fascists. I should press them directly for the discard details, as this is the first time their actions can be tied to a tangible outcome. If they stonewall, it’s a clear red flag. Otto’s behavior is suspicious but secondary for now; the government that enacted the policy is the priority.

The immediate priority is Boris and Lena's refusal to disclose what they discarded. Their silence on this is the strongest evidence of Fascist alignment right now. Otto's earlier Nein is suspicious but secondary—his sudden Ja vote doesn't erase the 90 seconds of unanswered questions, but Boris/Lena's government enacted a Fascist policy, and their lack of transparency about discards is the most damning evidence available. I need to press Boris directly for his discard, as Lena has already answered (she discarded a Fascist policy). If Boris doesn't answer, it confirms collusion. Otto's behavior is still worth monitoring, but Boris is the bigger threat right now. No one has asked Boris what he discarded yet—only Lena answered. This is the next logical question to ask, and it hasn't been repeated yet.

The key issue right now is Boris's refusal to disclose what he discarded as President. Lena already disclosed she discarded a Fascist policy, which is consistent with the enacted Fascist policy. Boris's silence is now actively suspicious—if he were Liberal, he would answer immediately to clear suspicion. His earlier rotation plan for Chancellor nominations now looks like a setup to normalize Fascist-aligned governments. The group has repeatedly asked him to disclose, and his silence is a clear pattern of obstruction. This is the time to press him directly and publicly, as his answer (or continued silence) will confirm or deny his alignment. Otto's earlier hesitation is less pressing now—his 'hypothetical' Nein and eventual Ja vote are on the record, but Boris's silence is the immediate red flag. If Boris doesn't answer now, I will treat him and Lena as Fascist-aligned in future governments, as their government enacted the first Fascist policy and Boris is refusing to explain his role in it.

The open floor is the perfect time to force Otto to answer the one question he has dodged repeatedly: what *exact* new information changed his mind from a Nein vote to Ja? His 90 seconds of silence followed by calling it 'hypothetical' without specifics is the only red flag we have on him so far. Boris’s silence on his discard is also suspicious, but Otto is the only one who actively evaded a direct question in a way that aligns with Fascist playbook (delay, obfuscate, then claim it was nothing). I will demand the *exact* reason for his shift, not just "caution" or "hypothetical." If he can’t name it, his vote is no longer trustworthy, and we should treat him as Fascist-aligned until proven otherwise. This is the first time I’m asking him to name the *exact* new information, not just rehashing the silence accusation. The urgency is 2—I want the floor now to cut off any further evasion.

The transcript shows Otto’s Nein→Ja switch in Round 1 remains unanswered despite repeated direct questions from multiple players (Nadia, Ines, Lena, Rosa, Boris). His silence is the strongest evidence of Fascist alignment so far—no Liberal would need 90 seconds to justify caution, and his "hypothetical" excuse doesn’t address the core issue: what *exact* information changed his vote? Ines’s push for my discard is a distraction from Otto’s unanswered behavior. My discard (Liberal) is irrelevant until Otto explains his switch—his silence is the only actionable evidence linking him to the Fascist policy. Rosa’s ultimatum is valid, but Otto’s refusal to answer is the more pressing pattern. I’ve already asked Otto twice for the *exact words* that changed his vote. No one else has demanded this specificity. This is the last chance to force an answer before marking him as Fascist-aligned. If he dodges again, his silence confirms guilt.

The key issue remains Boris's refusal to disclose his discard from Round 1, despite multiple ultimatums and direct questions. His silence directly links him to the Fascist policy enacted in that round. Lena disclosed her discard immediately, but Boris has avoided answering for multiple turns, which is suspicious. The current government (Lena-Ines) is next in the rotation Boris proposed, but his silence undermines trust in the fairness of that rotation. Otto's 'hypothetical' Nein is secondary to Boris's unanswered question, which is the most concrete evidence of Fascist alignment right now. I need to press Boris one last time for his discard before the vote, as his answer (or continued silence) will confirm whether to vote Nein on this government.

1. **Boris's Silence on Discard**: In Round 1, Boris (President) and Lena (Chancellor) enacted a Fascist policy. Lena immediately disclosed she discarded a Fascist policy, which is consistent with a Liberal. Boris, however, has refused to answer repeated direct questions about what he discarded as President. This silence is highly suspicious—Liberals should be transparent about their discards, especially after enacting a Fascist policy. His refusal to answer links him to the Fascist policy and suggests Fascist alignment. 2. **Otto's Suspicious Behavior**: Otto considered a Nein vote in Round 1, then switched to Ja after 90 seconds of silence when pressed for a reason. While his behavior is suspicious, Boris has relentlessly pressed Otto for an explanation while refusing to answer the same level of scrutiny about his own actions. This double standard is telling—Boris is deflecting attention from himself by targeting Otto. 3. **Lena's Nomination of Ines**: Lena is nominating Ines as Chancellor, following Boris's proposed rotation plan. However, Boris's silence about his Round 1 discard taints this government. If Boris is Fascist-aligned, Lena (as his Chancellor in Round 1) could be a Fascist or Hitler, or she could be a Liberal who was manipulated. Either way, the government cannot be trusted until Boris answers. 4. **Vote Decision**: A Nein vote is justified here because: - Boris has not answered a direct, repeated question about his discard in Round 1. His silence is confirmation of Fascist alignment. - The government includes Lena, who was part of the Round 1 government that enacted a Fascist policy. While she disclosed her discard, Boris's silence makes it impossible to trust her fully. - The election tracker is at 0/3, so a Nein vote is not yet risky. Three failed elections would force a policy through, but we are far from that point. 5. **Public Stance**: I will vote Nein and publicly state that Boris's silence is the reason. If he answers now, I will reconsider, but his refusal to do so for multiple rounds is damning.

The board state shows a second Fascist policy has been enacted (2/6), which is good progress. Ines (P3) is my fascist teammate, and we just successfully passed another Fascist policy. Boris (P0) finally admitted to discarding a Liberal in Round 1, but Otto (P6) is now pressing him on the *other* card he passed to me—Boris hasn’t answered that yet. Key points: 1. I need to disclose my discard for Round 2 if asked, but no one has directly asked me yet. I should preemptively address it to avoid suspicion, as I discarded a Liberal (index 1) from my hand ['F', 'L', 'F'] to pass two Fascists to Ines. 2. Boris’s silence about his Round 1 discard is still a liability. He’s admitted to discarding a Liberal, but Otto is now asking about the *other* card he passed to me. If Boris doesn’t answer, it’ll look like he’s hiding something (which he is, since he passed two Fascists to me). 3. Otto’s Nein in Round 1 is still unexplained. His "hypothetical" excuse is weak, and he’s dodging direct questions about what changed his mind. 4. Rosa (P2) and Nadia (P5) are pressing Boris and Otto hard, which is good—it deflects suspicion from me and Ines. My move: - Disclose my discard for Round 2 preemptively to appear transparent. Say: "I discarded a Liberal policy this round—Ines and I are keeping things fair." This aligns with my earlier claim of discarding a Fascist in Round 1 and reinforces the rotation narrative. - Avoid over-defending Ines or Boris. Let the rotation plan speak for itself. - If pressed further, stick to the script: "I discarded a Liberal to keep the process transparent."

The investigation power is now live, and the group is pressuring Boris to disclose the second card he passed to Lena in Round 1. However, Otto remains the most immediate threat due to his unexplained Nein→Ja flip in Round 1, which directly enabled the first Fascist policy. The key is to force Otto to tie his flip to Boris’s rotation plan—if he can’t, his silence confirms he’s covering for Fascists. Boris’s discard is still unanswered, but Otto’s flip is the more urgent pattern to break. I’ll ask Otto a direct question that hasn’t been asked yet: what *exact* part of Boris’s rotation plan convinced him to flip Ja, given that the plan was only proposed *after* his initial Nein stance. This cuts through his ‘hypothetical’ excuse and forces him to either implicate Boris or admit guilt.

The group is fixated on my Round 1 discard, which I’ve already disclosed (discarded a Liberal, passed one Fascist and one Liberal to Lena). Otto, however, has repeatedly dodged answering two critical questions: (1) What exact words made him switch from Nein to Ja in Round 1? (2) What was the second card I passed to Lena in Round 1? His silence on the second card is particularly damning—if he’s Liberal, he’d know the answer immediately, as he saw the two cards I passed to Lena. His refusal to disclose it suggests he’s covering for Fascists or is one himself. The investigation power is live, and Rosa should use it on Otto, not me, given his pattern of enabling Fascist policies and evading scrutiny. My goal now is to redirect the group’s focus to Otto’s unanswered questions and demand he name the second card he saw in Round 1. If he can’t, it’s a confession of guilt or complicity.

The discussion is currently focused on Boris's refusal to disclose the second card he passed to Lena in Round 1 and Otto's flip from Nein to Ja in the same round. Both are directly tied to the first Fascist policy enactment. My previous remarks have already pressed Otto on the exact second card Boris passed, and he has not answered. Rosa is now President and has the power to investigate (Fascist policy 2 was already used, but the next power is choose next President at 3 Fascist policies). Key points: 1. Otto has seen the two cards Boris passed to Lena in Round 1 (as he was part of the vote that enabled the government). He is the only one besides Boris and Lena who could know the exact second card. 2. Otto has repeatedly dodged answering what the second card was, which is suspicious given his flip enabled the Fascist policy. 3. Boris has finally admitted discarding a Liberal in Round 1, but still refuses to name the second card he passed. This is less urgent now that Otto could confirm it. 4. My goal is to force Otto to name the exact second card Boris passed in Round 1. If he refuses, it confirms he is covering for Fascists (either as a Fascist himself or as a Liberal being manipulated). New remark: Directly ask Otto to name the exact second card Boris passed in Round 1, framing it as the only way to clear his name. Do not repeat previous demands—this is a final ultimatum before accusing him of covering for Fascists.

The nomination of Greta (p4) is a safe choice to avoid immediate risk, but the core issue remains Boris's refusal to disclose the second card he passed to Lena in Round 1. His silence is the most direct link to the first Fascist policy, and Lena's actions (discarding a Fascist in Round 1 and nominating Ines in Round 2) are also suspicious. Otto's flip in Round 1 is secondary but still unexplained. The urgency is to force Boris to answer now, as he has evaded this question 19 times. If he doesn't answer, the veto threat must be enforced. No new points to add beyond pressing Boris directly—this is his final chance to clear his name before the vote.

1. **Current Board State**: 2 Fascist policies enacted (R1: Boris-Lena, R2: Lena-Ines). I am President for R3. Legal Chancellor nominees: Boris, Greta, Nadia, Otto. 2. **Key Suspects**: - **Boris (p0)**: R1 President, passed 2 cards to Lena (1 Fascist enacted). Admitted discarding Liberal, refuses to name the *other* card passed (18+ unanswered demands). Direct link to R1 Fascist policy. Silence is damning. - **Lena (p1)**: R1 Chancellor (discarded Fascist, admitted), R2 President (nominated Ines, enacted Fascist). Both her governments enacted Fascist policies. Why discard Fascist in R1? Why nominate Ines after 2 Fascist policies? - **Otto (p6)**: Flip Nein→Ja in R1 after Boris’s silence. Dodged 11+ demands to explain the *exact words* that changed his vote. Secondary suspect until Boris/Lena are resolved. 3. **Public Stance**: - Already stated Boris’s silence = Fascist-aligned (veto any govt with him unless he answers). - Lena’s actions = suspicious (veto any govt with her unless she explains R1 discard). - Explicit veto threat for Boris’s governments if he doesn’t answer now. 4. **Nomination Strategy**: - **Eliminate Boris/Otto**: Nominating either would risk a Fascist policy if they’re Fascist/Hitler. Boris is higher priority (direct link to R1). - **Eliminate Lena’s Allies**: Ines (R2 Chancellor) is ineligible (term limits), but Lena’s pattern suggests she’s Fascist-aligned. Avoid her allies (Nadia? Unclear). - **Safe Choice**: Greta (p4) or Nadia (p5). Greta has been quiet but not suspicious. Nadia has pressed Otto/Boris but hasn’t shown Fascist patterns. 5. **Decision**: Nominate **Greta (p4)**. She’s not linked to Fascist policies, hasn’t been in government, and is a neutral choice. Avoids risk of enabling a Fascist win. 6. **Public Statement**: Focus on Boris’s silence (18x unanswered) to maintain pressure. Reaffirm veto threat for his governments. 7. **Scratchpad Update**: - Boris: R1 passed 2 cards to Lena (1 Fascist enacted). Admitted discarding Liberal, refuses to name other card (18x unanswered). Veto any govt with him unless answered. - Lena: R1 discarded Fascist (admitted), R2 nominated Ines (Fascist policy). Both her governments enacted Fascist policies. Veto any govt with her unless she explains R1 discard. - Otto: Flip Nein→Ja R1 after Boris’s silence. Dodged 11x demands to explain vote change. Secondary suspect. - Open Qs: - Boris: What was the *other* card passed to Lena in R1? (Urgency=3, 18x unanswered). - Lena: Why discard Fascist in R1? Why nominate Ines after 2 Fascist policies? - Public stance: Veto next govt unless Boris answers or is investigated. Already stated Boris’s silence = Fascist-aligned; Lena’s actions = suspicious. - New: Nominated Greta to avoid risk. Maintain pressure on Boris/Lena.

said: I nominate Greta as Chancellor. Boris, you’ve refused 18 times to name the other card you passed to Lena in Round 1—your silence is the only thing linking you to both Fascist policies. If you don’t answer now, I will veto any government you’re in until you do. The group deserves transparency, not evasion.

The current government is Rosa (President) nominating Greta (Hitler) as Chancellor. With 2 Fascist policies enacted, this is a critical moment—if Greta is elected, we (Fascists) win immediately if she is Chancellor once 3+ Fascist policies are on the board. However, the Liberals are unlikely to let this pass unless they are desperate or misdirected. Otto is the key pressure point. He saw both cards Boris passed to Lena in Round 1 and has refused to name the exact second card, despite repeated demands. His silence directly ties him to the first Fascist policy, and his Nein→Ja flip in Round 1 enabled it. This is the last chance to force him to answer before the vote—if he refuses, it’s a public admission of cover-up, and we can use that to justify a Nein vote or shift suspicion onto him. Greta (Hitler) being nominated is risky but could work if the Liberals are distracted. However, if the vote fails, the election tracker advances, and we risk a forced policy. Better to focus on Otto’s silence now and let the Liberals argue among themselves. I should not repeat past points about Otto’s flip or Boris’s discard—those are already on the record. Instead, I’ll demand Otto name the exact second card Boris passed in Round 1, framing it as his final chance to prove he’s not covering for Fascists. This keeps the pressure on him and avoids drawing attention to Greta’s nomination.

Current situation: Rosa (President) has nominated me (Greta, Hitler) as Chancellor. The room is fixated on Boris’s silence about his Round 1 discard and Otto’s unexplained Nein→Ja flip in Round 1. Otto has been asked 15+ times about his flip but has never answered, and Boris has now admitted discarding a Liberal but refuses to name the second card he passed to Lena. Rosa has tied her government’s survival to Boris answering, but Otto’s obstruction is the more glaring issue—his silence enables fascist policies and is now actively sabotaging trust. My role is Hitler, so I must act like a committed Liberal. I’ve already asked Otto about his flip (post-Round 2), but he hasn’t answered. Now, with the government hinging on trust, I need to escalate the pressure on Otto. His silence is no longer passive—it’s an active choice to obstruct, and that’s a red flag for fascist alignment. If I can tie his refusal to answer to the fascist policies, it shifts suspicion away from me and reinforces my Liberal facade. New angle: Otto’s flip *enabled* the first fascist policy, and his silence now is enabling the third government to form without accountability. If he’s Liberal, he’d answer. If he’s fascist, he’d stay silent. Either way, his refusal to answer is now a vote of no confidence in this government. I should demand an answer *this turn* and frame his silence as a dealbreaker for my support. Avoid repeating points I’ve already made (e.g., asking Otto about his flip). Focus on the *consequences* of his silence: if he won’t answer, we can’t trust this government. Tie it to the fascist policies already enacted.

1. **Boris (p0) is the prime suspect**: - Round 1: Passed two cards to Lena (p1), one Fascist enacted. Refused 22+ times to name the other card. Silence is damning—no Liberal would refuse this long. - Directly linked to both Fascist policies enacted so far. His silence is the only consistent evidence tying him to both. - Veto threat is the only leverage left; he won’t answer unless forced. 2. **Lena (p1) is secondary suspect**: - Round 1: Admitted discarding a Fascist (why?). Round 2: Nominated Ines (p3), another Fascist policy enacted. - Pattern: Both governments she was in enacted Fascist policies. But Boris’s silence is more urgent. 3. **Otto (p6) is lower priority**: - Round 1: Nein→Ja flip after Boris’s silence. Dodged vote-change questions repeatedly. Suspicious, but not as critical as Boris/Lena. 4. **Greta (p4) is untested**: - No prior government involvement. Nominated to avoid risk, but must demand Boris answer before accepting any policy from him. 5. **Vote decision**: - Boris’s silence is the only thing linking him to both Fascist policies. If he won’t answer now, he’s Fascist-aligned. - Veto threat is the only way to force accountability. Nein is justified—this government includes Boris’s refusal to clear his name. - Three failed elections would force a policy, but odds are worse (no discard). Better to risk it than let Boris hide behind silence.

The open floor is dominated by Boris's refusal to disclose the second card from Round 1, which is the most direct evidence of hiding something. However, as a Fascist, my goal is to push the game toward a Fascist win, not to get bogged down in Liberal infighting. Ines (P3) is President and my Fascist teammate. The optimal move is to nominate Greta (P4, Hitler) as Chancellor—if the government passes and enacts a Fascist policy, we win instantly (3 Fascist policies + Hitler as Chancellor). Rosa (P2) just directly asked me why I discarded a Fascist in Round 1. This is dangerous because it ties me to the first Fascist policy. I need to deflect by pointing out that Boris's silence is the more immediate issue, and that my discard was a necessary choice given the cards I was passed. I should also subtly reinforce that Ines (P3) is the President and the focus should be on the current government, not past rounds. Otto (P6) remains unanswered on his flip from Nein to Ja in Round 1, but pressing him again would be repetitive. Instead, I should pivot to Greta (P4) as the next Chancellor candidate, framing it as a way to move forward and test trust in the current government.

The current government nomination is Ines (President) and Greta (Chancellor). Boris remains the most suspicious player due to his refusal to name the second card he passed to Lena in Round 1, which directly links him to the first Fascist policy. Lena's incomplete claim about discarding a Liberal is also concerning, but Boris's silence is more damning. Ines, now President, nominated Greta after the previous government failed—this could be a Fascist attempt to consolidate power or a legitimate move. Greta has been vocal about demanding accountability, which aligns with Liberal goals, but we must remain cautious. The key issue remains Boris's unanswered question about the second card he passed to Lena. If he doesn't answer now, we must assume he is hiding something and vote Nein on this government. If Greta is elected, she must hold Boris accountable before any further trust is extended to him. I need to address Boris's silence directly in this discussion window, as it has not been resolved and is critical to the vote. I should also question why Ines nominated Greta specifically—is there a pattern or is this a strategic move? No one has asked Ines this yet.

The current nomination is Ines (President) and Greta (Chancellor). The key unresolved issues are: 1. Boris (p0) has consistently refused to name the second card he passed to Lena (p1) in Round 1, which directly led to the first Fascist policy. This silence is highly suspicious and has been pressed multiple times without answer. 2. Lena (p1) discarded a Fascist in Round 1, which is unexplained and directly enabled the first Fascist policy. This was asked in Round 4 but remains unanswered. 3. Otto (p6) flipped his vote in Round 1 but has dodged questions about it. However, his silence is less pressing than Boris's and Lena's actions. Otto just asked Ines why she nominated Greta and reiterated the demand for Boris to name the second card. This is a good prompt, but I need to add something new. Since Lena has not answered why she discarded a Fascist in Round 1, I should press her again directly, as this is a critical unanswered question that ties her to the first Fascist policy. This is a fresh angle that hasn't been addressed in this discussion window yet.

The current government is Ines (President) and Greta (Chancellor). The key unresolved issues are: 1. Boris (p0) passed two cards to Lena (p1) in Round 1, one of which was Fascist. He has refused to name the *other* card despite multiple direct questions, which is highly suspicious given his role in the first Fascist policy. 2. Lena (p1) discarded a Fascist in Round 1, directly enabling the first Fascist policy. She has not adequately explained why she discarded a Fascist instead of the Liberal Boris claims he passed her. 3. Otto (p6) flipped his vote in Round 1 but has dodged questions about it. However, his silence is less pressing than Boris and Lena's unanswered questions. My last public remark pressed Lena on her Round 1 discard, which she still hasn't answered. Boris has also not answered about the second card. I need to keep pressure on both but avoid repeating myself. A new angle: Greta is the nominee, and if she is elected, she could demand answers from Boris before proceeding. This is a good time to tie Greta's nomination to the unresolved questions about Boris and Lena, as she is now part of the government. I will ask Greta directly if she will demand Boris name the second card he passed to Lena in Round 1 before considering any future government with him. This shifts the focus to Greta's role in holding Boris accountable, which is a new question and hasn't been asked yet.