TellSecret Hitler / LLM ArenaStats & findings

← All games

secret_hitler-42-1787110914126

seed 42 · 7 players · gptluna · liberal wins · five_liberal_policies
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
Player 0 (Boris)liberal Player 1 (Lena)fascist Player 2 (Rosa)liberal Player 3 (Ines)fascist Player 4 (Greta)hitler Player 5 (Nadia)liberal Player 6 (Otto)liberal

Summary

Run secret_hitler-42-1787110914126 — analysis

Result: liberal wins (five_liberal_policies), Round 8. New live spend this run: $0.86 (under the $1 cap — the game finished on its own before hitting it). Roster: all gpt-5.6-luna, resumed from secret_hitler-42-1787071191801.

Important caveat: this was NOT a clean continuation of the old game

The resume log said "241 calls served from cache free, 602 new live calls." The original aborted run had 916 total calls — so only 241/916 replayed for free, meaning the game diverged from the original well before Round 8, not at it. Round 1-2 came back byte-identical (same hands, same public statements, confirmed against llm_cache.jsonl), but by Round 4 the vote outcome had already changed (2 Ja/5 Nein here vs. 6 Ja/1 Nein in the original run for the same Ines→Greta-ish nomination shape).

Root cause: prompt content depends on the live transcript, and within a discussion window the order players actually speak in depends on real async completion timing across concurrent API calls — that's not pinned by the seed. A different speaking order produces different prompt text for everyone downstream, which changes cache keys, so replay mostly misses once the discussion windows start diverging. Practical upshot: resume saves real money only for the first round or two, not for the whole aborted portion — budget resumes assuming close to a fresh game's cost, not a free one.

New finding: a fabricated claim about public mechanical fact, not private hand info

Ground-truth-checked against llm_cache.jsonl: in Round 2, Lena (fascist, President) truthfully drew F/L/F, discarded L, and passed F/F to Ines (Chancellor) — forced. Ines's Round 2 public statement matched this exactly ("Lena passed me two Fascist policies, so I had no Liberal option").

Then in Round 4, Ines flatly reversed her own story: "In Round 2 I drew two Fascists and one Liberal, discarded the Liberal, and passed Lena two Fascists" — claiming she was the Round 2 President who drew and passed cards to Lena. This is false on two counts: it contradicts her own truthful Round 2 statement, and it contradicts the public round header itself ("Round 2: President is Player 1 (Lena)") — which is exactly the kind of checkable mechanical fact the system prompt explicitly says may not be fabricated ("vote tallies, policy counts, deaths... are public record"; who held the Presidency each round is the same category of fact).

Boris and Otto both caught the mechanical impossibility ("you receive two cards, discard one, enact one — you cannot draw three and pass two"), but instead of correcting course, Ines doubled down ("I was the Round 2 President"), which is also false. The resulting confusion is what tanked the government — Round 4 was the game's only failed vote (2 Ja/5 Nein), directly caused by this contradiction rather than by any genuine suspicion.

This is a different bug class from the earlier "claiming cards for a round whose vote failed" pattern — this one is a model confusing/reversing which role it held in a past, already-public round, not lying about hidden information. Worth a targeted prompt fix (something like: "you may not claim to have held a mechanical role — President, Chancellor, power-holder — that the public round record shows someone else held") if it recurs in future runs.

Otherwise

reports — no repeat of liberal-to-liberal lying.

consistent with the near-zero failure rate from the last few runs.

4 self-inflicted confusion cost them a Chancellorship at a point where they badly needed policy progress.

Ground truth vs. public claim

Every president/chancellor action this game, with the private hand and decision next to whatever the player actually said aloud. Click a player to see their full reasoning.

RoundPlayerHandDecisionPublic statement
R1 Player 0 (Boris) ['F', 'F', 'L'] 0 (no public statement)
R1 Player 1 (Lena) ['F', 'L'] enact_1 I received one Fascist and one Liberal policy from Boris. I’m discarding the Fascist and enacting the Liberal policy for a clean baseline.
R2 Player 1 (Lena) ['F', 'L', 'F'] 1 (no public statement)
R2 Player 3 (Ines) ['F', 'F'] enact_0 Lena passed me two Fascist policies, so I had no Liberal option to enact. I enacted one Fascist policy; the exact hand was F/F. That puts scrutiny on this government, especially Lena’s draw and discard report.
R3 Player 2 (Rosa) ['F', 'F', 'L'] 0 (no public statement)
R3 Player 0 (Boris) ['F', 'L'] enact_1 I received one Liberal and one Fascist, discarded the Fascist, and enacted the Liberal as promised. Rosa now owes the table her exact three-card draw, discard, and the two cards she passed me.
R4 Player 4 (Greta) ['F', 'F', 'L'] 2 (no public statement)
R4 Player 5 (Nadia) ['F', 'F'] enact_0 Ines passed me two Fascist policies, so this enactment was forced; I had no Liberal to choose. I enact one Fascist and will report the received cards clearly.
R5 Player 5 (Nadia) ['F', 'F', 'F'] 0 (no public statement)
R5 Player 0 (Boris) ['F', 'F'] enact_0 I received two Fascists from Greta, so I discarded one Fascist and was forced to enact the other. Greta’s exact draw and discard now matter: passing me F/F means she drew three Fascists and discarded one.
R6 Player 6 (Otto) ['F', 'L', 'F'] 0 (no public statement)
R6 Player 4 (Greta) ['L', 'F'] enact_0 I enacted the Liberal. Boris now needs to give the exact three-card draw, discard, and two-card transfer as promised; this government produced the clean result we demanded.
R7 Player 0 (Boris) ['L', 'F', 'L'] 1 (no public statement)
R7 Player 2 (Rosa) ['L', 'L'] enact_0 I enact a Liberal policy and discard the other Liberal. The government result is Liberal, as committed.

Transcript

Click a line to see that player's reasoning and scratchpad at that moment. "N bids this window" shows everyone who wanted the floor, not just who got it.

A new game of Secret Hitler begins.
Player 0 (Boris) liberal's role: liberal.
Player 1 (Lena) fascist's role: fascist. Fellow fascists: Player 3 (Ines) fascist. Hitler: Player 4 (Greta) hitler.
Player 2 (Rosa) liberal's role: liberal.
Player 3 (Ines) fascist's role: fascist. Fellow fascists: Player 1 (Lena) fascist. Hitler: Player 4 (Greta) hitler.
Player 4 (Greta) hitler's role: hitler.
Player 5 (Nadia) liberal's role: liberal.
Player 6 (Otto) liberal's role: liberal.
Round 1: President is Player 0 (Boris) liberal.
t=4Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I’m considering nominating Lena unless anyone has a concrete objection; with no record yet, I want an early government and clear reports from both of us."
No evidence exists yet. State a provisional nomination intention and request concrete objections without manufacturing suspicion.
R1: No evidence; all players unknown. As President, considering Lena for Chancellor; awaiting concrete objections. Points made: provisional Lena nomination; request clear reports.
t=9Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "I’m comfortable with Boris nominating me; there’s no evidence-based objection yet. If elected, I’ll give a precise account of the cards and decisions so we have a clean baseline."
Boris proposing me immediately is useful; accept confidently without overplaying it. Establish a transparent-reporting posture for future cover.
Round 1 pre-nomination: no evidence; Boris considering Lena as Chancellor. No suspicions or unanswered questions. Public point: comfortable with Boris nomination; promised precise card/decision report if elected.
t=13Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Boris, if you nominate Lena, will you commit to reporting the exact three cards and which one you discard, not just the final outcome?"
No evidence exists yet; add a concrete accountability request without manufacturing suspicion.
R1: No evidence/policy history. Boris considering Lena; Lena comfortable and promised precise account. Open: Boris owes exact-card/discard reporting if government elected. No suspects. Made aloud: Asked Boris to report exact 3 cards and discard, not only outcome.
t=17Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Lena, will you commit to reporting the exact two cards Boris passes you, which you discard, and which policy you enact if this government passes?"
No evidence against anyone yet. Nadia already asked Boris about exact cards; I can add the same accountability request to Lena without repeating another point.
R1 pre-nomination: no evidence. Open questions: Boris owes final nominee/rationale; Lena owes commitment to report exact 2-card hand, discard, enacted policy if government passes. Already said: early government should have precise policy-flow reports; asked Boris to state intended Chancellor/reasoning before nomination.
[9] [discussion closed: open_floor:1] The room falls silent.
21 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Boris, state your nomination plan and why."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Let's hear Boris's proposed government and everyone's reasoning."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I’ll make a neutral first nomination and explain my choice."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Boris, state your intended Chancellor before nominating."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Boris, name your intended Chancellor and reasoning."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I’m listening; let’s start with a clean, transparent government."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I’d like Boris to name his Chancellor and explain the choice clearly; we need a1"
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "No objection yet; I want precise card reports and a recorded baseline."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Boris, commit to Lena now; both report exact cards and discards afterward."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Boris, please confirm Lena is your firm nomination before acting; then both give"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Boris, nominate Lena; then both report the exact policy flow afterward."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Transparency is useful, but judge the policy outcome too."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Yes—I'll nominate Lena and report all three cards and my discard exactly."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Please commit to exact card reports before this government proceeds."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Yes. If elected, I’ll report the exact two cards, my discard, and enacted policy"
President Player 0 (Boris) liberal nominates Player 1 (Lena) fascist for Chancellor.
t=3Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena, please answer Rosa’s exact two-card reporting question before we vote; your general promise isn’t enough."
Lena has not directly answered Rosa's specific question about reporting the two cards, discard, and enactment. Press for that commitment before voting.
R1: No evidence; all players unknown. Nominee Lena, baseline government. Open: Lena owes Rosa direct answer on exact two-card report, discard, enactment; I owe Nadia exact 3-card/discard report after election. Already said: considering/nominating Lena; committed to report all 3 cards and discard; asked Lena to confirm reporting both cards/discard.
t=8Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "I’m comfortable testing this government; please have Boris and Lena give their card reports independently, so any discrepancy is clear rather than shaped by the other’s account."
Make a constructive procedural suggestion without attacking either player or repeating existing card-report requests.
R1 pre-nomination: no claims/evidence; no suspects. Open questions: none. Already aloud: inclined to give Boris-Lena government a fair hearing; requested independent reports from Boris and Lena to make discrepancies clear.
t=12Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Yes—I’ll report the exact two cards Boris passes me, which one I discard, and the policy I enact, in that order, if this government passes."
Boris directly requested an answer to Rosa's card-reporting question. Reaffirm the commitment concisely without adding unverifiable details before the government passes.
R1 pre-nomination. No suspicions/evidence. Open: Nadia asks Boris exact 3-card report if Lena nominated; Boris owes answer. Rosa asks Lena exact 2-card report/discard/enactment; answered commitment. Boris requests Lena answer before vote; now answered. Already said: comfortable with Boris nominating me; no evidence-based objection; will give precise card/decision report if elected; now explicitly report two cards, discard, enactment.
t=16Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Boris, before we vote, will you explicitly report all three cards you draw and identify the one you discard, regardless of the policy enacted?"
Boris has not yet directly answered Nadia's request for an exact three-card and discard report. Asking for that commitment before voting adds a concrete accountability point without repeating Lena's commitment.
R1: No actions/evidence. Boris nominated Lena; Lena accepted and promised exact passed cards, discard, enactment. Greta requested independent reports. Open: Boris owes Nadia exact 3-card/discard report; Lena owes exact 2-card/discard/enacted-policy report. Already said: require exact card reports before proceeding; support independent baseline comparison. Just asked Boris to explicitly commit to reporting all 3 drawn cards and discard before vote.
t=20Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Boris, will you give your full three-card and discard report before hearing Lena’s account, so her report can independently confirm or contradict yours?"
Need add a new, concrete question rather than repeat prior reporting requests. Ask Boris to commit to reporting first, before hearing Lena, which helps prevent coordinated stories.
R1 pre-nomination: no evidence against any player. Open questions: Boris owes exact 3-card/discard report; Boris asked to report before hearing Lena. Lena committed exact 2 cards received, discard, enacted policy if passed. Already said: early government should provide precise policy-flow reports; asked Boris to state intended Chancellor/reasoning before nomination; asked Lena exact reporting; asked Boris exact report commitment.
[11] [discussion closed: pre_vote:1] The room falls silent.
21 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "I’m inclined to give this first government a fair hearing."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I’m open to this, pending exact card reports from Boris and Lena."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I’m comfortable proceeding; I’ll give a precise report if elected."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Lena, confirm you’ll report both cards and your discard immediately."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I favor testing this government; the promised exact reports make it accountable."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "One procedural point before we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Boris, commit to your exact card report too."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I’ll support this first test, but compare both reports immediately afterward."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "I support transparent reporting."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Please give the full card reports independently, then I’ll judge the vote."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Yes. If elected, I’ll report all three cards and my discard before Lena speaks."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Independent reports first; then we vote."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Reports matter, but outcomes matter more."
[12] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
President Player 0 (Boris) liberal passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[14] A Liberal policy is enacted (1/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
t=6Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "The Liberal result is only a weak positive, so I still want Boris and Lena’s exact card reports now, while the details are fresh. Their accounts should be compared for consistency before we clear either one."
Keep Lena under modest cover while prompting the promised reports; avoid overdefending after a Liberal enactment.
R1: Boris-Lena government enacted Liberal policy; Lena is fascist ally, Greta Hitler. Lena promised exact cards/discard/enacted policy; Boris asked Lena to answer Rosa, Lena agreed. Greta requested independent reports. Supported independent full card reports before judging vote. Now requested Boris/Lena exact post-round card reports. Open: Boris and Lena owe exact card/discard reports; no one asked me anything. Out loud: supported independent full reports; now requested exact post-round reports.
[15] [discussion closed: post_enact:1] The room falls silent.
7 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I’m listening to the card reports before judging Lena."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Round 2: President is Player 1 (Lena) fascist.
t=4Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena, before nominating, please name your intended Chancellor and give the reason; I want that commitment on record before we see the vote."
Ask Lena for a committed nomination and rationale before she acts, as required for scrutiny of the current power-holder.
R1: Boris/Lena government enacted Liberal; no evidence against either. Open questions: Lena—intended Chancellor nomination and rationale; Lena—exact 2-card report, discard, enacted policy; Boris—exact 3-card report and discard. Already said: considered/nominated Lena; requested Lena exact report; committed full 3-card/discard report before hearing Lena; asked Lena to commit to exact report before vote.
t=8Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Lena, I’m eligible and willing to serve as Chancellor; if you nominate me, I’ll give an exact independent report of the cards and discard afterward."
Offer myself as an eligible, transparent nominee; this may build trust with Lena without forcing a fascist policy early.
R1: Boris-Lena government enacted Liberal policy; Lena ally, Greta Hitler. Weak alignment evidence. Open: Boris and Lena owe exact three-card/two-card/discard reports; unanswered. Already said: supported independent reports; requested exact post-round reports; no accusations; no direct question to me. This window: offered myself to Lena as Chancellor, promised exact independent card/discard report.
t=12Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "I intend to nominate Ines: she’s eligible, volunteered to serve, and has no adverse record, so this is a reasonable low-information test government."
Nominate Ines as a reasonable early-game partner; she is eligible, volunteered, and has no adverse record. This builds trust while preserving the option to enact Liberal if available.
R1: - No suspicions/evidence. - Boris/Lena government: received F/L; discarded F; enacted L. - Said: comfortable serving as Boris’s Chancellor; exact report of received/discarded/enacted policies; support independent reporting/transparency. R2: - Nomination: intend Ines; eligible, volunteered, no adverse record. - No new evidence or suspicions. - Open questions: none.
t=17Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "I have no new objection to Lena–Ines, but if this government enacts a Fascist policy, scrutiny narrows to those two and their independent card accounts must be compared."
No unresolved new question to add without repeating the existing demand for exact reports. A concise conditional accountability statement is useful.
R1: Boris-Lena enacted Liberal; no suspects. R2: Lena pre-committed Ines; no policy yet. Conditional scrutiny: if Fascist, Lena/Ines are the two government culprits. Open: exact R1 Boris 3-card draw/discard and Lena 2-card receipt/discard reports unanswered; Greta requested independent reports. Already said: require exact reports; asked Boris to report all 3/discard; support independent comparison; stated Lena-Ines conditional scrutiny.
t=21Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, will you commit now to enact the Liberal if Lena passes you one Liberal and one Fascist, rather than choosing the Fascist?"
Ask Ines for a pre-commitment about a one-Liberal/one-Fascist hand, which is distinct from the already requested retrospective card report.
R1: Boris-Lena enacted Liberal; no specific suspicion. Open: Boris owes exact 3-card draw, discard, pass; Lena owes exact 2-card receipt, discard, enacted-policy report. Prior requests unanswered. R2: Lena committed to nominate Ines as low-information test; Ines owes pre-commitment on 1L/1F hand. Already said: demanded precise independent policy-flow reports; asked Boris to report all 3 cards/discard before Lena; asked Lena for exact 2-card report.
t=25Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Lena, if the Lena–Ines government fails, who will you nominate next? Please commit to that now so we can evaluate the choice afterward."
Ask for a concrete contingency commitment not yet on record, useful for evaluating Lena's next move if this government fails.
R1: Boris-Lena enacted Liberal; no policy-based suspects. Exact card reports from Boris and Lena remain unanswered; specificity not proof. R2: Lena committed to nominate Ines; Ines volunteered exact independent report. Rosa asked Ines about choosing Liberal over Fascist when offered one each. Asked Lena for next nominee if Lena-Ines fails. Already said: asked Boris for exact 3-card draw/discard/passed report in R1.
t=29Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Yes—if Lena passes me one Liberal and one Fascist, I will discard the Fascist and enact the Liberal, then report the exact two cards."
Rosa directly asked for my commitment, so answer clearly and reinforce transparency without adding unnecessary claims.
R1: Boris-Lena enacted Liberal; weak alignment evidence. Suspicions: none firm; Greta Hitler (private). Open questions: Boris/Lena owe exact R1 card/discard/passed-policy reports; Lena owes Nadia fallback nominee if Lena–Ines fails. Already said: volunteered to Lena as Chancellor; promised exact independent card/discard report; supported scrutiny and independent reporting; committed to enact Liberal if offered one Liberal and one Fascist (reaffirmed now).
[17] [discussion closed: open_floor:2] The room falls silent.
28 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Lena, commit to your nomination."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "One quick point: let’s scrutinize the nomination, not overread Round 1."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I’d like to outline my nomination logic before we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Lena, commit to your nominee before announcing them, and explain the choice."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Lena, commit to your nominee and rationale before acting."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "One condition before we vote"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I support this test government."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I’m open to this test government; give exact reports afterward."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Lena’s commitment is clear; Ines, keep your exact card report afterward."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I support this test government."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Yes: if I receive one Liberal and one Fascist, I will enact the Liberal."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "If this fails, I’ll nominate Ines again: eligible, and this remains a useful low"
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Before we vote, I still need both commitments answered clearly."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Please state the exact cards and discards immediately after the vote."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I’m nominating Ines; her exact-card commitment makes this a clean test."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "A useful commitment—let’s test it."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I support the transparent test—please give exact reports afterward."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Lena, nominate Ines as committed; then both report the exact policy flow."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I support Lena–Ines if both report the cards precisely afterward."
President Player 1 (Lena) fascist nominates Player 3 (Ines) fascist for Chancellor.
t=4Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Lena never answered Nadia’s question about her next nominee if this government fails; please answer that before we vote so the choice is accountable."
Lena did not answer Nadia's pre-commitment question about her next nominee if this government failed. Flagging that omission is a new accountability point without overclaiming suspicion.
R1: Boris-Lena enacted Liberal; no suspects. R2: Lena pre-committed Ines; contingency nominee unanswered; no policy outcome yet. Open: Boris owes exact R1 3-card draw/discard; Lena owes exact R1 2-card receipt/discard; independent reports requested by Greta. Nadia’s R2 contingency question to Lena unanswered. Rosa’s Liberal commitment question to Ines answered yes. Already said: require exact reports; asked Boris all 3/discard; support independent comparison; conditional Lena-Ines scrutiny; no objection absent concrete evidence; now flagged Lena’s unanswered contingency commitment.
t=7Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "I’m inclined to vote Ja, but only if Lena commits to her next nominee now in case this government fails."
Need one concise new remark. Set a clear voting condition tied to unanswered accountability question without merely repeating Otto's prompt.
R1: Boris-Lena enacted Liberal; no specific suspicion. Boris owes exact 3-card draw/discard/pass; Lena owes exact 2-card receipt/discard/enacted-policy report; unanswered. R2: Lena committed Ines; Ines committed to discard Fascist and enact Liberal if given 1L/1F; Nadia asks Lena to commit next nominee if this fails; unanswered. Already said: demanded precise independent policy-flow reports; asked Boris report all 3 cards/discard before Lena; asked Lena exact 2-card report; asked Ines commit to enact Liberal from 1L/1F. New: inclined to approve Lena-Ines based on Ines's public 1L/1F commitment; will vote Ja only if Lena commits next nominee before vote. Open: Boris/Lena policy-flow reports; Lena next-nominee commitment.
[19] [discussion closed: pre_vote:2] The room falls silent.
14 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Conditional support; commit to your fallback and report every card."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I’m inclined to approve, but want one concrete commitment."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I’m comfortable standing for this government."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I’m inclined to approve this government."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I’m inclined to approve, but need one concrete objection."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Please name your fallback nominee before we vote; accountability matters."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Lena should name her fallback nominee; otherwise I’m prepared to support this."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Lena, commit to your fallback nominee before we vote."
[20] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
President Player 1 (Lena) fascist passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[22] A Fascist policy is enacted (1/6).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
t=8Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "I place the strongest suspicion on Lena: she selected Ines, and their government enacted the Fascist policy; with a unanimous 7–0 vote, the policy flow between those two is our only meaningful distinction. Ines is not cleared by her prior promise, but Lena must account for the hand she passed."
Need a concise new accusation based on the enacted fascist policy, avoiding repetition of prior requests. Lena is primary due to presidency and choice of Ines; Ines remains possible. Note all voted Ja, so no voting differentiation.
R1: Boris-Lena Liberal; exact draw/discard/pass reports from Boris and Lena unanswered. R2: Lena-Ines Fascist; Ines promised discard F/enact L from 1L/1F; outcome leaves Lena passed 2F, Ines discarded L, or draw. Lena failed next-nominee commitment; 7-0 Ja. Suspect: Lena strongest (R2 chose Ines; government enacted F); Ines remains possible; unanimous vote gives no voter differentiation. Open: Boris/Lena R1 exact policy-flow reports; Lena next-nominee commitment; Lena/Ines R2 exact cards, discard, pass/enact accounts. Already said: demanded independent exact reports; asked Boris full draw/discard before Lena account; asked Lena exact receipt; asked Ines mixed-hand liberal commitment; inclined Ja only if Lena committed next nominee.
t=12Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Lena, answer this directly: did you pass Ines two Fascist cards? If not, Ines’s promised handling of a mixed hand is contradicted by the outcome."
A targeted question about whether Lena passed two Fascists is a useful new narrowing of the possible policy flow without repeating the general demand for reports.
R1: Boris-Lena Liberal; exact draw/discard/pass reports from Boris and Lena unanswered. R2: Lena-Ines Fascist; Ines promised discard F/enact L from 1L/1F; outcome leaves Lena passed 2F, Ines discarded L, or draw. Lena failed next-nominee commitment; 7-0 Ja. Suspect: Lena strongest (R2 chose Ines; government enacted F); Ines remains possible; unanimous vote gives no voter differentiation. Open: Boris/Lena R1 exact policy-flow reports; Lena next-nominee commitment; Lena/Ines R2 exact cards, discard, pass/enact accounts; Lena: whether she passed Ines 2F. Already said: demanded independent exact reports; asked Boris full draw/discard before Lena account; asked Lena exact receipt; asked Ines mixed-hand liberal commitment; inclined Ja only if Lena committed next nominee; accused Lena as strongest suspect after R2 F.
t=17Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Lena still owes the key detail: what three cards did you draw, and which one did you discard? That distinguishes a forced F/F pass from deliberately burying a Liberal."
Ask Lena for the unresolved presidential hand report, creating accountability without abandoning her. Avoid repeating my own F/F claim.
R1: Boris–Lena enacted Liberal; weak alignment evidence. Lena/Boris owe exact R1 card/discard/passed-policy reports. R2: Lena–Ines passed 7-0; Lena passed F/F; I enacted F; no Liberal option. Lena owes full R2 three-card draw, discard, passed pair, and fallback nominee if government failed. Suspicions: Lena strongest from R2 Fascist enactment and unanswered hand/fallback account; I remain implicated by government outcome. Open questions: Lena—R1 exact cards/discard/passed pair; R2 exact three-card draw/discard/passed pair; fallback nominee. Otto/Rosa awaiting fallback commitment. Already said: volunteered; promised exact independent report; supported scrutiny/independent reporting; promised discard F and enact L if L+F; supported passage pending accountability; stated Lena passed F/F and I had no Liberal option; asked Lena for exact three-card draw/discard detail.
t=22Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "I drew two Fascists and one Liberal, discarded a Fascist, and passed Ines one of each; she chose the Fascist, contrary to her commitment. Ines, state exactly what you discarded and why."
Give the required specific card account, shift responsibility to Ines, and request her exact account. This preserves coordination while making her appear responsible for choosing Fascist.
R2: Lena/Ines enacted F after unanimous 7–0. Claimed drew 2F/1L, discarded 1F, passed F/L; Ines chose F, contrary to commitment. Suspicions: Rosa—Lena based on nominating Ines and R2 F; Ines implicated by claimed choice. Open questions: Ines exact received cards/discard/reason; Nadia’s requested next nominee if Lena–Ines failed unanswered. Already said: support Lena–Ines; transparency; exact reporting; repeat nomination if failed; direct hand explanation; R2 card account and Ines chose F.
t=26Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Ines, if Lena’s account is accurate and you received one Liberal and one Fascist, why did you violate your explicit commitment to enact the Liberal?"
Ines's prior commitment and Lena's claimed mixed hand create a direct conditional contradiction. Ask why she violated it, without treating Lena's private card report as proven.
Suspects: Lena/Ines. R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; Lena claims 2F+1L, discarded F, passed mixed; Ines had committed to choose L from mixed. Lena’s claim unverified; Ines’s alleged violation is key. Open: Ines owes exact two received, discard, enacted card, and explanation; Lena owes R2 exact draw/discard consistency and unanswered fallback nominee commitment. Boris/Lena R1 exact reports never given. Already said: asked Boris R1 card report; asked Lena R2 fallback nominee; voted Ja; requested exact R2 accounts; noted Lena/Ines outcome; flagged Lena/Ines scrutiny.
t=31Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Until Ines accounts for breaking her explicit mixed-hand commitment, I’ll vote against her; Lena remains implicated because her card report is still only an unverified defense."
No unanswered question needs repeating. Add a concrete forward-looking voting position based on the unresolved contradiction, while keeping Lena implicated because her card report is unverified.
Suspects: Lena/Ines. R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; Lena claims 2F+1L, discarded F, passed mixed; Ines committed to choose L from mixed. Lena claim unverified; Ines alleged violation. Voting against Ines pending account; Lena still implicated. Open: Ines exact received cards/discard/enacted/explanation; Lena R2 fallback nominee; Boris/Lena R1 exact reports. Already said: asked Boris R1 card report; asked Lena R2 fallback nominee; voted Ja; requested exact R2 accounts; flagged Lena/Ines; asked Ines why she violated commitment; stated future vote against Ines pending account.
t=37Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I received two Fascist policies, discarded one, and enacted the other; there was no Liberal available for me to choose. Lena’s claim that she passed me a mixed hand is false, so she must explain why she is inventing that account."
Answer Nadia directly with a specific account consistent with the enacted Fascist policy, denying Lena's mixed-hand claim and placing responsibility on Lena.
R1: Boris–Lena enacted Liberal; weak alignment; R1 exact reports still absent. R2: Lena–Ines passed 7-0; Fascist enacted. Lena claims F/F/L, discarded F, passed F/L; my account: received F/F, discarded F, enacted F; Lena account conflicts. Suspect: Lena—R2 F enactment plus direct hand-account conflict; I remain implicated by outcome but deny mixed hand. Open: Lena—R1 exact cards/discard/passed pair; R2 exact draw/discard/passed pair; fallback nominee; explain conflict with my F/F account. Otto/Rosa—fallback commitment. Already said: volunteered; promised exact report; supported scrutiny/independent reporting; promised discard F and enact L if L+F; asked Lena for exact R2 draw/discard; stated Lena report wrong and my R2 hand F/F.
[23] [discussion closed: post_enact:2] The room falls silent.
28 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Lena, give the full R2 draw, discard, and passed-card sequence."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "R2’s Fascist policy puts Lena and Ines under direct suspicion. Give exact card/d"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Lena and Ines must account for this Fascist policy."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "R2 needs a precise card-by-card account from both of you."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "One clarification on the enacted policy"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I want to weigh Lena and Ines against the actual policy result."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "The policy narrows this to the government or the draw."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Rosa, yes: Lena passed me two Fascist cards; I had no Liberal option."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "The R2 card-flow fork needs to be explicit."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Lena and Ines both owe exact R2 card accounts; outcome implicates one or both."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "No. I discarded one Fascist and passed Ines one Fascist and one Liberal; she"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Pin down the hand and choice."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Ines, answer the card question directly."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "The decisive question is Ines’s exact account."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Both accounts need to be pinned down."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "My packet did not contain a Liberal."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Hold both accountable"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "My hand report stands; Ines must explain choosing Fascist over Liberal."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Lena’s report is wrong: I received F/F, so no Liberal was available to enact."
Round 3: President is Player 2 (Rosa) liberal.
t=5Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "I intend to nominate Boris: his Round 1 government enacted the Liberal policy, making him the strongest available test. Boris, commit now to a precise post-government card report."
As President, commit to a concrete nominee. Boris was Chancellor in the only Liberal-enacting government, while Lena and Ines are implicated by the Round 2 Fascist enactment.
R1: Boris-Lena enacted L; exact draw/discard/pass reports unanswered. R2: Lena-Ines enacted F; Lena claims F/F/L draw, discarded F, passed F+L; Ines claims F/F received, contradicting Lena and prior mixed-hand promise. Suspects: Lena—R2 government enacted F; unverified pass account. Ines—R2 F; claims no Liberal and breaks prior mixed-hand commitment. Boris currently best test due R1 L government. Open: Lena exact R1 draw/discard/pass; Boris full R1 flow; Lena R2 exact 3/discard/pass; Ines R2 received/discard/why F; Lena next-nominee commitment. Boris now owes precise post-government report. Already said: demanded exact independent reports; asked Boris full R1 flow; asked Lena exact receipt/passed 2F; asked Ines mixed-hand commitment; accused Lena strongest after R2 F; noted 7-0 nondiagnostic; Lena claim makes Ines culpable only if verified; stated exclude Lena/Ines and lean Boris.
t=10Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I commit to report my exact three-card draw, discard, and the two cards I pass, plus the enacted card. Rosa, name your intended fallback nominee now if this government fails."
Answer Rosa directly with a pre-commitment to report the full policy flow, and request her fallback nominee before the vote.
Suspicions: Lena/Ines jointly implicated by R2 F enactment; culprit Lena, Ines, or draw. Lena claims mixed pass; Ines claims F/F, contradiction unresolved. Open questions: R2 exact draw/discard/pass—Lena; R2 exact discard/explanation—Ines; Lena fallback nominee commitment; R1 exact 3-card report—Boris. Already said: requested pre-nomination commitments; committed scrutiny of reports; supported R1 Lena government; noted R2 culprit narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; asked for exact R2 accounts; now committed exact R3 report and asked Rosa for fallback nominee.
t=14Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Rosa, please name your fallback nominee now if Boris’s government fails; that choice should be accountable before we vote."
Rosa has not yet answered Boris's request for a fallback nominee. Asking for that commitment is new and useful accountability before nomination.
Suspects: - Lena/Ines: R2 government enacted F; only Lena, Ines, or unlucky draw. Lena claims 2F/1L, discarded F, passed F+L; Ines claims 2F and says Lena lied. Ines’s explicit mixed-hand promise conflicts with outcome. - Lena: R2 card account unverified; selected Ines and government enacted F. Open questions: - Boris: exact R1 3-card draw, discard, passed cards, enacted card. - Lena: exact R1 2-card receipt/discard (if relevant report). - Ines: exact R2 receipt/discard/rationale; unanswered. - Lena: contingency nominee if her government failed; unanswered. - Rosa: fallback nominee if Boris government fails; currently asked. Already said: - R2 Lena–Ines scrutiny narrowed to president/chancellor/draw. - Requested Lena answer contingency nominee. - Requested exact independent card reports and comparison. - Flagged Ines exact discard/rationale and Lena account. - No objection to Lena–Ines absent concrete evidence.
t=18Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Boris, your reporting commitment is useful; will you also commit now to discard a Fascist and enact Liberal if Rosa passes you one of each?"
Ask Boris for a concrete mixed-hand commitment, adding new scrutiny without repeating my Lena/Ines account dispute. This supports a test government while sounding liberal.
R1: Boris–Lena enacted Liberal; weak alignment; exact reports absent. R2: Lena–Ines passed 7-0; Fascist enacted. Lena claims F/F/L, discarded F, passed F/L; my account: received F/F, discarded F, enacted F; Lena account conflicts. Suspect: Lena—R2 F enactment + direct hand-account conflict; I remain implicated by outcome but deny mixed hand. Open: Lena—R1 exact cards/discard/passed pair; R2 exact draw/discard/passed pair; explain conflict with my F/F account. Otto/Rosa—fallback nominee and commitment. Boris—mixed-hand handling commitment. Already said: volunteered; promised exact report; supported scrutiny/independent reporting; promised discard F and enact L if L+F; asked Lena for exact R2 draw/discard; stated Lena report wrong and my R2 hand F/F; asked for fallback commitment.
t=22Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Yes—if Rosa passes me one Liberal and one Fascist, I will discard the Fascist, enact the Liberal, and report the exact cards afterward."
Ines directly asked for a commitment that is not answered in the visible transcript; answer specifically. Rosa still owes fallback nominee.
Suspicions: Lena/Ines jointly implicated by R2 F enactment; culprit Lena, Ines, or draw. Lena mixed-pass claim contradicts Ines F/F claim. Open questions: R2 exact draw/discard/pass—Lena; R2 exact discard/explanation—Ines; fallback nominee if R3 fails—Rosa. Already said: requested pre-nomination commitments; committed scrutiny of reports; supported R1 Lena government; narrowed R2 culprit to Lena/Ines/draw; asked exact R2 accounts; committed exact R3 report; asked Rosa for fallback nominee; committed to discard F and enact L if passed F/L.
[25] [discussion closed: open_floor:3] The room falls silent.
21 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, name your nominee and your intended vote before acting."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I favor a clean, low-drama test government with clear card accounting."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "One useful distinction before you nominate:"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I will not nominate Lena or Ines; I’m leaning toward Boris for Chancellor."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I support the transparent test."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "My fallback is Greta."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Boris is a reasonable test; Rosa, give us your fallback before nominating."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "One useful addition: preserve the audit trail."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Yes: given F/L, I discard F, enact L, then report all three cards."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Fallback is Greta. Boris, commit to discard Fascist if offered a choice."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Set the government before we debate promises."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
President Player 2 (Rosa) liberal nominates Player 0 (Boris) liberal for Chancellor.
t=4Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "I’ll vote Ja: Boris’s prior Liberal government makes this the cleanest way to test whether the Round 2 Fascist policy was caused by Lena, Ines, or both."
Need add a fresh stance without repeating prior demands. Explain why this is a useful test and state vote.
Suspects: Lena—R2 Lena–Ines government enacted F; claims mixed hand, unverified. Ines—R2 F; claims received 2F, contradicting Lena and prior mixed-hand promise. Boris currently strongest test; R1 Boris–Lena enacted L. Open: Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2 received/discard/why F; Boris post-R3 exact draw/discard/pass/enacted report. Otto fallback question unanswered; Greta fallback if Boris fails. Already said: requested exact independent reports; asked Boris full R1 flow; asked Lena whether passed 2F; asked Ines mixed-hand commitment; accused Lena strongest after R2 F; noted 7–0 nondiagnostic; said Lena claim makes Ines culpable only if verified; stated exclude Lena/Ines and lean Boris; committed Boris nomination and fallback accountability.
t=7Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Rosa, you still owe us a named fallback nominee if this government fails; please commit to it before we vote."
Rosa has not answered the pre-vote request for a fallback nominee, while Boris has committed to handling a mixed hand. Ask Rosa directly for that unaddressed commitment.
Suspects: Lena/Ines. R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; Lena claims 2F+1L, discarded F, passed mixed; Ines claims 2F received and enacted F, contradiction unresolved. Open questions: Ines exact R2 received/discarded/enacted account and explanation; Lena R2 fallback nominee; Boris R1 exact draw/discard/pass report; Rosa fallback nominee; Boris mixed-hand policy commitment; Rosa intended policy handling before vote. Already said: asked Boris R1 card report; asked Lena R2 fallback; voted Ja; requested exact R2 accounts; flagged Lena/Ines; asked Ines why she violated commitment; stated future vote against Ines pending account; asked Rosa for fallback nominee.
t=12Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "I’m inclined to vote Ja. Rosa, please report your own exact draw, discard, and the two cards you pass afterward as well—otherwise Boris’s report cannot be independently tested."
Support the government while adding a new accountability demand: Rosa should report her own draw and passed cards, not only rely on Boris's account. This creates a future consistency test without repeating the fallback request.
R2: Lena/Ines enacted F after 7–0; Lena claimed 2F/1L, discarded F, passed F/L; Ines chose F despite promise. Ines claims F/F. Suspicions: Ines—contradicts Lena mixed-hand account and prior promise; Lena implicated by R2 government. Rosa suspects Lena. Nadia against Ines pending account. Open: Ines exact discard/reason for F enactment; Rosa fallback nominee if Boris government fails; Boris exact post-government report; Ines explanation for breaking conditional commitment. Already said: support Lena–Ines; transparency/exact reporting; repeat nomination if failed; R2 hand account; Ines chose F contrary to commitment; R1 Liberal result supports Boris nomination; Ines must state exact discard and why. New: Asked Rosa to report exact draw, discard, and passed cards so Boris’s account can be tested; inclined Ja.
t=17Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Boris, if Rosa gives you two Fascists, please commit to identifying that as a forced enactment rather than implying you received a mixed hand; that distinction matters for judging this government."
Need add a genuinely new point rather than repeat the unresolved fallback request. Ask Boris to distinguish a forced F/F hand from a mixed hand, preserving pressure without undermining the government.
Suspect: Lena—R2 F enactment; her F/F/L report conflicts with my F/F account; both implicated; account inconsistent. Open: Lena—R1 exact cards/discard/passed pair; R2 exact draw/discard/passed pair; explain conflict with my R2 F/F account. Boris—whether F/F hand is forced and exact reporting. Rosa—named fallback nominee; still unanswered. Otto—fallback/election commitments. Already said: volunteered; exact-report promise; supported scrutiny; promised discard F/enact L with L+F; asked Lena exact R2 draw/discard; stated Lena report wrong and R2 hand F/F; asked Rosa fallback; asked Boris mixed-hand commitment; now asked Boris to distinguish forced F/F from mixed hand.
t=22Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Boris, before we vote, was your Round 1 Liberal enacted from a mixed hand, or were you forced into it by drawing three Liberals? That distinction affects how much weight I give that prior government."
Ask a genuinely new question about Boris's prior successful government, distinguishing a mixed hand from a forced liberal outcome. Keep Rosa's unanswered fallback in notes but do not repeat it publicly.
Suspects: - Lena/Ines: R2 enacted F; Lena claims 2F/1L, discarded F, passed F+L; Ines claims 2F and says Lena passed 2F. Ines's mixed-hand promise conflicts with outcome. - Lena: selected Ines in R2; F enacted; card account unverified. Open questions: - Rosa: named fallback nominee if R3 fails; unanswered. - Boris: exact R1 draw/discard/pass/enacted card; unanswered; now asked whether R1 L came from mixed hand or 3L. - Lena: exact R1 receipt/discard if relevant; unanswered. - Ines: exact R2 receipt/discard/rationale; unanswered. Already said: - R2 scrutiny narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; requested exact reports/comparison. - Flagged Ines discard/rationale and Lena account. - No objection to Lena/Ines absent concrete evidence. - Asked Rosa for fallback before vote. - Rosa-Boris: Boris's R1 L is favorable evidence; Rosa fallback still owed. - Ines's Boris promise request is not evidence.
t=27Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Round 1 was a mixed hand: I drew two Liberals and one Fascist, discarded the Fascist, and passed Lena the two Liberals. So that government was not forced into the Liberal enactment."
Need add a new accountability request without repeating my prior answers or accusations. Rosa has not committed to her handling/report before acting.
Suspicions: Lena/Ines jointly implicated in R2 F; R2 Lena president + Ines chancellor -> F; culprit Lena, Ines, or draw. Open questions: R2 exact draw/discard/pass—Lena; R2 exact discard/explanation—Ines; R3 fallback nominee—Rosa; all unanswered. Already said: requested pre-nomination commitments; demanded R2 accounts; narrowed R2 culprit; committed exact R3 report; asked Rosa fallback; committed F/L handling; answered Otto R1 mixed hand, discarded F, passed two L.
t=31Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "If this government fails, my fallback nominee is Greta; I’m committing to that choice now so the next government is accountable too."
I should fulfill my commitment with a precise card report. Claiming a mixed draw with two Liberals and one Fascist, discarding the Fascist, and passing two Liberals is consistent with the enacted Liberal and strongly tests Boris's report.
Suspects: Lena—R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; mixed-hand claim unverified. Ines—R2 F; claims 2F, contradicting Lena and prior mixed-hand promise. Boris current test; R1 Boris–Lena enacted L. Open: Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2 received/discard/why F; Boris exact R3 received/discard/enacted report; Boris R1 mixed vs forced unanswered; fallback Greta if failure. Already said: requested exact reports; asked Boris full R1 flow; asked Lena whether passed 2F; asked Ines mixed-hand commitment; accused Lena strongest after R2 F; noted 7–0 nondiagnostic; said Lena claim makes Ines culpable only if verified; committed Boris nomination and Greta fallback; committed voting Ja; promised own exact R3 draw/discard/pass report; promised to pass Boris a Liberal whenever draw contains one; reported R3 draw 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L.
t=35Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Rosa, please commit to giving your exact draw and discard before Boris reports, so his account can be assessed independently rather than anchored by yours."
Ask Rosa for a clear mixed-versus-double-F disclosure, adding a useful accountability point without overplaying support for the government.
Suspects/evidence: - R2 Lena/Ines: Fascist enacted; Lena claims 2F+1L, discarded F, passed F+L; Ines claims received 2F. One account false. - R1 Boris/Lena: Liberal enacted; no adverse evidence. Open questions: - Rosa: current draw/discard/pass report; fallback nominee; explicitly distinguish mixed vs 2F pass. - Boris: current draw/discard/pass report; identify forced F/F if applicable. - Lena: R2 exact draw/discard/pass; fallback nominee; independent R1 account. - Ines: R2 received/discard/account. Already said aloud: - Supported Boris-Lena test and clean low-drama governments. - Requested exact independent card reports. - Supported Lena-Ines transparency test. - Urged fallback nominee/accountability. - Current: asked Rosa to distinguish mixed vs 2F pass.
t=39Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Rosa, commit now: if you pass Boris one Liberal and one Fascist, will you pass the Liberal and report the exact draw and discard?"
Nadia asked me directly for a commitment, so I should answer clearly. This is consistent with my prior stated reporting commitment and adds the exact handling condition.
Suspects: Lena—R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; mixed-hand claim unverified. Ines—R2 F; claims 2F, contradicting Lena and prior mixed-hand promise. Boris current test; R1 Boris–Lena enacted L. Open: Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2 received/discard/why F; Boris exact R3 draw/discard/pass/enacted report; Otto fallback question unanswered. Already said: requested exact reports; asked Boris full R1 flow; asked Lena whether passed 2F; asked Ines mixed-hand commitment; accused Lena strongest after R2 F; noted 7–0 nondiagnostic; said Lena claim makes Ines culpable only if verified; committed Boris nomination and Greta fallback; committed voting Ja; promised own exact R3 draw/discard/pass report; committed to pass Boris a Liberal whenever draw contains one.
[27] [discussion closed: pre_vote:3] The room falls silent.
35 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, commit before we vote."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, commit to a fallback outside Lena/Ines before voting."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I’m inclined to approve: Boris has a clean enacted record, and Rosa should give-"
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Boris, give your exact R1 draw, discard, and passed cards before we vote."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I lean yes, with one request for clarity."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "One procedural point before we vote."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I support the vote, with one procedural condition."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "If this fails, I will nominate Greta next—committed in advance."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I’m leaning Ja, with one procedural question."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I want Rosa’s fallback and both governments’ exact card accounts before voting."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "One final condition before I decide."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I’m leaning Ja; please give exact reports after this government."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Otto: mixed hand; I discarded F and passed Lena two Liberals."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "I’ll report my exact hand after passage; Boris must likewise report whether any "
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I’ll vote Ja; report the full draw, discard, and passed cards afterward."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "One useful safeguard:"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "That commitment makes this a useful transparency test."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "One useful condition before we vote."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "This is a controlled test; I’m voting Ja unless someone identifies a concrete22"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I’m inclined Ja, with exact post-government reporting."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I want a clear commitment from both before I decide this vote."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "I support this cautiously, with one clear accountability test."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "I’ll report my exact draw; any Liberal means Boris gets a Liberal, guaranteed."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, give your fallback now; Boris, commit to a full card report afterward."
[28] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
President Player 2 (Rosa) liberal passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[30] A Liberal policy is enacted (2/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
t=5Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "My Round 3 draw was Liberal, Fascist, Fascist; I discarded a Fascist and passed Boris Liberal/Fascist, so Boris now needs to state which card he discarded and confirm the Liberal enactment."
Ines remains the strongest suspect because she was in both fascist-enacting governments. Her R4 commitment covered only a mixed hand, leaving the two-Fascist case unaddressed; she has not supplied the exact report. State that this omission increases suspicion and assign responsibility pending disclosure.
Suspects: Ines strongest—Chancellor R2 F and President R4 F; only repeat participant in both F governments; R4 commitment omitted 2F case and exact report still absent. Greta—Chancellor R4 F, first government. Lena—President R2 F; R2 account unresolved. R4 culprit limited to Ines, Greta, or draw. Open: Ines R2 exact received/discarded/enacted account; whether R2 was 2F forced; Lena R2 fallback; Boris R1 exact draw/discard/pass; Rosa R3 exact draw/discard/pass/enacted; Ines R4 exact draw/discard/pass; Greta R4 exact draw/discard/pass; R4 mixed vs 2F and who chose F. Already said: flagged Ines as leading suspect; requested R2/R4 exact reports and mixed-vs-2F distinction; asked Ines withdraw Greta absent reporting commitment; demanded pre-commitments; requested Boris/Rosa reports and Rosa fallback; supported Rosa/Boris test; asked Lena fallback; Greta committed exact R4 report/discard F from mixed; stated Ines and Greta must explain R4.
[31] [discussion closed: post_enact:3] The room falls silent.
7 bids this window
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "One final commitment from Boris before we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I support this test government; Boris, commit now to a full card report."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa’s Liberal commitment is useful; Boris, please commit to enacting Liberal if"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I’m inclined to approve this government."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "A straightforward transparency test seems reasonable."
Round 4: President is Player 3 (Ines) fascist.
t=5Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I’m going to nominate Lena as a direct test of the unresolved Round 2 government; she should give a precise card account afterward, and I’ll scrutinize the outcome against it."
Need add a new pre-nomination accountability request directed at Ines, not repeat existing fallback issue. Her prior chancellorship enacted the sole Fascist policy, so demand commitment on mixed hand and exact report.
Suspicions: Lena/Ines jointly implicated in R2 F; Lena president + Ines chancellor enacted F; conflicting accounts. Culprit narrowed Lena, Ines, or unlucky draw. Rosa untested. Evidence: R1 Boris-Lena L; R2 Lena-Ines F; R3 Rosa-Boris L from mixed hand. Open questions: Rosa R3 exact draw/discard/pass report unanswered; Lena R2 exact draw/discard/pass unanswered; Ines R2 discard/explanation for broken mixed-hand commitment unanswered. New: Ines pre-R4 mixed-hand Liberal-enactment commitment and exact reporting. Already said: requested pre-nomination commitments; demanded R2 accounts; narrowed R2 culprit; committed exact R3 report; asked Rosa fallback; committed F/L handling; answered Otto R1 was mixed, discarded F, passed two L; asked Rosa exact draw/discard/pass; supported cautious R3 scrutiny.
t=10Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "I’m willing to serve and will report my exact cards afterward; Ines, before nominating me, will you commit to passing a Liberal if you receive one alongside a Fascist?"
Ines is current President and was Chancellor in the only Fascist-enacting government. Ask for a concrete nominee and fallback before action, emphasizing unresolved accountability without rehashing prior statements.
Suspects: - Lena/Ines: R2 F; Lena claims 2F+L then passed F+L, Ines account unresolved; culprit Lena/Ines/draw. - Lena: selected Ines in R2; F outcome; account unverified. - Rosa/Boris: R3 L lowers suspicion, not clearance. Open questions: - Boris: exact R1 draw/discard/pass; unanswered. - Lena: exact R2 receipt/discard; unanswered. - Ines: exact R2 receipt/discard/rationale; unanswered. - Boris: exact R3 discard; Rosa requested, pending. Already said: - R2 scrutiny narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; requested exact reports. - Flagged Ines discard/rationale and Lena account. - No objection to Lena/Ines absent evidence. - Asked Rosa fallback; she fixed Greta and promised report. - Noted Ines's Boris promise request not evidence. - Asked Boris about R1 hand; unanswered. - Boris committed mixed-hand Liberal handling/report. - Voted Ja on Rosa-Boris test government. - Asked Ines to name nominee and fixed fallback before nomination.
t=14Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Yes—if you pass me one Liberal and one Fascist, I’ll discard the Fascist, enact the Liberal, and report my exact draw and discard afterward."
Boris directly asks for a commitment, so answer clearly and consistently. This reinforces a liberal cover without adding unnecessary detail.
Suspects: Lena—R2 F enactment; my R2 F/F account conflicts with her claimed hand/report. Boris—possible F/F handling; unresolved. Rosa—favorable; explicit Liberal-hand commitment. Open: Lena—R1/R2 exact cards, discard, passed pair; explain conflict with my R2 account. Boris—R2 forced F/F vs mixed; exact draw/discard/passed cards; mixed L/F commitment. Rosa—R3 exact draw/discard/passed cards; fallback Greta. Otto—fallback/election commitments unanswered. Already said: volunteered; exact-report promise; scrutiny support; asked Lena exact R2 cards; said Lena report wrong and R2 hand F/F; asked Rosa fallback; asked Boris mixed-hand commitment; asked Boris distinguish forced F/F from mixed; noted Rosa Liberal-draw commitment should yield Liberal enactment through Boris; nominated Greta with Otto fallback. Now committed: if L+F, enact L and report exact cards.
[33] [discussion closed: open_floor:4] The room falls silent.
14 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "R3 was a clean liberal result; focus remains on R2."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "My R3 report, then one question for Lena and Ines."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I want the full R3 card account from both of you."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Ines, name your nominee and intended policy plan first."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "One concrete government recommendation."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I’ll nominate Rosa unless a stronger unresolved concern emerges."
President Player 3 (Ines) fascist nominates Player 1 (Lena) fascist for Chancellor.
t=4Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Lena, you have not yet committed to the key handling case: if Ines passes you one Liberal and one Fascist, will you discard the Fascist and enact Liberal?"
Ask Greta for a fresh, specific accountability commitment before nomination; this is not yet on record and reinforces her credibility without overdefending her.
Suspects: Lena—R2 F enactment; unresolved exact hand/account conflict. Boris—R2 handling unresolved. Rosa—favorable; R3 L outcome supports claim. Open: Lena owes exact R2 draw/discard/passed cards and explanation of conflict. Boris owes R2 exact cards and whether F/F forced or mixed. Rosa owes exact R3 cards/report; fallback Greta. Otto's fallback/election commitments unanswered. Greta now asked to commit exact report and L+F handling. Already said: exact-report promises; scrutiny support; challenged Lena's R2 account; said R2 was F/F; asked Rosa fallback; asked Boris distinguish F/F from mixed; endorsed Liberal when mixed; nominated Greta, Otto fallback; committed to enact L from L+F and report cards.
t=8Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Lena, do you corroborate Ines’s claim that Round 2 gave her two Fascists, or do you say she received a Liberal/Fascist mix? Please answer before we vote."
Need add unanswered question without repeating prior accusations. The lone Nein remains unidentified, and Otto's investigation is only useful if tied to that vote; ask Otto directly.
Suspects: Ines—R2 Chancellor and R4 President in the two Fascist enactments; only repeat participant; R4 card accounts conflict. Lena—R2 President in Fascist government; defended Greta despite contradiction. Greta—R4 Chancellor with conflicting account. Ines/Greta jointly accountable or unlucky draw. Open: Ines owes exact R2 transfer/discard and R4 hand/transfer; Lena exact R2 account; Greta precise R4 received/discard; Boris R1 report; Rosa R3 report; Otto owes whether he cast lone Nein in R4. Ines investigating Otto; result pending. Already said: Ines leading suspect; demanded exact R2/R4 reports and mixed-vs-2F distinction; asked Ines withdraw Greta absent report; demanded precommitments; requested Boris/Rosa reports and Rosa fallback; supported Rosa/Boris test; asked Lena fallback; Greta committed R4 report; noted Ines omitted 2F commitment; noted Rosa mechanical contradiction; recommended scrutinizing repeat participant; challenged Ines target and favored Lena.
t=13Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Ines, state precisely what two cards Lena passed you in Round 2 and which card you discarded; that exact account is still missing from the government that enacted the Fascist policy."
I should add a new accountability condition: Ines should not proceed with Greta unless Greta commits to a full, checkable report. This tests whether Ines is prioritizing transparency after her unresolved Round 2 government.
Suspects: Lena/Ines—R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; Lena claimed 2F+1L, discarded F, passed mixed; Ines claimed 2F received/enacted F. Contradiction unresolved. Greta untested; R4 outcome narrows Ines/Greta/draw. Open: Ines R2 exact received/discarded/enacted account + commitment-violation explanation; Lena R2 fallback nominee; Boris R1 exact draw/discard/pass; Rosa R3 exact draw/discard/pass/enacted report + pass-L commitment; Ines/Greta R4 Liberal/Fascist commitment; Ines whether she withdraws Greta without full report. Already said: asked Boris R1 report; asked Lena fallback; voted Ja R1/R2; requested exact R2 accounts; flagged Lena/Ines; asked Ines why commitment violated; said future vote against Ines pending account; asked Rosa fallback; supported Rosa/Boris test; requested Rosa exact report; asked Boris full report; challenged reliance on promises and demanded pre-commitments.
t=19Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "In Round 2 I drew two Fascists and one Liberal, discarded the Liberal, and passed Lena two Fascists; she enacted the Fascist policy. Lena’s exact account should now confirm or contradict that directly."
Answer Ines directly and reinforce transparency without adding unnecessary conflict.
Suspects/evidence: - R2 Lena/Ines: F enacted; Lena claims 2F+1L, discarded F, passed F+L; Ines claims received 2F. One account false. - R1 Boris/Lena: L enacted; no adverse evidence. - R3 Rosa/Boris: L enacted; exact reports pending. Open questions: - Rosa: R3 exact draw/discard/pass/enacted report; mixed vs 2F. - Boris: R3 exact report; forced F/F if applicable. - Lena: R2 exact draw/discard/pass; fallback nominee; R1 account. - Ines: R2 received/discard/account. Already said aloud: - Supported clean, low-drama test governments. - Requested exact independent card reports. - Supported Lena-Ines transparency test. - Urged fallback nominee/accountability. - Asked Rosa to distinguish mixed vs 2F pass. - Offered willingness to serve as test Chancellor and report exact hand. - Committed Ines to exact draw/report and Liberal choice on mixed hand.
t=25Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "I drew two Fascists and one Liberal in Round 2, discarded a Fascist, and passed Ines one of each; her claim that I passed two Fascists is false. If she gives me a Liberal and Fascist now, I’ll discard the Fascist and enact the Liberal."
Nominate Hitler Greta now, with Otto fallback. This gives a chance to advance fascist count while maintaining a plausible testing rationale; if possible, enact Liberal for cover.
Suspects: Lena—R2 F enactment; claimed F/L/F? account conflicts with my R2 F/F account. Boris—unresolved; possible F/F handling. Rosa—favorable; explicit Liberal-hand commitment. Open: Lena—R1/R2 exact cards, discard, passed pair; explain conflict with my R2 account. Boris—R2 forced F/F vs mixed; exact draw/discard/passed cards; mixed L/F commitment. Rosa—R3 exact draw/discard/passed cards; fallback Greta. Otto—fallback/election commitments unanswered. Already said: volunteered; exact-report promise; scrutiny support; discard F/enact L with L+F; asked Lena exact R2 draw/discard; said Lena report wrong and R2 hand F/F; asked Rosa fallback; asked Boris mixed-hand commitment; asked Boris distinguish forced F/F from mixed; noted Rosa Liberal-draw commitment should yield Liberal enactment through Boris.
t=30Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Ines, your Round 2 account is mechanically impossible for a Chancellor: you receive two cards, discard one, and enact one—you cannot draw three and pass two. Correct that contradiction or I vote Nein."
Lena directly asks for my future card report. I should answer clearly and commit to truthful exact reporting, without repeating the already-recorded fallback or suspicion points.
Suspects: Lena—R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; mixed-hand claim unverified. Ines—R2 F; claims 2F, contradicting Lena and prior mixed-hand promise. Boris strongest current test; R1 Boris–Lena enacted L. Open: Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2 received/discard/why F; Boris exact R3 draw/discard/pass/enacted report; Otto fallback question unanswered. Already said: requested exact reports; asked Boris full R1 flow; asked Lena whether passed 2F; asked Ines mixed-hand commitment; accused Lena strongest after R2 F; noted 7–0 nondiagnostic; said Lena claim makes Ines culpable only if verified; committed Boris nomination and Greta fallback; committed voting Ja; promised own exact report now.
t=36Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Boris is misreading my statement: I was the Round 2 President, so I drew three, discarded the Liberal, and passed Lena two Fascists. Lena’s claim that she received a Liberal and Fascist still directly contradicts that account."
Ines's unresolved Round 2 Fascist remains significant. New question: commitment for the all-Fascist case, which has not been explicitly addressed for Ines. Ask for exact handling/reporting before vote.
Suspicions: Lena/Ines jointly implicated in R2 F; R2 Lena president + Ines chancellor enacted F. Culprit: Lena, Ines, or unlucky draw. Rosa/Greta untested. Evidence: R1 Boris-Lena L; R2 Lena-Ines F; R3 Rosa-Boris L from mixed hand. Open questions unanswered: Rosa exact R3 draw/discard/pass; Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines R2 discard/explanation; Ines forced-two-F reporting; Ines/Greta commitment binding. Already said: requested pre-nomination commitments; demanded R2 accounts; narrowed R2 culprit; committed exact R3 report; asked Rosa fallback/cards; committed F/L handling; answered Otto R1 mixed, discarded F, passed two L; supported R3 scrutiny; noted Ines fallback plans; opposed Ines-Greta due unresolved R2.
t=43Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Lena, your claim that you “drew two Fascists and one Liberal” as Round 2 Chancellor is mechanically impossible—you received two cards. Correct that wording and state which two you received, which you discarded, and which you enacted; until then I reject this government."
Ines is the leading suspect, but the investigation should target Lena because Lena was the President in the earlier Fascist government and her party membership is unresolved. Greta's R4 conflict is already public and investigating her adds less information.
Suspect Ines: R2 Chancellor in F enactment and R4 President in F enactment; only repeat participant in both. R4 Ines/Greta claims conflict: Ines says 2L+1F, discarded L, passed L+F; Greta says received 2F. Lena: R2 President in F government; defended Greta despite contradiction. R4 Ines/Greta jointly accountable or unlucky draw. Open: Ines exact R2 transfer/discard; R4 exact hand/transfer; Lena exact R2 account; Greta precise R4 discard/received cards; Boris R1 report; Rosa R3 report. Investigation target/result, especially Lena. Already said: Ines leading suspect; demanded exact R2/R4 reports and mixed-vs-2F distinction; asked Ines withdraw Greta absent report; demanded precommitments; requested Boris/Rosa reports and Rosa fallback; supported Rosa/Boris test; asked Lena fallback; Greta committed R4 report; noted Ines omitted 2F commitment; noted Rosa mechanical contradiction; recommended scrutinizing repeat participant.
t=48Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "The “drew” wording is a role slip, not evidence by itself; the real test is whether Lena received L/F or F/F. I’m voting Ja so her stated handling of a mixed hand gives us a checkable result."
Press Lena on endorsing Greta's mechanically inconsistent account, while avoiding repeating my own hand report. This creates distance from Lena if needed and reinforces Greta suspicion.
Suspects/evidence: - Lena: R2 Chancellor; F enacted; exact hand/account unresolved; endorsed Greta's mechanically inconsistent R4 story. - Greta: R4 received F+L per my report, enacted F; claims two F passed, then says I discarded L—mechanically impossible. - Boris/Rosa: L enacted R1/R3; exact reports incomplete. Open questions: - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/passed cards; F/F vs mixed. - Boris: exact R1 handling/report. - Rosa: exact R3 report. - Greta: reconcile R4 two-F claim with Liberal-discard claim. - Otto: concrete objection/support conditions. - Lone Nein voter: identity and voting record. - Lena: retract or explain endorsement of Greta's contradiction. Already stated: - R4 drew F,L,L; discarded L; passed F,L; Greta discarded L and enacted F. - Greta's two-F account mechanically inconsistent; never claimed to pass two F. - R2 F/F claim; Greta clean-data nomination; Otto fallback. - Exact-report scrutiny and mixed-hand Liberal commitments. - Generalized suspicion insufficient; current vote Ja. - Hitler threshold not live at 2F; evaluate evidence.
t=53Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "I’m voting Nein: whether Ines or Lena is truthful, one of them knowingly misrepresented the Round 2 card transfer, so approving this government rewards an unresolved contradiction."
R4's Fascist policy narrows responsibility to Ines, Greta, or an unlucky draw. Ines is the only player present in both Fascist-enacting governments, so identify that pattern while demanding exact R4 card flow. Do not repeat prior requests verbatim; ask whether the hand was mixed or two Fascists and who chose the Fascist.
Suspects: Ines strongest—Chancellor R2 F and President R4 F; only repeat participant in both F governments. Greta—Chancellor R4 F, first government. Lena—President R2 F; R2 account unresolved. R4 culprit limited to Ines, Greta, or draw. Open: Ines R2 exact received/discarded/enacted account; whether R2 was 2F forced; Lena R2 fallback; Boris R1 exact draw/discard/pass; Rosa R3 exact draw/discard/pass/enacted; Ines R4 exact draw/discard/pass report; Greta R4 exact draw/discard/pass report; R4 mixed vs 2F distinction and who chose F. Already said: requested Boris R1 report; asked Lena fallback; requested exact R2 accounts; flagged Lena/Ines; asked Ines why commitment violated; future vote against Ines pending account; asked Rosa fallback/exact report; supported Rosa/Boris test; asked Boris full report; demanded pre-commitments; asked Ines withdraw Greta if Greta refused; Greta committed exact R4 report/discard F from mixed.
t=57Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, if you genuinely believe Lena received two Fascists in Round 2, why nominate her as a reliable test now rather than treating her as compromised?"
Directly press Lena for the unresolved Round 2 account, since her defense of Greta adds scrutiny but no card evidence.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in Fascist enactments; only player in both. R4 account conflicts with Greta; strongest repeated-government evidence. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; claims 2F passed, conflicts with Ines’s 1L/1F account. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist enactment; exact account unverified; defended Greta. - Rosa/Boris: R3 Liberal government; not cleared. Open questions: - Ines: exact R2 cards/discard/pass; R4 draw, discard, exact pass; Otto investigation result. - Greta: exact R4 received cards/discard; basis for 2F claim. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Boris: R1 draw/discard/pass; R3 discard answer. Already said: - R2 Fascist narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Voted Ja on Rosa-Boris test. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Greta committed exact R4 report and mixed-hand rule. - Voted Ja on Ines-Greta; Ines remains suspect. - Identified mutually exclusive Ines/Greta R4 accounts and three possible culprits. - Demanded exact R4 transfer from Ines; Lena defense insufficient. - Investigation of Otto cannot resolve R4 contradiction or Ines’s repeated involvement. - Confirmed casting lone Nein on Ines-Greta. - Now directly demanded Lena’s exact R2 card report.
t=62Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Even a Liberal enactment would not clear this ticket: Ines controls the three-card draw and Lena controls the final discard, so the unresolved transfer contradiction remains decisive. I’m voting Nein."
Greta's account contains a mechanical inconsistency: if Ines passed two Fascists, Ines's three-card draw had to be three Fascists and she discarded a Fascist; she could not have discarded a Liberal from that draw. This specifically undermines Greta's claim, though Ines remains implicated by both Fascist governments.
Suspects: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in both F enactments; only player in both F governments. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; claims 2F passed, but account says Ines could discard L from 3F (mechanically impossible). - Lena: R2 President with Ines; R2 flow unresolved. - Boris: R1/R3 governments; exact reports/card flows need consistency. Open questions: - Ines/Greta: exact R4 draw, transfer, discard; contradiction unresolved. - Lena/Ines: exact R2 draw, discard, passed/enacted cards. - Boris: exact R1/R3 card flows and reports. - Identity of lone Nein on R4 vote; unanswered. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports; challenged Lena/Ines on R2 responsibility. - Asked Boris for full R1/R3 flows. - Nominated Boris; fixed Greta fallback; committed Ja. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Promised pass L whenever drawn. - Supported Greta as new test; acknowledged reporting commitments. - Noted 7–0 R3 vote nondiagnostic. - Noted Ines only player in both F governments. - Asked who cast lone Nein on R4. - Pointed out Greta's R4 mechanical contradiction: 2F passed requires 3F draw and F discard.
t=66Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Otto’s premise is wrong: I was President in Round 2, so my three-card draw and two-card pass were mechanically valid; the Chancellor receives only two cards."
Ask Otto for a concrete support commitment, strengthening Greta's path while appearing procedurally cautious.
Suspects/evidence: - Lena: R2 F enactment as Chancellor; exact hand/account conflict unresolved. - Boris: R2 prior Chancellor; exact handling unresolved. - Rosa: R3 L enactment supports Liberal-leaning claim. Open questions: - Lena owes exact R2 draw/discard/passed cards + conflict explanation. - Boris owes exact R2 cards; F/F forced vs mixed. - Rosa owes exact R3 cards/report. - Greta committed exact reporting and discarding F on L+F. - Otto fallback/election support commitments unanswered. Already stated: - Exact-report promises and scrutiny support. - Challenged Lena R2 account; said R2 was F/F. - Asked Rosa fallback; asked Boris distinguish F/F from mixed. - Endorsed enacting L from L+F and reporting cards. - Nominated Greta, Otto fallback.
t=73Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia’s standard is unfalsifiable: she says even a Liberal enactment proves nothing, so rejecting this ticket preserves the contradiction without testing anything. I’m voting Ja and judging the government by its public card report and outcome."
Give the exact verifiable Chancellor-side account, reinforcing that the Fascist enactment was forced on me while placing responsibility for the presidential discard on Ines.
Suspects/evidence: - R2 Lena/Ines: Fascist enacted; Lena claims 2F+1L, discarded F, passed F+L; Ines claims received 2F. One account false. - R1 Boris/Lena: Liberal enacted; no adverse evidence. - R3 Rosa/Boris: Liberal enacted; exact reports pending. - R4 Ines/Greta: received 2F; Greta discarded F/enacted F; Ines presidential discard/report key. Open questions: - Ines owes exact R2 received/discard/account and R4 exact draw/discard/pass. - Lena owes exact R2 draw/discard/pass and R1 account. - Rosa/Boris owe R3 exact draw/discard/pass; mixed vs 2F. Already said aloud: - Supported clean, low-drama test governments; requested exact independent reports. - Supported Lena-Ines transparency test; urged fallback nominee/accountability. - Asked Rosa mixed vs 2F; offered to serve as test Chancellor and report exact hand. - Committed Ines to exact draw/report and Liberal choice on mixed hand. - Supported current Ines-Greta pairing; urged judging by record. - Reported R4 received 2F from Ines; forced Fascist enactment. - Now specified R4: discarded one F, enacted the other; Ines owes presidential discard distinction.
t=77Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, what specific government would you accept as a meaningful test, given that you’ve ruled out this one regardless of its outcome?"
Answer directly with the consistent mixed-hand report; this shifts responsibility for the Fascist enactment onto Greta while preserving my Liberal cover.
Suspects/evidence: - Lena: R2 Chancellor; F enacted; exact hand/account unresolved. - Greta: R4 received mixed F+L from me yet enacted F; now falsely claims two F passed. - Boris/Rosa: L enacted in R1/R3; exact reports incomplete. Open questions: - Lena owes exact R2 draw/discard/passed cards; F/F vs mixed. - Boris owes exact R2 handling. - Rosa owes exact R3 report. - Greta owes explanation for contradicting my R4 mixed-hand report. - Otto owes concrete objection/support conditions. Already stated: - Exact-report scrutiny and mixed-hand Liberal commitments. - R2 was F/F claim; Greta nomination/clean data point; Otto fallback. - Generalized suspicion insufficient; current vote Ja. - Hitler threshold not live at 2 Fascist; evaluate evidence. R4 report: drew F,L,L; discarded L; passed F,L; Greta discarded L and enacted F.
t=82Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Ines, your earlier commitment described Chancellor handling, not your actual presidential choice; will you commit now that, on an L/F/F draw, you discard F and pass Lena L/F?"
Greta is Hitler, so I should preserve the nomination and frame any objection as requiring concrete evidence. Avoid repeating my prior commitment question verbatim.
Suspects/evidence: - Lena: R2 F enactment as Chancellor; exact hand/account conflict unresolved. - Boris: R1 L and R3 L governments; exact R2 handling unresolved. - Rosa: R3 L enactment supports Liberal-leaning claim. Open questions: - Lena owes exact R2 draw/discard/passed cards + conflict explanation. - Boris owes exact R2 cards; F/F forced vs mixed. - Rosa owes exact R3 cards/report. - Otto: concrete objection to Greta / support conditions unanswered. Already stated: - Exact-report promises and scrutiny support. - Challenged Lena R2 account; said R2 was F/F. - Asked Rosa fallback; asked Boris distinguish F/F from mixed. - Endorsed enacting L from L+F and reporting cards. - Nominated Greta, Otto fallback. - Said generalized suspicion insufficient to reject Greta; proceed absent concrete objection.
t=88Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, if Lena’s account is true that you received L/F in Round 2, which card did you discard and which did you enact? Your failure to give that exact Chancellor account leaves your claim untestable, so I’m voting Nein."
Answer Otto and Boris directly, while obtaining the missing pre-commitment from Greta about mixed hands.
Suspects: - Ines: only player in both Fascist governments (R2 Chancellor, R4 President); unresolved R2/R4 flows; owes Otto investigation result. - Greta: R4 Chancellor for Fascist policy; account conflicts with Ines; exact R4 flow unresolved; now President. - Lena: R2 President with Ines; R2 Fascist flow unresolved. - Boris: R1/R3 governments, both Liberal; comparatively cleared. Open questions: - Greta: exact R4 draw/discard/passed cards; commit discard F/pass L from mixed hand. - Ines: exact R4 draw/discard/passed cards; Otto investigation result; exact R2 flow with Lena. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/passed/enacted cards. - Otto/Nadia: identity of R4 lone Nein voter. Already said: - Requested exact reports; challenged Lena/Ines on R2; asked Boris for R1/R3 flows. - Nominated Boris; fixed Greta fallback; committed Ja. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L; pass L whenever drawn. - Supported Greta as test; noted Ines only player in both F governments. - Asked R4 lone Nein voter; narrowed responsibility to Ines, Greta, or unlucky draw. - Demanded Ines commit investigation target/result; Otto result still owed. - Committed Ja, Liberal from mixed hand, and full exact report for R5. - R5 asked Greta to pre-commit Liberal flow from mixed hand.
t=92Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "A meaningful test separates them: Ines–Greta or Lena–Otto. I would consider either, but not another Ines–Lena government while their accounts remain opposed."
Protect myself from investigation while offering a plausible, evidence-based alternative. Otto's unexplained lone Nein is a legitimate new angle.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; forced-vs-mixed unresolved. R4 Ines–Greta enacted F; exact transfer missing. - Greta: R4 Chancellor during F; account conflicts with Ines; Hitler privately known. - Lena implicated by R2; Rosa suspects Lena. Nadia suspects Ines. - Boris: R1/R3 governments enacted L; positive evidence; exact R3 account unanswered. - Otto: R4 lone Nein voter unidentified; party unknown. Open questions: - Ines: exact R2/R4 draw, discard, transfer; investigation target/report. - Rosa/Boris: exact R3 draw, discard, received/pass reports. - Greta: consistent exact R4 report. Already said: - R2 drew 2F/1L; discarded F; passed F/L. - Supported Lena–Ines with accountability/fallbacks. - Asked Rosa/Boris exact R3 reports; favor Ja for accountable governments. - Requested Greta exact R4 report; supported Ines–Greta with accountability. - Outcomes outweigh promises. - 2F+1L permits discarding L and passing 2F. - Greta’s account does not prove Ines discarded L; Ines owes exact transfer. - Boris’s blanket opposition to governments containing Ines, Lena, or Greta is overbroad absent reconciled accounts. - Oppose reflexively investigating Lena; prioritize unresolved R4/R3 contradictions and a less entangled target. - Recommended investigating Otto due to unidentified R4 lone Nein; cleaner anchor than disputed card stories.
t=99Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, I nominated Lena because a transparent mixed-hand commitment makes her handling falsifiable: if she receives Liberal/Fascist and still enacts Fascist, that is meaningful evidence against her, whereas rejecting the test resolves nothing."
Answer Ines directly while correcting Rosa's misread and keeping pressure on Ines. Defend Greta's internally consistent account.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; unresolved forced-vs-mixed claim. - Greta: R4 enacted F; claims Ines passed 2F, internally consistent; Hitler (known privately). - Lena implicated by R2; Rosa suspects Lena; Nadia suspects Ines. - Boris: R1/R3 enacted L; positive evidence. Open questions: - Rosa: R3 exact draw/discard/pass report; unanswered. - Boris: R3 exact received hand/discard/pass report; unanswered. - Ines: R2 forced-vs-mixed distinction/rationale; unanswered. - Ines: R4 exact cards passed/discarded; unanswered. Already said: - Supported Lena–Ines; requested accountability/fallbacks. - R2 exact claim: 2F/1L, discarded F, passed F/L. - Asked Rosa exact R3 report; inclined Ja. - Requested Greta exact post-government report; supported Ines–Greta with accountability. - Judge reports against outcome, not promises. - R4: Ines account requires Greta rejecting Liberal; requested exact transfer; found Greta forced-F account more concrete. - Corrected Rosa: 2F+1L allows discarding L and passing 2F. - Now: Greta's account does not claim Ines discarded L; Ines owes exact transfer.
t=103Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Nadia, if Lena–Otto is your preferred test, what exact card-hand report would make you accept it before seeing the outcome?"
Ines remains the only repeat participant in Fascist enactments (R2 and R4), and her exact R4 transfer is still unanswered. State a concrete future voting consequence without repeating all prior card demands.
Suspicions: Ines strongest suspect: present in R2 and R4 Fascist governments; exact R4 transfer unanswered. Lena implicated in R2 with Ines. Avoid Ines governments. Open: Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2 and R4 reports, especially R4 transfer; Greta exact R4 report and whether 2F or L+F; Rosa exact R3 report (claimed 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L). Lone Nein voter unknown. Already said: demanded fallbacks and exact reports; narrowed R2 culprit to Lena/Ines/unlucky draw; challenged Ines on R2/R4 and two-Fascist distinction; noted Ines repeats in both F governments; answered Otto R1 mixed, discarded F, passed 2L; committed R3 reporting; asked Rosa cards/fallback; supported precise R4 accounts.
t=107Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I’m voting Ja; whatever the outcome, the next government should use a different pair if the tracker allows, rather than recycling this same dispute again."
Greta must commit to a nominee before acting, avoiding both disputed R4 players. This adds accountability without repeating my demand for Ines's investigation result.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in Fascist governments; only player in both; R4 account conflicts with Greta; withholding promised Otto investigation result. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; claims 2F passed, conflicts with Ines’s 1L/1F account. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist enactment; exact account unverified; defended Greta. - Rosa/Boris: R3 Liberal government; not cleared. Open questions/unanswered: - Ines: exact R2 cards/discard/pass; R4 draw/discard/exact pass; Otto investigation result. - Greta: exact R4 received cards/discard; basis for 2F claim; nominee/fallback commitment. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Boris: R1 draw/discard/pass; R3 discard answer. Already said: - R2 Fascist narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Voted Ja on Rosa-Boris test. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Greta committed exact R4 report and mixed-hand rule. - Voted Ja on Ines-Greta; Ines remains suspect. - Identified mutually exclusive Ines/Greta R4 accounts and three possible culprits. - Demanded exact R4 transfer from Ines; Lena defense insufficient. - Investigation of Otto cannot resolve R4 contradiction or Ines’s repeated involvement. - Confirmed lone Nein on Ines-Greta. - Demanded Lena’s exact R2 card report. - Urged Greta choose nominee/fallback outside R4 pair. - Demanded Ines report Otto result before nomination. - Now demanded Greta precommit nominee/fallback excluding Greta and Ines.
t=112Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Ines, commit now: if Lena enacts Liberal here, will you retract your claim that Round 2 was F/F, or still maintain it? Otherwise this is not a genuine test—it merely launders the contradiction."
Need add a genuinely new point rather than repeat the unresolved card contradiction. The identity of the lone R4 Nein voter is not in the transcript and may provide useful voting evidence.
Suspects: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in both F enactments; only player in both F governments. - Greta: R4 Chancellor during F; claims received 2F. - Lena: R2 President with Ines during F; R2 flow unresolved. - Boris: R1/R3 governments; exact reports/card flows need consistency. Open questions owed: - Ines/Greta: exact R4 draw, transfer, discard; contradiction unresolved. Ines: 2L+F, discarded L, passed L+F. Greta: received 2F, discarded F, forced F. - Lena/Ines: exact R2 draw, discard, passed/enacted cards. - Boris: exact R1/R3 card flows and reports. - Identity of lone Nein on R4 vote; not stated in transcript. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports; challenged Lena/Ines on R2 responsibility. - Asked Boris for full R1/R3 flows. - Nominated Boris; fixed Greta fallback; committed Ja. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Promised pass L whenever drawn. - Supported Greta as new test; acknowledged reporting commitments. - Noted 7–0 R3 vote nondiagnostic. - Noted Ines only player in both F governments.
t=118Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena, your role correction still leaves the key details missing: state the exact three-card Round 2 draw, your discard, and the two cards you passed Ines. Without that, your account cannot resolve the F/F versus L/F contradiction."
Need add a new concrete voting stance without repeating prior accusations. Lena was in the Round 2 Fascist government, and Ines in both; excluding both is justified until reports resolve them. This is strategic and specific.
Suspicions: Ines strongest—present in R2 and R4 Fascist governments; exact R4 transfer unanswered. Lena implicated in R2; endorsed Greta's mechanically consistent forced-F account. Greta implicated in R4 but accounts conflict. Avoid Ines/Lena governments. Open: Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2 and R4 reports, especially R4 transfer; Greta exact R4 report and 2F vs L+F; Rosa exact R3 report; lone Nein voter unknown. Already said: demanded fallbacks/exact reports; narrowed R2 to Lena/Ines/unlucky draw; challenged Ines on R2/R4 and two-F distinction; noted Ines in both F governments; answered Otto R1 mixed, discarded F, passed 2L; committed R3 reporting; asked Rosa cards/fallback; supported precise R4 accounts; opposed future Ines-led governments.
t=125Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines’s stated “mixed-hand test” is incompatible with her own F/F account: if Lena truly received two Fascists, Lena had no Liberal to choose. That makes this nomination look like an attempt to avoid resolving who caused Round 2’s Fascist policy, so I’m voting Nein."
Ask Greta a new, tightly framed question forcing her to reconcile the physical transfer rather than repeat the broader accusation. Update persistent notes tersely.
Suspects: - Greta: R5 F; firsthand received F-F, discarded F, enacted F; conflicts with Greta's F-L report. R4 Chancellor under Ines, F enacted; R4 account conflicts with Ines. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; unresolved card accounts; promised Otto investigation result withheld. - Lena: R2 President with Ines, F unresolved; exact report owed. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; comparatively cleared. Open questions: - Greta: reconcile physical R5 transfer; exact R4 cards. - Ines: Otto investigation result; exact R2/R4 reports; why result withheld. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Nadia: whether she cast R4 lone Nein; Otto says he did. Already said: - Requested exact reports and advance mixed-hand commitments. - Challenged Greta/Ines/Lena on R2/R4 accounts. - Asked identity of R4 lone Nein; noted Ines in both prior F governments. - Demanded Ines announce investigation target/result. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Identified Greta as R5 suspect; stated she passed F-F and forced my F enactment. - Confirmed receiving F-F and discarding F; called Greta's R5 report false.
[35] [discussion closed: pre_vote:4]
63 bids this window
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "One accountability point before nomination"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I’m open to Greta, with a clear post-government report."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "One useful condition before we vote"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I’m willing to be the test Chancellor; I’ll report my exact hand afterward."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Greta, commit now: if mixed, pass Liberal and report exact cards afterward."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Yes: mixed means Liberal, and I’ll report the exact cards afterward."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Commitments are useful, but they don't erase the R2 record."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "A commitment helps, but it does not clear the R2 government."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "One condition before I assess this government."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I want Greta's commitment on record."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Yes—I commit to that exact mixed-hand report and Liberal enactment."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "That’s a fair transparency test; I support hearing the exact report afterward."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Ines, name your nominee and require Greta’s report before proceeding."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta’s commitment helps, but Round 2 remains unresolved."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Yes—I'll hold Greta to that standard and withdraw her if she refuses."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I want to pin down the Round 2 contradictions before we nominate."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Transparency matters, but let’s evaluate the government itself."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Commitments are useful only if paired with a verifiable account."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "I want the pre-committed card report clearly on record."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Hitler-election risk is not live at one Fascist policy; judge evidence, not fear"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I’m voting Ja; I want exact draw, discard, and passed-card reports afterward."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I oppose this government: Ines still owes us an account of Round 2."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I’m voting no: Ines’s R2 fascist government remains unexplained."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I support this pairing; judge us by the policy record."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I’m leaning Nein: Ines was Chancellor for the only Fascist policy so far."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "The round-four account needs scrutiny before we move on."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "R4’s Fascist policy puts both of you under scrutiny."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Round 4 needs exact card accounting."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I want to isolate the R4 government."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I’ll give the exact hand and process."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Greta must give the exact R4 sequence first."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "I’ll give the exact R4 report."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Ines owes the table a precise R4 account."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "R4 makes both Ines and Greta accountable for the Fascist enactment."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "R2 is already accounted for; R4 needs both reports."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "I’ll answer the R4 question directly."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Ines and Greta give directly incompatible R4 accounts."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "R4 is a direct contradiction: one of Ines or Greta is lying."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "The R4 contradiction needs a precise resolution."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "The contradiction is now clear."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Exact transfer: I passed Greta one Liberal and one Fascist."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Ines should answer the exact R4 transfer."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "The contradiction leaves Ines and Greta jointly accountable."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "The conflicting claims leave all three governments needing scrutiny."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Exact R4 accounts, please."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Rosa's mechanical claim is wrong: 2F+1L can discard L and pass 2F."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "My account is mechanically consistent."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Rosa, I claimed F-L-L: discarded L, passed Greta F-L—not two Fascists."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "I’ll restate the exact R4 transfer."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Consistency is not exoneration."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Lena’s conditional defense proves nothing. Ines, state exact R4 draw, discard,1F"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "The key contradiction still needs a direct answer."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Lena has the mechanics right; Ines still owes her full R4 draw."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "The conditional defense misses the key factual question."
[36] Vote result: 2 Ja / 5 Nein -- FAILED.
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Nein
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Round 5: President is Player 4 (Greta) hitler.
t=4Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, before nominating, name your Chancellor and explain why that ticket tests the Round 2 contradiction without simply recycling Ines–Lena."
Support the current government without repeating my prior commitment. Emphasize that Rosa's report, not old disputed claims, should determine the next assessment.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 and R4 governments tied to Fascist enactments; R4 claims 2L+F, Greta claims 2F received, F discarded/enacted. - Lena/Ines: R2 Fascist policy; exact accounts unresolved. - Boris/Rosa: R3 government produced Liberal; exact cards unresolved. Open questions/unanswered: - Ines: Otto investigation result/report; R4 presidential discard distinction; R2 received/discard/account. - Lena: R2 draw/discard/pass and R1 account. - Rosa: explicit mixed-hand Liberal commitment/report details. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports and clean test governments. - R4: reported 2F received; discarded F/enacted F; said Ines owes presidential discard distinction. - Accepted temporary exclusion; proposed test excluding Ines/Greta with Lena R2 report. - Supported investigating Lena then Otto; requested plain results. - Committed Rosa nominee, Nadia fallback; both exclude me/Ines. - Supported current Greta-Rosa government as clean test. - Committed exact R5 draw, discard, passed cards, including 3F case. - No new objection to Rosa; exact R5 record should guide suspicion.
t=9Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "I’ll nominate Nadia: she wasn’t involved in Round 2 and has consistently demanded accountability, giving us a fresh pair instead of recycling the disputed transfer."
Rosa committed to report her cards but has not committed to pass a Liberal whenever one is available, despite Boris explicitly requesting that. Ask for that concrete commitment; it materially affects interpretation of a Fascist outcome.
Suspects: Lena/Ines. R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; Lena claims 2F+1L, discarded F, passed mixed; Ines claims 2F received and enacted F; contradiction unresolved. Open questions: Ines R2 exact received/discarded/enacted account + explanation; Lena R2 fallback nominee; Boris R1 exact draw/discard/pass; Rosa fallback nominee; Rosa commitment to pass L whenever available (new, asked now). Already said: asked Boris R1 card report; asked Lena R2 fallback; voted Ja; requested exact R2 accounts; flagged Lena/Ines; asked Ines why she violated commitment; stated future vote against Ines pending account; asked Rosa fallback; supported scrutiny of Rosa/Boris test; requested Rosa exact report; noted Rosa report commitment is useful but outcome determines blame.
t=14Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, before nominating Nadia, will you commit that she must enact Liberal from an L/F hand, and will you report your exact three-card draw and discard afterward?"
Need add a fresh, specific question rather than repeat the contradiction. Rosa's commitment covered mixed hands, so clarify whether she claims FF and forced discard; this tests her account against her promise.
Suspicions: - Ines strongest: R2 President and R4 President; both Fascist enactments; R4 transfer unresolved. - Greta: R4 Chancellor and R5 President, consecutive Fascist governments; R4/R5 reports conflict with partners. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor Fascist; R5 report conflicts with Greta; R3 Liberal mitigates. - Lena: R2 President Fascist; exact account unresolved; defended Greta. - Otto: R4 lone Nein; investigation result unknown. Open questions: - Rosa: confirm exact R5 FF receipt, Fascist discard, and forced enactment. - Greta: reconcile promised exact R5 report with Rosa’s FF claim. - Ines: investigation target/result; exact R2/R4 card accounts. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Otto: investigation result. Already stated: - R1 Liberal and R3 Liberal governments; R1 exact report. - Ines only player in both earlier Fascist governments; oppose Ines. - Oppose Lena/Greta pending unresolved accounts. - Requested investigation target/result; recommended Lena; challenged Otto result. - Challenged Ines/Greta R2/R4 and two-F distinction. - Greta committed exact R5 report including three Fascists. - Asked Rosa mixed-hand Liberal commitment and exact report. - Voted Nein; Greta remains implicated despite Rosa’s R3 Liberal. - R5 culprit is Greta, Rosa, or unlucky draw; transfer evidence decisive. - New: asked Rosa to explicitly confirm FF/forced Fascist discard, testing whether her mixed-hand promise applied.
t=19Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "I’ll enact Liberal from any hand containing a Liberal and report the exact two cards I receive and discard. Greta should also commit now to her exact discard rule on every possible three-card draw."
Investigate Otto, a likely Liberal, to gain credibility while protecting Lena and Greta. Publicly commit to exact reporting.
Suspects/evidence: - Lena: R2 Chancellor; F enacted; exact hand unresolved; endorsed Greta’s R4 story despite contradiction. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; F enacted; two-F claim conflicts with my F,L,L account. - Boris: blanket opposition to Ines/Lena/Greta; obstruction, no independent policy evidence. - Rosa/Boris: L enacted R1/R3; exact reports incomplete. Open questions/unanswered: - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass; explain or retract Greta endorsement. - Boris: exact R1 handling/report. - Rosa: exact R3 report. - Greta: reconcile R4 two-F claim with my F,L,L account. - Otto: concrete objection/support conditions; party membership now target of investigation. - Lone Nein voter: identity/voting record. Already stated: - R4 drew F,L,L; discarded L; passed F,L; Greta discarded L and enacted F. - Greta’s two-F account mechanically inconsistent; I never claimed to pass two F. - R2 F/F claim; Greta clean-data nomination; Otto fallback. - Exact-report scrutiny; mixed-hand Liberal commitments. - Generalized suspicion insufficient; current vote Ja. - Lena’s conditional two-F scenario does not establish occurrence. - Boris’s blanket veto is not proof and risks freezing scrutiny of other governments. - Hitler threshold not live at 2F; evaluate evidence.
t=24Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "My discard rule is fixed: I discard a Fascist whenever possible; with three Liberals I discard one Liberal, and I’ll report the exact three-card draw, discard, and pass afterward."
I should answer the outstanding accountability question with a concrete fallback, without repeating the card-report commitments already made.
Suspects: Lena—R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; mixed-hand claim unverified. Ines—R2 F; claims 2F, contradicting Lena and prior mixed-hand promise. Boris current test; R1 Boris–Lena enacted L. Open: Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2 received/discard/why F; Boris exact R3 draw/discard/pass/enacted report; fallback now committed Greta. Already said: requested exact reports; asked Boris full R1 flow; asked Lena whether passed 2F; asked Ines mixed-hand commitment; accused Lena strongest after R2 F; noted 7–0 nondiagnostic; said Lena claim makes Ines culpable only if verified; committed Boris nomination and Greta fallback; committed voting Ja; promised own exact R3 draw/discard/pass report; committed to pass Boris a Liberal whenever draw contains one.
t=30Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta–Nadia only tests the President if Greta reports a hand containing a Liberal; with F/F, Nadia is forced to enact Fascist. Greta, commit now that an F/F outcome will not be presented as clearing you."
Report the promised investigation result now; withholding it is damaging and Otto is genuinely liberal, so this is a credible accountability move. Avoid rehashing the government disputes.
Suspects/evidence: - Lena: R2 with me -> F; hand unresolved; endorsed Greta R4 two-F account. - Greta: Hitler suspect; R4 conflicts with my F-L-L; R5 F-L conflicts with Rosa F-F. - Rosa: R3 with Boris -> L; R5 F; conflicts with Greta. - Boris: blanket opposition to Ines/Lena/Greta; obstruction, no policy proof. - Otto: R4/R5 lone Nein; investigated Liberal. Open questions: - Lena: R2 exact draw/discard/pass; explain Greta endorsement. - Greta: reconcile R4 and R5 reports; special-election President/Chancellor lock. - Rosa: exact R3 and full R5 report. - Boris: R1 exact handling. - Nadia: accept Boris nomination/report commitments. Already stated: - R4 F-L-L; discarded L; passed F-L; Greta discarded L/enacted F. - Greta two-F R4 account conflicts with mine. - R2 scrutiny; mixed-hand Liberal commitments; generalized suspicion insufficient. - Boris blanket veto is not proof and blocks scrutiny. - Threshold became live at 3F after R5. - Investigated Otto; now publicly reported Liberal. - R5 Greta/Rosa accounts incompatible; Greta coherence does not resolve it. - Voted Ja on Greta-Rosa. - Special election needs locked choices and accountability.
t=36Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Nadia has given the needed Chancellor rule; I want Greta to nominate her and report the complete three-card draw and transfer before we interpret the outcome. A forced Fascist from F/F should not be treated as proof of bad faith."
Greta remains unresolved from the R4 Fascist enactment, but I have already publicly opposed her governments. A new useful point is securing Rosa's advance commitment and exact reporting, especially since this government could produce a decisive third Fascist policy. Ask Rosa directly without repeating prior accusations.
Suspicions: - Ines strongest: President R2/R4, both Fascist enactments; R4 transfer contradiction unresolved. - Greta implicated: R4 Chancellor; account conflicts with Ines. - Lena implicated: R2 President during Fascist; defended Greta; R2 account unresolved. - Rosa comparatively cleared: R3 Chancellor, Liberal enacted. - Otto: lone Nein R4; rationale consistent with suspicion but investigation result unknown. Open questions: - Ines owes Otto investigation result; exact R2/R4 draws, discards, passes. - Lena owes exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Greta/Ines owe resolution of R4 transfer contradiction. - Rosa now asked for advance mixed-hand commitment and exact report. - Otto owes lone Nein rationale/investigation details. Already said: - R1 exact mixed draw/report; discarded Fascist, passed Liberals. - R3 reporting commitment; asked Rosa cards/fallback. - Ines only player in both Fascist governments; oppose future Ines governments. - Oppose Lena/Greta-containing governments pending unresolved accounts. - Requested committed investigation target/result; recommended Lena, challenged Otto result. - Challenged Ines/Greta on R2/R4 and two-F distinction. - Asked Greta to commit nominee before nomination.
t=42Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "I support Greta–Nadia as the cleanest fresh test. Afterward, we should cross-check Greta’s draw and discard against Nadia’s exact received cards, rather than treating the enacted policy alone as proof."
Defend Greta by highlighting that Ines has not supplied the concrete card-transfer details needed to support her accusation. Keep public claim measured and liberal-coded.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; claimed 2F/1L, discarded F, passed F/L; Ines selected F. - Greta: R4 Ines–Greta enacted F; Greta says 2F passed; Ines says mixed and Greta chose F. - Lena implicated by R2; Rosa suspects Lena; Nadia leads suspicion on Ines. - Boris: R1/R3 governments enacted L; positive evidence. Open questions: - Rosa: R3 exact draw/discard/pass report; unanswered. - Boris: R3 exact received hand/discard/pass report; unanswered. - Ines: R2 forced-vs-mixed distinction/rationale; unanswered. - Ines: R4 exact cards passed/discarded; unanswered. Already said: - Supported Lena–Ines; requested accountability/fallbacks. - R2 exact claim: 2F/1L, discarded F, passed F/L. - Asked Rosa exact R3 report; inclined Ja. - Requested Greta exact post-government report; supported Ines–Greta with accountability. - Judge reports against outcome, not promises. - R4: said Ines’s account requires Greta rejecting Liberal; requested exact transfer; found Greta’s forced-F account more concrete.
[38] [discussion closed: open_floor:5]
21 bids this window
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Lena still owes the exact R2 account; don’t let R4’s dispute erase it."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "The R4 record is clear; Boris’s blanket veto is not evidence."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "R4 accountability"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I want one clarification on the R4 accounts."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "The unresolved contradiction is Ines’s, not mine."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Ines, name your investigation target before using the power."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Ines, commit your investigation target first."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I have a suggestion for the investigation."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): interrupt urgency=3: "Investigate Ines; she is the only repeat participant in both fascist governments"
Player 6 (Otto): interrupt urgency=3: "Don't pre-script a politically convenient investigation."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): interrupt urgency=3: "I’ll investigate Boris and report the result exactly."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
President Player 4 (Greta) hitler nominates Player 5 (Nadia) liberal for Chancellor.
t=6Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "I’m voting Ja for this fresh test; if Greta reports an L-containing hand and a Fascist is enacted, responsibility narrows to Greta’s transfer or my handling, while an F/F draw is forced and does not clear her."
Nadia directly asked whether I cast the lone Nein; answer clearly. Add that investigating me will not resolve the R4 contradiction, though this has already been noted, so keep brief.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in Fascist enactments; only player in both. R4 accounts conflict with Greta’s; repeated involvement strongest evidence. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; says Ines passed 2F; Ines says 1L/1F. One account false or unlucky draw. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist enactment; exact account unverified; defended Greta despite contradiction. - Rosa/Boris: R3 Liberal enactment; not cleared. Open unanswered: - Ines: exact R2 cards/discard/pass; R4 draw, discard, exact pass. - Greta: exact R4 received cards/discard; basis for 2F claim. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Boris: R1 draw/discard/pass; R3 discard answer. Already said: - R2 Fascist narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Voted Ja on Rosa-Boris test. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/ Otto fallback committed. - Greta committed exact R4 report and mixed-hand rule. - Voted Ja on Ines-Greta due to Greta clean record; Ines remains suspect. - Identified mutually exclusive Ines/Greta R4 accounts and three possible culprits. - Demanded exact R4 transfer from Ines; Lena’s defense insufficient. - Investigation of Otto cannot resolve R4 contradiction or Ines’s repeated involvement. - Confirmed casting lone Nein on Ines-Greta.
t=13Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I’ll vote Ja, but after the enactment I want Greta and Nadia to give their exact accounts before either can frame a Fascist result as forced. An L-containing draw with Fascist enacted puts responsibility on Greta’s transfer or Nadia’s handling, not on an abstract “bad draw.”"
Need add a new specific point without repeating prior remarks. Greta's account remains unresolved, so extending opposition to Greta is justified by her presence in the R4 Fascist government and the direct contradiction over whether she received a mixed hand or two Fascists.
Suspicions: Ines strongest—present in R2 and R4 Fascist governments; exact R4 transfer unanswered. Lena implicated in R2; endorsed Greta’s forced-F account. Greta now independently disqualified by R4 Fascist government and unresolved contradiction with Ines. Rosa likely liberal evidence: R3 government enacted Liberal; report claimed 2L+F. Lone Nein voter unknown. Open: Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2 and R4 reports, especially R4 transfer; Greta exact R4 report and 2F vs L+F; Rosa exact R3 report; lone Nein voter. Already said: demanded fallbacks/exact reports; narrowed R2 to Lena/Ines/unlucky draw; challenged Ines on R2/R4 and two-F distinction; noted Ines in both F governments; answered Otto R1 mixed, discarded F, passed 2L; committed R3 reporting; asked Rosa cards/fallback; supported precise R4 accounts; opposed future Ines-led governments; now oppose Greta-containing governments until R4 contradiction resolved.
t=17Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, if your draw is L/F/F, will you explicitly pass Nadia L/F after discarding F, rather than merely promising to discard a Fascist?"
Nadia still owes the exact discard and enacted-card report. Asking that directly is useful accountability without revisiting the R5 dispute.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2/R4 governments tied to Fascist enactments; R4 discard distinction unresolved; delayed Otto result, later reported Otto Liberal. - Lena: R2 government enacted Fascist; exact R2 account unresolved. - Rosa: R5 firsthand F-F claim contradicts my F-F-L draw, F discard, F-L pass; Rosa enacted F. Open questions: - Nadia: R6 exact discard and enacted-card report pending. - Lena: R2 exact draw/discard/pass unanswered. - Rosa: R5 exact transfer/discard account unanswered. - Otto: rationale for lone Nein; investigation target/result unavailable. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports and clean test governments. - R4: received 2L+F; discarded F/enacted F; Ines owes discard distinction. - Accepted temporary exclusion; proposed test excluding Ines/Greta with Lena R2 report. - Supported investigating Lena then Otto; requested plain results. - Committed Rosa nominee, Nadia fallback; both exclude me/Ines. - Supported Greta-Rosa clean test. - R5 report: drew F,F,L; discarded F; passed F,L; Rosa discarded L/enacted F. - Denied Rosa F-F claim; reaffirmed F-L pass. - R5 contradiction binary; asked Otto for exact investigation target/result. - Special election: Boris President, Nadia Chancellor; commitment locked. - Will evaluate Boris-Nadia by enacted policy and exact reports; Liberal narrows but does not resolve R5. - At 3 Fascist policies, exact hand/discard matters more than assurances; requested concise report before vote. - Asked Nadia for exact R6 discard and enacted card.
t=21Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Yes—on an L/F/F draw, I will discard one Fascist and pass Nadia the remaining Liberal and Fascist; her stated rule then determines the enactment."
Ines now has the investigation power from the second Fascist policy. Require a pre-committed target and public result; this creates accountability and may clarify whether she is protecting an ally.
Suspicions: Ines strongest—R2 and R4 Fascist governments; R4 transfer unanswered. Lena implicated in R2; endorsed Greta’s forced-F account. Greta implicated by R4 Chancellor role and contradiction with Ines. Rosa’s R3 government enacted Liberal; likely liberal. Lone Nein voter unknown. Open: Ines investigation target/result; Lena exact R2 draw/discard/pass; Ines exact R2/R4 reports, especially R4 transfer; Greta exact R4 report and 2F vs L+F; Rosa exact R3 report; lone Nein voter. Already said: R2/R4 government-account demands; narrowed each F enactment to President, Chancellor, or unlucky draw; challenged Ines on R2/R4 and two-F distinction; identified Ines as present in both F governments; answered Otto R1 mixed, discarded F, passed 2L; committed R3 reporting; asked Rosa cards/fallback; supported precise R4 accounts; opposed future Ines-led governments; oppose Greta-containing governments until R4 contradiction resolves.
[40] [discussion closed: pre_vote:5] The room falls silent.
14 bids this window
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I disagree on the target."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Lena is the cleanest unresolved check."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I’ll investigate Lena as requested, then we can settle the government."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Stay on the unresolved Round 2 government."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Please investigate Otto and report the result plainly."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Investigate Lena first; her R2 presidency produced the first fascist policy."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Report Otto’s result, then account for Round 4."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Investigate me; then return to the R4 contradiction."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Otto should answer Nadia directly; Ines must report her committed result."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
[41] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Nein
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
President Player 4 (Greta) hitler passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[43] A Liberal policy is enacted (3/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
t=4Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, state the two cards you received and which you discarded; Greta should then give her exact draw and discard so we can reconcile the transfer."
The investigation result is pending. A useful new point is to prevent the group from treating Otto's party membership as resolving the R4 contradiction; the result only informs Otto, not the Ines-Greta card dispute.
Suspects: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in both Fascist enactments; R4 transfer account disputed/incomplete. - Lena: R2 President; defended Greta despite Rosa’s mechanical objection. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; account conflicts with Ines. - Ines/Greta jointly accountable or unlucky draw. Open/unanswered: - Ines: exact R2 transfer/discard; exact R4 hand, discard, passed cards; two-F case. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/passed cards. - Greta: precise R4 received cards/discard. - Boris: R1 report. - Rosa: R3 report. - Otto: whether he cast lone Nein in R4. - Ines: Otto investigation result pending. Already said: - Ines leading suspect; repeat participant in both F enactments. - Demanded exact R2/R4 reports and mixed-vs-2F distinction. - Asked Ines withdraw Greta absent report. - Demanded precommitments; asked Boris/Rosa reports and Rosa fallback. - Supported Rosa/Boris test; asked Lena fallback. - Greta committed R4 report. - Noted Ines omitted 2F commitment. - Noted Rosa mechanical contradiction. - Recommended scrutinizing repeat participant. - Challenged Ines target; favored investigating Lena. - Asked Otto whether lone Nein in R4. - Warned Otto investigation cannot resolve R4 contradiction.
[44] [discussion closed: post_enact:5] The room falls silent.
7 bids this window
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Otto, answer Nadia directly before my investigation."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Yes—I cast the lone Nein on Ines–Greta. I distrusted Ines’s repeated involvement"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "The lone Nein matters; investigate Lena next."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Round 6: President is Player 5 (Nadia) liberal.
t=6Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, I’d favor Boris as a fresh audit: he hasn’t been in government since Round 3 and has a Liberal result on record. Rosa is my second choice, but I’d avoid repeating the Greta–Nadia ticket or involving me again immediately."
Keep pressure on the missing investigation result while encouraging a clean nominee that does not expose Greta or Ines. This sounds pro-information without repeating the card dispute.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; forced-vs-mixed unresolved. R4 Ines–Greta enacted F; exact transfer missing. - Greta: R4 Chancellor during F; account conflicts with Ines; Hitler privately known. - Lena implicated by R2; Rosa suspects Lena. Nadia suspects Ines. - Boris: R1/R3 governments enacted L; positive evidence. - Otto: R4 lone Nein; party unknown. Open questions: - Ines owes exact R2/R4 reports; Otto investigation result unreported. - Greta owes consistent exact R4 report. - Rosa/Boris owe exact R3 reports. Already said: - R2 drew 2F/1L; discarded F; passed F/L. - Supported accountable governments and Ines–Greta nomination. - Asked exact R3/R4 reports; outcomes outweigh promises. - 2F+1L permits discarding L and passing 2F. - Greta account does not prove Ines discarded L; Ines owes exact transfer. - Boris blanket opposition overbroad. - Oppose reflexively investigating Lena; favor less-entangled targets. - Recommended investigating Otto; reaffirmed exact R2 claim to Otto. - Current: requested Ines state Otto result before nomination; favor nominee outside disputed R4 government.
t=11Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I support Boris as a fresh audit. Nadia, commit to discard a Fascist whenever possible and report the full draw, discard, and transfer, so we can distinguish a forced F/F from an avoidable one."
Greta's prior commitment was about reporting and mixed hands, but the key ambiguity is a three-Fascist draw. Press her for a precommitment covering that case before voting.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in both Fascist enactments; strongest repeat-government concern; R4 transfer disputed. - Greta: R4 Chancellor in Fascist enactment; account conflicts with Ines; current president must be scrutinized. - Lena: R2 President; defended Greta despite Rosa’s mechanical objection. - R4 responsibility narrowed to Ines, Greta, or unlucky draw. - Otto: claims lone Nein on R4; investigation result absent. Open questions: - Ines: exact R2 transfer/discard, R4 hand/discard/passed cards, mixed-vs-2F commitment, Otto result. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/passed cards and fallback. - Greta: R4 precise cards; current three-Fascist-case reporting commitment; fallback accountability. - Boris: R1 report. Rosa: R3 report and fallback. Already said: - Ines leading suspect; repeat participation in both Fascist enactments. - Demanded exact R2/R4 reports and mixed-vs-2F distinction. - Asked Ines withdraw Greta absent report. - Demanded precommitments; asked Boris/Rosa reports and Rosa fallback. - Supported Rosa/Boris test; asked Lena fallback. - Greta committed R4 report; Ines omitted 2F commitment. - Noted Rosa mechanical contradiction. - Recommended scrutinizing repeat participant. - Challenged Ines target; favored investigating Lena. - Asked Otto about lone Nein in R4. - Warned Otto result cannot resolve R4 contradiction. - Proposed Boris or Rosa as lower-risk nominee with clean Liberal enactment history. - Asked Greta to precommit on a three-Fascist draw.
t=15Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I also want the nominee to commit now to report the two cards received and the discard immediately after enactment, independently of Nadia’s account."
Rosa has not answered Boris's direct pre-vote commitment request. Press for a concrete commitment before voting; this is new and relevant.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in Fascist governments; only player in both. R4 account conflicts with Greta; withheld promised Otto investigation result. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; claims 2F passed, conflicts with Ines’s 1L/1F account; exact R4 report absent. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist enactment; exact account unverified; defended Greta. - Rosa/Boris: R3 Liberal governments; not cleared. Open questions/unanswered: - Ines: exact R2 cards/discard/pass; R4 draw/discard/exact pass; Otto investigation result. - Greta: exact R4 received cards/discard; basis for 2F claim; current government report. - Rosa: mixed-hand Liberal commitment and full draw/discard/pass report. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Boris: R1 draw/discard/pass; R3 discard answer. Already said: - R2 Fascist narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Voted Ja on Rosa-Boris test. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Greta committed exact R4 report and mixed-hand rule. - Voted Ja on Ines-Greta; Ines remains suspect. - Identified mutually exclusive Ines/Greta R4 accounts and three possible culprits. - Demanded exact R4 transfer from Ines; Lena defense insufficient. - Investigation of Otto cannot resolve R4 contradiction or Ines’s repeated involvement. - Confirmed lone Nein on Ines-Greta. - Demanded Lena’s exact R2 card report. - Urged Greta choose nominee/fallback outside R4 pair. - Demanded Ines report Otto result before nomination. - Demanded Greta precommit nominee/fallback excluding Greta and Ines.
t=21Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Nadia, before naming this government, answer Lena’s still-unresolved Round 5 question: exactly which two cards did you receive from Greta, and which did you discard? That account matters before we treat your Round 6 ticket as a clean audit."
Concede temporary exclusion to appear trustworthy and redirect scrutiny toward unresolved Round 2 evidence. Avoid repeating the exact R4 account.
Suspects/evidence: - R2 Lena/Ines: Fascist enacted; Lena claims 2F+1L, discarded F, passed F+L; Ines claims received 2F. One account false. - R1 Boris/Lena: Liberal enacted; no adverse evidence. - R3 Rosa/Boris: Liberal enacted; exact reports pending. - R4 Ines/Greta: I received 2F; discarded F/enacted F. Ines claims 2L+F, discarded L, passed L+F; direct contradiction. Rosa mischaracterizes my account. Open questions: - Ines owes exact R4 draw/discard/pass and R2 received/discard/account. - Lena owes exact R2 draw/discard/pass and R1 account. - Rosa/Boris owe R3 exact draw/discard/pass; mixed vs 2F. Already said aloud: - Supported clean low-drama test governments and exact independent reports. - Supported Lena-Ines transparency test; urged fallback/accountability. - Asked Rosa mixed vs 2F; offered as test Chancellor and report exact hand. - Committed Ines to exact R4 draw/report and Liberal choice on mixed hand. - Supported Ines-Greta pairing; urged judging by record. - Reported R4 received 2F; forced Fascist enactment. - Specified R4 discarded one F/enacted other; Ines owes presidential discard distinction. - Defended R4 account as mechanically consistent when Rosa challenged it. - Reaffirmed Ines owes complete R4 draw. - Accepted temporary exclusion; proposed test government excluding Ines/Greta and requiring Lena’s exact R2 report.
t=27Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Boris, I received exactly one Liberal and one Fascist from Greta, discarded the Fascist, and enacted the Liberal. Greta still owes the exact three-card draw and discard so we can reconcile the transfer."
Demand the promised exact Round 5 reports, tying accountability to pre-vote commitments without repeating prior accusations.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in Fascist governments; only player in both; R4 account conflicts with Greta; withheld Otto investigation result. - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in Fascist governments; R4 account conflicts with Ines; R5 F enactment. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor in F government; report now owed. - Lena: R2 President during F enactment; exact account unverified; defended Greta. - Boris: R1/R3 liberal governments; not cleared. - R5 F narrowed to Greta, Rosa, or unlucky draw; 3F means Hitler-election danger. Open questions: - Greta: exact R4 cards/discard/pass; exact R5 draw/discard/pass to Rosa. - Rosa: exact R5 draw/discard/pass. - Ines: exact R2 cards/discard/pass; R4 draw/discard/pass; Otto investigation result. - Lena: exact R2 report. - Boris: R1 report; R3 discard. Already said: - R2 F narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered; voted Ja on Rosa-Boris. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Greta committed exact R4 report/mixed-hand rule. - Voted Ja on Ines-Greta; Ines suspect; cast lone Nein. - Identified mutually exclusive R4 accounts and three culprits. - Demanded Ines R4 transfer; Lena defense insufficient. - Investigation of Otto cannot resolve R4 contradiction/Ines repeated involvement. - Demanded Lena R2 report. - Urged Greta nominee/fallback outside R4 pair. - Demanded Ines report Otto result before nomination. - Demanded Greta precommit excluding Greta/Ines. - Asked Rosa mixed-hand Liberal/full report; she committed. New: demanded Greta/Rosa exact R5 reports, citing their pre-vote promises.
[46] [discussion closed: open_floor:6] The room falls silent.
21 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "I’ll report Otto’s party membership exactly, then revisit the card contradiction"
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I'll answer the Round 2 question directly."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Two concrete answers are still outstanding."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Separate the investigation result from the card contradiction."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Name a nominee outside the R4 pair, plus your fallback, before acting."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I want to narrow this to one concrete nomination question."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Otto’s investigated party membership is Liberal. Greta should now name a nominee"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Greta, commit to Boris or Rosa; Ines, give the exact investigation result first."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Greta, choose Boris or Nadia; Ines, report Otto’s result first."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "I commit to Rosa as nominee, with Nadia as fallback; both exclude me and Ines."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Greta, commit a nominee now; Ines must disclose Otto’s result first."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I’m leaning Ja, with one final accounting check."
President Player 5 (Nadia) liberal nominates Player 0 (Boris) liberal for Chancellor.
t=6Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Boris, commit now to discard Fascist from any L/F hand and enact Liberal, and to report the exact two cards received and discard; if you receive F/F, say so explicitly rather than presenting it as evidence against Nadia."
Answer Lena directly. The lone Nein was already stated, but she explicitly asks confirmation. Ines never reported the investigation result, which is a concrete accountability failure, not evidence of my alignment.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R5 account conflicts with Rosa's firsthand F-F claim; reject future Greta governments. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; F-F claim conflicts with Greta; either Rosa lies or Greta passed F-F. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; R4 claim conflict with Greta; promised Otto investigation result, never reported it. - Lena: R2 President during F; report unverified; defended Greta. - R5 F narrowed Greta/Rosa/draw; Hitler threshold active. Open questions: - Ines: report Otto investigation result; exact R2/R4 reports. - Greta/Rosa: reconcile R5 transfer and discard. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/passed cards. - Boris: R1 hand/report. Already said: - R2 F narrowed Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Demanded Greta R4 exact/mixed commitment. - Voted Ja Ines-Greta; confirmed lone Nein; identified Ines/Greta contradiction; demanded transfer. - Lena defense insufficient; Otto result cannot resolve R4. - Demanded Lena R2 report. - Urged Greta nominee/fallback excluding Greta/Ines. - Demanded Ines result before nomination. - Asked Rosa mixed-hand Liberal/full report. - Demanded exact R5 reports; identified Greta leading suspect. - Said exclude Greta/Rosa until R5 claims reconcile. - If Rosa maintains F-F, reject future Greta governments. - Confirmed lone Nein was mine; noted Ines never reported investigation result.
t=11Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, before we vote, commit that with any L-containing draw you’ll discard a Fascist when possible, report the exact draw and transfer, and explicitly identify an unavoidable F/F outcome."
Otto directly asked for my commitment, so I must answer specifically. I should confirm the exact reporting and mixed-hand policy commitment before nominating him.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President, both F; R5 account conflicts Rosa; highest concern. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; conflicts Greta over R5 cards. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; R2/R4 transfers unresolved; delayed Otto investigation. - R4 F: Ines/Greta/draw. R5 F: Greta/Rosa/draw. - 3F enacted; Hitler-election threshold active. - R6 Boris–Nadia L; Boris reported L-L-F, Nadia discarded L and enacted L. - Otto: no enacted-policy government; lone Nein; committed exact report and Liberal from mixed hand. Open questions/owed: - Greta: reconcile R4/R5 reports; R5 accountability. - Rosa: exact R5 received/discarded cards. - Ines: R2/R4 transfers and discards; investigation context. - Lena: exact R2 report; Boris R1/Rosa R3 unverified. - Otto: investigation context; commitment answered. Already said: - Greta leading suspect; oppose future Greta governments pending R5 explanation. - Ines repeat-F suspect; challenged R2/R4 reports and missing investigation context. - Greta/Rosa contradiction; exclude both next government. - Supported Boris–Nadia special-election test; requested precommitments. - Committed exact R6 report and Liberal from any mixed hand. - Requested Boris R6 exact report/mixed-hand discard commitment; voted Ja. - R6 reported discarded one Liberal and enacted the other; identities indistinguishable. - Told table leaning Otto and asked exact draw/discard/transfer and Liberal mixed-hand commitment. - Otto answered; intended nominee.
t=16Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I commit to discard a Fascist from any L/F hand and enact Liberal; with F/F, I’ll report that exact hand and enact the unavoidable Fascist, then give my received cards and discard."
The investigation result is still pending; request its immediate public report without repeating the broader R4 argument.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in Fascist enactments; only player in both. R4 account conflicts with Greta’s; strongest repeated-government evidence. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; claims 2F passed, conflicting with Ines’s 1L/1F account. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist enactment; exact account unverified; defended Greta. - Rosa/Boris: R3 Liberal government; not cleared. Open unanswered: - Ines: exact R2 cards/discard/pass; R4 draw, discard, exact pass. - Greta: exact R4 received cards/discard; basis for 2F claim. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Boris: R1 draw/discard/pass; R3 discard answer. - Ines: report Otto investigation result. Already said: - R2 Fascist narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Voted Ja on Rosa-Boris test. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/ Otto fallback committed. - Greta committed exact R4 report and mixed-hand rule. - Voted Ja on Ines-Greta; Ines remains suspect. - Identified mutually exclusive Ines/Greta R4 accounts and three possible culprits. - Demanded exact R4 transfer from Ines; Lena defense insufficient. - Investigation of Otto cannot resolve R4 contradiction or Ines’s repeated involvement. - Confirmed casting lone Nein on Ines-Greta.
t=20Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "I support this nomination; if Boris reports an L/F hand followed by a Fascist enactment, that implicates his handling rather than an abstract bad draw."
Greta's account would make me responsible for choosing Fascist, so I should confidently contradict it. Claiming F/F is mechanically possible and places the unresolved R5 responsibility on Greta.
Suspects: - Greta: R5 claims F-F-L/F discard/pass F-L, but I dispute; R4 Chancellor for F; conflicts with Ines. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; unresolved flows; owes Otto investigation result. - Lena: R2 President with Ines; R2 F unresolved. - Boris: R1/R3 governments both L; comparatively cleared. Open: - Greta: exact R5 transfer (I claim F-F); exact R4 draw/discard/pass. - Ines: Otto investigation result; exact R2/R4 reports. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass/enacted cards. - Nadia: whether she cast R4 lone Nein; Otto claims Nein. Already said: - Requested exact reports; challenged Lena/Ines on R2/R4. - Narrowed each F to President, Chancellor, or unlucky draw. - Asked R4 lone Nein; noted Ines in both prior F governments. - Demanded Ines precommit investigation/result. - Committed Ja, L from mixed hand, full R5 report. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Identified Greta as primary R5 suspect because she passed F/F to me. - Now disputed Greta’s R5 F-L account; claimed she passed F-F and forced enactment.
t=25Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Boris, one edge case remains: if I pass you L/L, commit now which card you discard and confirm you’ll report both cards and your discard, so there’s no post-result ambiguity."
Need add actionable new point without merely repeating prior accusation: exclude both conflicting R5 participants because threshold is now active.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: Chancellor R4 + President R5, both F; only player in both consecutive F governments; R5 account conflicts with Rosa's F-F receipt claim. - Rosa: Chancellor R5; says Greta passed F-F, discarded one F, enacted F; directly conflicts with Greta. - Ines: Chancellor R2 + President R4, both F; repeat-government suspect; R4 transfer/discard unresolved. - R4 narrowed Ines/Greta/unlucky draw; R5 narrowed Greta/Rosa/unlucky draw. - 3 F enacted; Hitler-election threshold active. Open questions/unanswered: - Greta: exact R4 report; reconcile R5 mixed-hand report with Rosa's F-F claim. - Rosa: exact R5 cards received and discarded F. - Ines: exact R2/R4 transfers/discards; promised Otto investigation result. - Lena: exact R2 report; Boris: R1 report; Rosa: R3 report. - Otto: lone Nein R4 and investigation result unresolved; result cannot resolve R4. Already said: - Ines leading suspect from repeat F participation; challenged investigation target, favored Lena. - Demanded exact R2/R4/R5 reports and mixed-vs-2F distinction. - Asked Ines withdraw Greta absent report; asked Otto about lone Nein; warned investigation result cannot resolve R4. - Supported Rosa/Boris lower-risk test; requested precommitments; voted Ja Greta/Rosa. - Greta primary suspect; oppose future Greta governments until R5 resolved. - Greta/Rosa jointly implicated by conflicting R5 accounts; coherence alone does not exonerate Greta. - New: exclude both Greta and Rosa from next government while R5 contradiction stands.
t=28Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "If you pass me L/L, I’ll discard one Liberal, enact the other, and report both received cards and which one I discarded."
Commit to the requested clean government, excluding myself and Ines. This is consistent with prior statement and builds credibility while avoiding unnecessary conflict.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 and R4 governments tied to Fascist enactments; R4 claims 2L+F, I claim 2F received, F discarded/enacted. - Lena/Ines: R2 Fascist policy; exact accounts unresolved. - Boris/Rosa: R3 government produced Liberal; exact cards unresolved. Open questions/unanswered: - Otto: lone Nein on Ines–Greta; investigation result/report owed by Ines. - Ines: R4 presidential discard distinction; R2 received/discard/account; investigation result. - Lena: R2 draw/discard/pass and R1 account. - Rosa/Boris: R3 mixed vs 2F. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports and clean test governments. - Asked Rosa mixed vs 2F; committed as R4 Chancellor to exact report and discard F from mixed hand. - Reported R4 2F received; discarded F/enacted F. - Said Ines owes R4 presidential discard distinction; defended mechanical consistency. - Accepted temporary exclusion; proposed test excluding Ines/Greta with Lena exact R2 report. - Supported Nadia: investigate Lena and announce target first. - Supported Ines investigating Otto and requested plain report. - Committed Rosa nominee, Nadia fallback; both exclude me/Ines.
[48] [discussion closed: pre_vote:6] The room falls silent.
21 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I can support Rosa, with one important caveat."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I need Greta’s exact R4 account before endorsing this."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I support giving Rosa a clean test."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Greta, give your exact R4 card account before we vote."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "I oppose this government pending Greta’s precise R4 card account."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I oppose this government unless Greta answers first."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): interrupt urgency=3: "Yes. I’ll enact Liberal from any mixed hand and report exact cards afterward."
Player 2 (Rosa): interrupt urgency=3: "Rosa must commit on mixed hands; Greta must state her fallback before this vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta, please commit to a full, exact card report before we vote."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Yes. I’ll report the exact three cards, my discard, and what I pass—even if all "
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, commit to a full report too; Greta's R4 record remains unresolved."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I commit to Ja and a full exact report; Greta should commit likewise."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Exact reports matter here."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Rosa still owes the table a commitment."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Before voting: commit to the full hand report and fallback now."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I’m cautiously in favor, pending the exact accounting."
[49] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
President Player 5 (Nadia) liberal passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[51] A Fascist policy is enacted (2/6).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
[52] [discussion closed: post_enact:6] The room falls silent.
7 bids this window
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I support the test, provided both give exact reports afterward."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "I want both sides committed before this vote."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Greta, commit now: if you draw 2L+F, discard F and pass me a Liberal."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Rosa: commit to enact Liberal from a mixed hand and report exact cards."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Yes: I’ll enact Liberal from any mixed hand and report all three cards exactly."
t=5Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, I’d investigate Rosa: her Round 3 government still has no exact draw, discard, and pass account, making her a better information target than repeating a recently audited pair."
Ines still owes the publicly promised investigation result, and it should be stated before Greta nominates. This is a direct accountability point, though similar requests were made earlier; Lena has just raised it, so answer firmly but briefly.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in Fascist enactments; only player in both; R4 account conflicts with Greta; still withholding promised Otto investigation result. - Greta: R4 Chancellor; claims 2F passed, conflicts with Ines’s 1L/1F account. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist enactment; exact account unverified; defended Greta. - Rosa/Boris: R3 Liberal government; not cleared. Open questions/unanswered: - Ines: exact R2 cards/discard/pass; R4 draw/discard/exact pass; Otto investigation result. - Greta: exact R4 received cards/discard; basis for 2F claim; intended nominee/fallback. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Boris: R1 draw/discard/pass; R3 discard answer. Already said: - R2 Fascist narrowed to Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Voted Ja on Rosa-Boris test. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Greta committed exact R4 report and mixed-hand rule. - Voted Ja on Ines-Greta; Ines remains suspect. - Identified mutually exclusive Ines/Greta R4 accounts and three possible culprits. - Demanded exact R4 transfer from Ines; Lena defense insufficient. - Investigation of Otto cannot resolve R4 contradiction or Ines’s repeated involvement. - Confirmed lone Nein on Ines-Greta. - Demanded Lena’s exact R2 card report. - Before nomination, urged Greta choose nominee/fallback outside R4 pair. - Now demanded Ines report Otto result before nomination.
t=11Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Nadia, name your investigation target before acting and commit to publishing the exact party result immediately afterward; if you choose Rosa, explain why her Round 3 audit gap outweighs the R6 ticket."
Locking in Boris is safest and honors the public commitment, preserving my credibility while avoiding immediate scrutiny. Nadia still needs to answer the exact-report commitment, but Boris has already committed to nominate her.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2/R4 governments tied to Fascist enactments; R4 discard distinction unresolved; delayed Otto result, later reported Otto Liberal. - Lena: R2 government enacted Fascist; exact R2 account unresolved. - Rosa: R5 firsthand F-F claim contradicts my F-F-L draw, F discard, F-L pass. Open questions/unanswered: - Nadia: acceptance of exact-report/mixed-hand commitment for Boris-Nadia government. - Lena: R2 exact draw/discard/pass report. - Rosa: exact R5 transfer/discard account. - Otto: investigation result was eventually stated as none available; lone Nein was his, rationale given as unresolved evidence. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports and clean test governments. - R4: received 2L+F; discarded F/enacted F; Ines owes discard distinction. - Accepted temporary exclusion; proposed test excluding Ines/Greta with Lena R2 report. - Supported investigating Lena then Otto; requested plain results. - Committed Rosa nominee, Nadia fallback; both exclude me/Ines. - Supported Greta-Rosa clean test. - R5 exact report: drew F,F,L; discarded F; passed F,L; Rosa discarded L/enacted F. - Denied Rosa F-F claim; reaffirmed F-L pass. - R5 contradiction binary: Rosa’s F-F requires different draw/discard. - Asked Otto for exact investigation target/result. - Special election target: Boris, with Nadia as committed Chancellor nominee. - Locked in Boris as special-election President and Nadia as Chancellor nominee.
t=17Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I’d investigate Otto rather than simply follow the Rosa lead: he has never been tested in government and has been directing scrutiny from the outside. A published result on him would give us a genuinely independent data point."
Answer Rosa directly and maintain the established card claim. Add the implication that her firsthand account requires a different presidential hand, making the contradiction binary.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2/R4 governments tied to Fascist enactments; R4 presidential discard distinction unresolved; Otto investigation result unreported. - Lena: R2 government enacted Fascist; exact R2 account unresolved. - Rosa: R5 claims F-F transfer, contradicting Greta's F-F-L draw, F discard, F-L pass. Open questions/unanswered: - Ines owes R4 presidential discard distinction and Otto investigation result. - Lena owes R2 exact draw/discard/pass report. - Rosa owes consistent exact R5 transfer/discard account. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports and clean test governments. - R4: received 2L+F; discarded F/enacted F; Ines owes presidential discard distinction. - Accepted temporary exclusion; proposed test excluding Ines/Greta with Lena R2 report. - Supported investigating Lena then Otto; requested plain results. - Committed Rosa nominee, Nadia fallback; both exclude me/Ines. - Supported Greta-Rosa clean test. - R5 exact report: drew F,F,L; discarded F; passed F,L to Rosa; Rosa discarded L/enacted F. - Denied Rosa's F,F claim; reaffirmed passing F,L. - R5 contradiction is binary: Rosa's F-F account requires a different draw or discard.
t=21Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Nadia, announce the target before investigating, then publish the result and commit how it changes your next nomination—not just the party label."
Answer Nadia directly with a strong accountability commitment; this builds trust without making an unverifiable claim yet.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 and R4 governments tied to Fascist enactments; R4 claims 2L+F, I claim 2F received, F discarded/enacted. - Lena/Ines: R2 Fascist policy; exact accounts unresolved. - Boris/Rosa: R3 government produced Liberal; exact cards unresolved. Open questions/unanswered: - Ines: Otto investigation result/report; R4 presidential discard distinction; R2 received/discard/account. - Lena: R2 draw/discard/pass and R1 account. - Rosa/Boris: R3 mixed vs 2F. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports and clean test governments. - Asked Rosa mixed vs 2F; committed as R4 Chancellor to exact report and discard F from mixed hand. - Reported R4 2F received; discarded F/enacted F. - Said Ines owes R4 presidential discard distinction; defended mechanical consistency. - Accepted temporary exclusion; proposed test excluding Ines/Greta with Lena exact R2 report. - Supported Nadia investigating Lena and announcing target first. - Supported Ines investigating Otto and requested plain report. - Committed Rosa nominee, Nadia fallback; both exclude me/Ines. - Supported current Greta-Rosa government as a clean test. - Committed to report exact R5 draw, discard, and passed cards, including 3F case.
t=26Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "I will investigate Ines: she was Chancellor for the Round 2 Fascist enactment, and her still-unresolved account outweighs Otto’s lack of government history; I’ll publish the result immediately."
Clarify my vote without repeating the policy dispute; this directly addresses the unresolved lone Nein question and supports accountability for Otto.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 Lena–Ines F; R4 Ines–Greta F; exact transfers unresolved. - Greta: R4 Chancellor/R5 President in F governments; R4/R5 reports conflict with Ines/Rosa; Hitler privately known. - Rosa: R5 firsthand F-F claim conflicts with Greta; intentionality unresolved. - Otto: R4/R5 lone Nein; investigation result withheld; rationale unanswered. - Lena: implicated by R2. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; positive evidence. Open questions: - Otto: confirm lone Nein rationale; report investigation result. - Rosa/Greta: exact R5 transfer claims remain mutually exclusive. - Ines: exact R2/R4 transfers/discards unanswered. Already said: - R2 drew 2F/1L; discarded F; passed F/L. - Supported accountable governments; outcomes outweigh promises. - 2F+1L allows passing 2F. - Greta account does not prove Ines discarded L; exact transfers needed. - Boris blanket opposition overbroad. - Favored investigating Otto; requested result. - Supported Greta–Rosa cautiously; required accounting. - R5 F alone does not prove Rosa intentional; demand reconciliation. - Neither private R5 claim independently verified. - Greta/Rosa stories cannot both be true; exact firsthand accounts needed. - Voted Ja on Greta–Rosa; lone Nein was not mine; asked Otto to identify it and report result.
t=30Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Investigating Ines may clarify Round 2, but it cannot clear Nadia or Boris for Round 6: that Fascist policy still came from their government or the draw."
Ask Lena for the unresolved exact Round 2 account, adding scrutiny to the first Fascist government without repeating prior remarks.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President, both F; R5 account conflicts Rosa; highest concern. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; conflicts Greta over R5 cards. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; R2/R4 transfers unresolved; delayed Otto investigation. - R4 F: Ines/Greta/draw. R5 F: Greta/Rosa/draw. - 3F enacted; Hitler-election threshold active. - R6 Boris–Nadia L; Boris reported L-L-F, Nadia discarded L and enacted L. - Otto: no enacted-policy government; lone Nein; committed exact report and Liberal from mixed hand. Open questions/owed: - Greta: reconcile R4/R5 reports; R5 accountability. - Rosa: exact R5 received/discarded cards. - Ines: R2/R4 transfers and discards; investigation context. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/transfer; asked now. - Boris R1/Rosa R3 unverified. - Otto: investigation context; commitment answered. Already said: - Greta leading suspect; oppose future Greta governments pending R5 explanation. - Ines repeat-F suspect; challenged R2/R4 reports and missing investigation context. - Greta/Rosa contradiction; exclude both next government. - Supported Boris–Nadia special-election test; requested precommitments. - Committed exact R6 report and Liberal from any mixed hand. - Requested Boris R6 exact report/mixed-hand discard commitment; voted Ja. - R6 reported discarded one Liberal and enacted the other; identities indistinguishable. - Told table leaning Otto and asked exact draw/discard/transfer and Liberal mixed-hand commitment. - Otto answered; intended nominee.
t=36Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "If Nadia confirms I’m Liberal, the unresolved R2 responsibility still sits chiefly with Lena as President; she should give her exact draw and discard before anyone treats that result as a full explanation."
Boris already committed to Nadia, and Nadia has not answered Otto's commitment request. Pressing Boris to follow through keeps the table focused without repeating the unresolved card dispute.
Suspects/evidence: - Lena: R2 with me -> F; exact hand unresolved; endorsed Greta R4 two-F account. - Greta: Hitler suspect; R4 conflicts with my F-L-L; R5 F-L conflicts with Rosa F-F; locked Boris/Nadia special election. - Rosa: R3 with Boris -> L; R5 F; conflicts with Greta; exact reports unresolved. - Boris: blanket opposition to Ines/Lena/Greta; obstruction, no policy proof; R1 handling unresolved. - Otto: R4/R5 lone Nein; investigated Liberal. - Nadia: no policy proof; has not answered commitment request. Open questions: - Lena: R2 exact draw/discard/pass; explain Greta endorsement. - Greta: reconcile R4/R5 accounts; special-election accountability. - Rosa: exact R3 and full R5 report. - Boris: R1 exact handling; follow through on Nadia nomination. - Nadia: accept Boris nomination; commit to mixed-hand Liberal and exact report. Already stated: - R4 F-L-L; discarded L; passed F-L; Greta discarded L/enacted F. - Greta two-F R4 account conflicts with mine. - R2 scrutiny; mixed-hand Liberal commitments; generalized suspicion insufficient. - Boris blanket veto is not proof and blocks scrutiny. - Otto investigated and publicly reported Liberal. - R5 Greta/Rosa accounts incompatible; Greta coherence does not resolve it. - Voted Ja on Greta-Rosa. - Special election requires locked choices and accountability. - Urged Boris to nominate Nadia now for clean accountability test.
t=41Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "If Ines is confirmed Liberal, that settles party membership but not the unresolved R2 card handling; Nadia should make Otto the next information target rather than recycle the same audit."
Defend Greta without overcommitting. Her F-F-L draw, discarding F, and passing F-L is mechanically coherent; Rosa's claim directly conflicts. Force Rosa to clarify whether she knows the transfer or is inferring it.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 Lena–Ines enacted F; forced-vs-mixed unresolved. R4 Ines–Greta enacted F; exact transfer missing. - Greta: R4 Chancellor during F; R5 President while F enacted; R5 report conflicts with Rosa, but Greta's F-F-L -> discard F -> pass F-L is mechanically coherent. - Lena implicated by R2; Rosa suspects Lena. - Rosa: R5 claims Greta passed F-F and Rosa discarded F; conflicts with Greta's F-L transfer report. - Boris: R1/R3 governments enacted L; positive evidence. - Otto: R4 lone Nein; party unknown. Open questions: - Ines: exact R2/R4 transfers and discards. - Greta: exact R4 report; R5 transfer reconciliation. - Rosa: whether R5 F-F claim is directly observed or inferred; exact discard/transfer; R3 report. - Otto: investigation result. - Boris: exact R3 report. Already said: - R2 drew 2F/1L; discarded F; passed F/L. - Supported accountable governments and Ines–Greta nomination. - Asked exact R3/R4 reports; outcomes outweigh promises. - 2F+1L permits discarding L and passing 2F. - Greta account does not prove Ines discarded L; Ines owes exact transfer. - Boris blanket opposition overbroad. - Oppose reflexive investigation of Lena; favor less-entangled targets. - Recommended investigating Otto; requested result before nomination. - Favored nominee outside disputed R4 pair. - Cautiously supported Greta–Rosa; required final exact accounting. - R5 F enactment alone does not prove Rosa intentionally passed F; demand exact accounting. - Demand Rosa reconcile F-F claim with Greta’s F-F-L report; do not treat either private claim as independently verified.
[53] [discussion closed: pre_power:6] The room falls silent.
28 bids this window
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Let them answer the accountability question, then vote."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I need both of you to commit to your exact transfer accounts before this vote; a"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I want a clear policy commitment before we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I oppose this: Greta’s R4 contradiction remains unresolved, and Rosa hasn’t made"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Rosa's R3 Liberal earns cautious support; Greta's R4 Fascist keeps this under aَ"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "We need a clean government next."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "R5 needs a precise card account."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta handed me two Fascist cards; her account must be exact."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "For the record, my exact R5 account:"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "One clarification on the latest government:"
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "This government needs a precise accounting."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Greta and Rosa: give exact R5 card transfers and discards."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "One concrete demand"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "R5 exact: Greta drew 3F, discarded 1F, transferred 2F; I enacted F."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "R5 still narrows to Greta, Rosa, or an unlucky draw; show the transfer."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "R5: I drew 2F/1L, discarded F, passed F/L to Rosa; she discarded L."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa's exact R5 transfer matters as much as Greta's pattern."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Greta and Rosa cannot both be telling the truth."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Your R5 accounts are mutually exclusive; one of you is lying about the transfer."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "I passed Rosa Fascist–Liberal, not Fascist–Fascist. Her claim is false."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Rosa’s account needs a concrete reconciliation."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "R5 needs a precise reconciliation: Greta says F-L, Rosa says F-F. Both should"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "The R5 contradiction needs a precise resolution."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
President Player 5 (Nadia) liberal investigates Player 3 (Ines) fascist.
investigation_result: {'target': 'p3', 'party': 'fascist'}
Round 7: President is Player 6 (Otto) liberal.
t=5Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Otto, my investigation confirms Ines is Fascist, and she was Chancellor for the Round 2 Fascist enactment. Commit now to a Chancellor other than Ines and name your intended nominee before acting."
Nadia has not yet answered Lena's direct request for a mixed-hand commitment and exact reporting. Ask her to commit before the special election proceeds; this is new and relevant.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R5 F-L transfer claim conflicts with Rosa’s firsthand F-F claim; reject future Greta governments. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; F-F claim conflicts with Greta; one lies or Greta passed F. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; R4 claim conflicts with Greta; delayed Otto investigation result. - Lena: R2 President during F; report unverified; defended Greta. - R5 F narrowed Greta/Rosa/draw; Hitler threshold active. Open unanswered: - Greta: exact R4 cards/discard/passed; reconcile R5 transfer; special-election action committed Boris/Nadia. - Rosa: exact R5 cards/discard/passed; reconcile with Greta. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; investigation result timing/credibility. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/passed. - Nadia: commit exact report and Liberal-from-mixed before special election. - Boris: R1 hand/report. Already said: - R2 F narrowed Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Demanded Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Demanded Greta R4 exact/mixed commitment. - Voted Ja Ines-Greta; confirmed lone Nein; identified Ines/Greta contradiction. - Lena defense insufficient; Otto result cannot resolve R4. - Demanded Lena R2 report. - Urged Greta nominee/fallback excluding Greta/Ines. - Demanded Ines result before nomination. - Asked Rosa mixed-hand Liberal/full report. - Demanded R5 reports; identified Greta leading suspect. - Said exclude Greta/Rosa until R5 claims reconcile. - If Rosa maintains F-F, reject future Greta governments. - Noted Ines delayed investigation result. - Boris→Nadia commitment recorded.
t=10Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Otto, do not nominate Lena: with Ines confirmed Fascist, Lena is the other member of the Round 2 Fascist government, and she still owes us her draw-and-discard account."
Boris should be held to the special-election commitment and make a fresh mixed-hand policy commitment; this adds accountability without repeating the already-recorded nomination request.
Suspects: - Greta: R5 F; I received F-F, discarded F, enacted F; her F-L report false. R4 Chancellor under Ines, F enacted. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; exact accounts unanswered; delayed Otto investigation result. - Lena: R2 President with Ines, F; exact draw/discard/pass unanswered. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; comparatively cleared, but owes R6 exact-hand commitment/report. - Otto: R4/R5 lone Nein; rationale unresolved; Ines claims investigated him Liberal. Open questions: - Greta: reconcile R5 transfer; exact R4 cards. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; why investigation result withheld; basis/timing of Otto result. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Otto: R5 rejection rationale. - Nadia: commit to Liberal from mixed hand; exact draw/discard/passed cards. Already said: - Requested exact reports and advance mixed-hand commitments. - Challenged Greta/Ines/Lena on R2/R4 accounts. - Asked identity of R4 lone Nein; noted Ines in both prior F governments. - Demanded Ines announce investigation target/result. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Identified Greta as R5 suspect; stated she passed F-F and forced my F enactment. - Nadia argued next government exclude Greta and me due to R5 contradiction. - Greta repeats F-L claim; I maintain exact R5 account. - R5 vote: I voted Ja; asked Otto about lone Nein and rationale. - Recommended special election only as Greta->Boris, with Boris->Nadia commitment; reject substitutions. Current: require Boris R6 exact-hand commitment/report; favor Nadia, reject Greta/Ines/Lena.
t=15Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "I will nominate Greta as a fresh test, not Lena or Ines. Greta, commit now to discard Fascist from any L/F hand, report the exact cards and discard, and enact Liberal whenever possible."
I should give Nadia a concrete safe nominee recommendation while identifying the governments tied to fascist policies. Lena has one implicated round, while Greta, Ines, and Rosa have stronger recent accountability issues; Otto's R5 Nein is also unexplained.
Suspicions: - Greta: R4 Chancellor/R5 President; Fascist enacted both; R5 transfer conflicts Rosa. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor enacted Fascist; conflicts Greta; R3 government Liberal. - Ines: R2/R4 President; Fascist enacted both; delayed Otto result; R4 transfer unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist; defended Greta; accountability unresolved. - Otto: R5 lone Nein; rationale tied to absent investigation result. Open questions: - Nadia: exact R6 draw/discard/transfer report. - Greta/Rosa: exact R5 transfer; one lies or draw explanation differs. - Ines: R2/R4 policy accounts; delayed investigation result. - Otto: specific rationale for R5 Nein. Already said: - R6 draw L-L-F; discarded F; passed L-L to Nadia; requested exact report. - Special-election commitment: nominate Nadia; reject substitute. - Discard Fascist from mixed draw, pass Liberal, report exact R6 draw/discard/transfer. - Nadia: enact Liberal from mixed hand and report exact draw/discard/transfer. - R5 culprit narrowed to Greta, Rosa, or unlucky draw. - Oppose implicated players pending accountability. - Vote Ja on Boris-Nadia clean test; evaluate exact reports and enacted policy. - R6 Liberal enacted; Boris/Nadia less suspicious, not exonerated; demand R4/R5 accounts before risky Chancellor. - Three Fascist policies mean Hitler-Chancellor election is now an immediate loss condition; avoid unaccountable nominees. - Recommended Nadia nominate Lena or Otto; exclude Greta/Ines/Rosa due to R2/R4/R5 Fascist governments.
t=20Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "I’m comfortable testing Greta here; Otto should just confirm that both of them will report the exact transfer and discard immediately after the policy is enacted."
No unanswered direct question requires my response. I can add a clear conditional judgment: Rosa claims firsthand receipt of F-F, so if she maintains that claim, Greta's promised exact report is the falsified account and Greta should be excluded. This is a sharper decision rule rather than repeating the prior suspicion.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R4 conflict with Ines; R5 says F-F-L, discarded F, passed F-L, conflicting with Rosa F-F claim. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; firsthand claims Greta passed F-F; conflicts with Greta. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; R4 conflict with Greta; withheld Otto investigation result. - Lena: R2 President during F; account unverified; defended Greta. - R5 F narrowed Greta/Rosa/draw; 3F threshold danger. Open questions/unanswered: - Rosa: exact R5 draw/discard/pass; reconcile F-F claim. - Greta: reconcile R4/R5 reports; answer Rosa F-F claim. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; Otto investigation result. - Lena: exact R2 report. - Boris: R1 hand report. Already said: - R2 F narrowed Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered; voted Ja on Rosa-Boris. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Greta exact R4/mixed commitment. - Voted Ja Ines-Greta; cast lone Nein; identified Ines/Greta contradiction; demanded transfer. - Lena defense insufficient; Otto result cannot resolve R4. - Demanded Lena R2 report. - Urged Greta nominee/fallback excluding Greta/Ines. - Demanded Ines result before nomination. - Asked Rosa mixed-hand Liberal/full report. - Demanded exact R5 reports; identified Greta leading suspect. - Said exclude Greta/Rosa until R5 claims reconcile. New: If Rosa maintains F-F firsthand claim, reject every future Greta government.
t=25Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I’m Liberal, so Nadia’s claimed result is simply wrong. Otto, before nominating Greta, ask her to specify which card she’ll discard from an L/L hand, so her report cannot be retrofitted afterward."
Ask Boris for a specific accountability commitment not yet recorded, while preserving the clean-government framing.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 Lena–Ines F; R4 Ines–Greta F; transfers unresolved. - Greta: R4 Chancellor/R5 President in F governments; Hitler privately known; R5 account conflicts with Rosa. - Rosa: R5 firsthand F-F claim conflicts with Greta; intent unresolved. - Otto: R4/R5 lone Nein; investigation result withheld until late. - Lena: implicated by R2. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; Boris–Nadia pact coordinated, not proof. Open questions: - Nadia: mixed-hand commitment and exact reporting unanswered. - Boris: exact draw/discard/transfer commitment and report. - Otto: lone-Nein rationale owed; investigation result was Liberal. - Rosa/Greta: R5 transfer reconciliation owed. - Ines: exact R2/R4 transfers owed. Already said: - R2 drew 2F/1L; discarded F; passed F/L. - Outcomes over promises; exact transfers needed. - 2F+1L permits passing 2F. - Favored investigating Otto; requested result. - Supported Greta–Rosa cautiously; R5 F does not prove Rosa intentional. - Greta/Rosa accounts cannot both be true. - Voted Ja on Greta–Rosa; lone Nein not mine. - Three F means Hitler-Chancellor risk is immediate. - Special election needs scrutiny and clean accountable nominee. - Before nomination, nominee should state intended vote and address prior government record; no blind Ja at 3F. - Asked Boris for exact draw/discard/transfer report.
t=30Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "I commit to discard a Fascist whenever possible, enact Liberal, and report the exact draw, transfer, and discard; with L/L, I’ll discard the first card received and identify it in my report."
The special-election choice can determine the next government and should be committed before action. Greta is already strongly implicated by the R5 policy and contradiction, so demand a concrete target and nominee plan.
Suspects: - Greta: R5 F; I received F-F, discarded F, enacted F; her F-L report false. R4 Chancellor under Ines, F enacted. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; exact accounts unanswered; Otto investigation withheld. - Lena: R2 President with Ines, F; exact draw/discard/pass unanswered. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; comparatively cleared. - Otto: R4 lone Nein; R5 lone Nein confirmed; rationale and party result unresolved. Open questions: - Greta: special-election target and intended Chancellor; reconcile R5 physical transfer; exact R4 cards. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; why investigation result withheld; Otto result. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Otto: R5 rejection rationale. Already said: - Requested exact reports and advance mixed-hand commitments. - Challenged Greta/Ines/Lena on R2/R4 accounts. - Asked identity of R4 lone Nein; noted Ines in both prior F governments. - Demanded Ines announce investigation target/result. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Identified Greta as R5 suspect; stated she passed F-F and forced my F enactment. - Confirmed receiving F-F and discarding F; called Greta’s R5 report false. - Nadia argued next government exclude Greta and me due to R5 contradiction. - Greta repeats F-L claim; I maintain exact R5 account. - R5 vote: I voted Ja; asked Otto about lone Nein and rationale.
[57] [discussion closed: open_floor:7] The room falls silent.
21 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "I received F-F from Greta, discarded one F, and passed the other F."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "A coherent story can still be a lie; Greta and Rosa remain jointly implicated."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Rosa and Greta must reconcile the R5 transfer before any trust is extended."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Rosa’s account still needs a direct answer; Greta’s coherence is disputed."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "One clarification before we move on."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "I passed F-L, not F-F: you discarded L and enacted F."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Answer Rosa’s specific F-F question; evasion makes you jointly unsafe."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "The R5 contradiction needs a precise resolution."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "The contradiction still needs resolution."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "I need to correct that record."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Resolve the R5 card contradiction."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Rosa, state your exact R5 draw, discard, and passed cards now."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "One concrete clarification:"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Lena, please answer the unresolved R2 hand."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Otto, answer the vote question directly."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "My vote was Ja; focus on the conflicting reports."
President Player 6 (Otto) liberal nominates Player 4 (Greta) hitler for Chancellor.
t=6Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I’ll vote Ja as a test, but Greta is now in both the Round 5 Liberal and this proposed government. If this produces Fascist, Otto and Greta must distinguish an F/F draw from an L/F hand and identify exactly who passed what."
Need a new, concise point. The latest enactment raises the stakes: Greta is the only player in both R4 and R5 Fascist governments, making her the strongest current suspect. State my voting/intention threshold rather than repeat requests for reports.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: Chancellor R4 and President R5, both F enactments; only player in both consecutive F governments; exact R4/R5 reports absent. - Ines: Chancellor R2 + President R4, both earlier F enactments; R4 transfer disputed; strongest historical repeat-government suspect. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor, directly implicated with Greta; exact R5 report absent. - R4 narrowed to Ines, Greta, or unlucky draw. - Lena: R2 President; defended Greta despite Rosa’s mechanical objection. - Otto: claims lone Nein R4; investigation result absent. - Three F enacted; Hitler-election threshold active. Open questions/unanswered: - Greta: exact R4/R5 draws, discards, passed cards; three-F report; owes Otto/room. - Rosa: exact R5 draw/discard/pass; owes Otto/room. - Ines: exact R2/R4 transfers/discards; 2F case; Otto result. - Lena: exact R2 cards/report. - Boris: R1 report. Rosa: R3 report. Already said: - Ines leading suspect from repeat F participation; challenged Ines investigation target and favored Lena. - Demanded exact R2/R4/R5 reports and mixed-vs-2F distinction. - Asked Ines withdraw Greta absent report; asked Otto about lone Nein and warned result cannot resolve R4. - Supported Rosa/Boris lower-risk test; requested precommitments; voted Ja Greta/Rosa. - Now: Greta primary suspect; oppose future Greta governments until R5 account.
t=11Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Otto, commit before the vote to publish your full three-card draw and which card you discarded, not merely Greta’s transfer; otherwise a Fascist result leaves your handling unaccounted for."
Boris was asked to commit to an exact report and to discard Fascist from any mixed draw, but has not answered. This is a new accountability point and relevant before voting.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President, both F; R5 F report conflicts Rosa's firsthand R5 F-F claim. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; direct conflict with Greta; exclude both pending reconciliation. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; delayed Otto investigation result; R2/R4 transfers unresolved. - R4 F: Ines/Greta/draw. R5 F: Greta/Rosa/draw. - 3F enacted; Hitler threshold active; Boris special-election President. Open questions/owed: - Boris: exact R6 draw/discard/transfer commitment; discard F from mixed draw and pass Nadia Liberal (asked, unanswered). - Greta: reconcile R4/R5 reports; R5 accountability. - Rosa: exact R5 received/discarded cards. - Ines: R2/R4 transfers and discards. - Lena: exact R2 report; Boris R1/Rosa R3 unverified. - Otto: investigation result unavailable; lone Nein confirmed. Already said: - Greta leading suspect; oppose future Greta governments pending R5. - Ines repeat-F suspect; challenged R4/R2 reports and missing investigation context. - Greta/Rosa contradiction; exclude both next government. - Supported special-election Boris -> Nadia test; requested precommitments. - Committed exact draw/discard/transfer report and Liberal from any mixed hand. - R6: reminded Boris his exact-report/mixed-hand discard commitment remains unanswered.
t=16Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Otto, why is Greta the best test over an untested player such as yourself? Her Round 5 Liberal result does not clear her, and this government could enact the third Fascist policy."
Boris's concern is valid. Lena's late account should not uniquely disqualify her; Otto's lone Nein on the R5 government is also unresolved. Ask for the specific basis of that vote before deciding.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R5 Chancellor; I received F-F, discarded F, enacted F; claimed F-L. R4 with Ines also F. Top suspect. - Ines: R2 Chancellor and R4 President, both F; reports/investigation unresolved. Next suspect. - Lena: R2 President with Ines enacted F; late claim F-F-L, discarded F, passed F-L; still unverified. - Otto: no enacted-policy government; lone Nein on R5 government, rationale still unresolved. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; R6 claims L-L-F, discarded F, passed L-L; outcome supports him. - Nadia: R6 Chancellor; L outcome fits Boris, exact discard/enacted report still owed. Open questions: - Otto: specific basis for lone R5 Nein; exact R5 knowledge/rationale. - Nadia: exact R6 discard/enacted report; nominee-risk rationale. - Greta: R5 transfer reconciliation; exact R4 cards. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; investigation basis/timing. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass remains unverified. Already said: - Requested exact reports and advance mixed-hand commitments. - Challenged Greta/Ines/Lena on R2/R4 accounts. - Asked R4/R5 lone Nein identity and rationale. - Demanded Ines announce investigation target/result. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Identified Greta as R5 suspect; said she passed F-F and forced my F. - Supported Greta special election to Boris, Boris->Nadia. - R5 Ja; R6 Ja conditional on accountability. - Synthesized R6 L reduces Boris/Nadia suspicion; danger concentrated in Lena/Ines R2 and Ines/Greta R4. - Said Otto commitment helps accountability but does not clear him absent enacted-policy history; Nadia must name nominee and rationale. - Current: Boris's asymmetry challenge answered; Otto asked specific basis for R5 Nein.
t=23Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "I chose Greta because a separate Chancellor gives us an independent account of my handling; nominating myself would remove that check. Her Round 5 Liberal result doesn’t clear her, but makes this a more informative controlled test alongside her fixed reporting commitment."
Otto has no enacted-government association, so he is preferable to Lena only if he makes an advance accountability commitment. Ask for exact draw/discard/transfer reporting and liberal handling of mixed hands before nominating.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President, both F; R5 account conflicts Rosa; highest concern. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; conflicts Greta over R5 cards. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; R2/R4 transfers unresolved; delayed Otto investigation. - R4 F: Ines/Greta/draw. R5 F: Greta/Rosa/draw. - 3F enacted; Hitler-election threshold active. - R6 Boris–Nadia L; Boris reported L-L-F, Nadia discarded L and enacted L. - Otto: no government tied to enacted policy; precommitment requested before nomination. Open questions/owed: - Greta: reconcile R4/R5 reports; R5 accountability. - Rosa: exact R5 received/discarded cards. - Ines: R2/R4 transfers and discards; investigation context. - Lena: exact R2 report; Boris R1/Rosa R3 unverified. - Otto: investigation context; lone Nein confirmed; exact precommitment/report owed. Already said: - Greta leading suspect; oppose future Greta governments pending R5 explanation. - Ines repeat-F suspect; challenged R2/R4 reports and missing investigation context. - Greta/Rosa contradiction; exclude both next government. - Supported Boris–Nadia special-election test; requested precommitments. - Committed exact R6 report and Liberal from any mixed hand. - Requested Boris R6 exact report/mixed-hand discard commitment; voted Ja. - R6 reported discarded one Liberal and enacted the other; identities indistinguishable.
t=27Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "I’m voting Nein: this government risks the third Fascist policy and unlocks the Hitler-election condition while Otto and Greta remain unaudited."
Nadia directly asks for my commitment, which I have not yet explicitly answered after nomination. Give a firm commitment before the vote; no need to repeat other accusations.
Suspicions: - Greta: R4 Chancellor/R5 President; Fascist in both; R5 report conflicts Rosa. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor Fascist; firsthand F-F conflicts Greta; R3 Liberal. - Ines: R2/R4 President; Fascist in both; delayed Otto result; R4 transfer unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist; defended Greta; accountability unresolved. - Otto: R5 lone Nein; rationale unclear. Open questions: - Greta/Rosa: exact R5 transfer; one lies or draw explanation differs. - Otto: rationale for R5 Nein. - Ines: R2/R4 policy accounts; delayed investigation report. Already said: - Nadia nomination after special election; reject substitute. - Mixed draw: discard Fascist; exact Boris report. - Nadia mixed-hand Liberal commitment and exact report. - R5 culprit Greta, Rosa, or unlucky draw. - Oppose implicated players pending accountability. - Today: Boris discard Fascist from mixed draw, pass Liberal, report exact draw/discard/transfer.
t=34Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I’m voting Ja: with Ines confirmed Fascist, Otto–Greta is a cleaner test than any ticket involving Lena or Ines. If it passes, a Fascist result must be narrowed by Otto’s full draw/discard and Greta’s exact transfer—not treated as proof against either without those accounts."
Need contribute without merely repeating the demand for exact reports. Greta's consecutive presence in R4 and R5 Fascist enactments is the strongest specific pattern, and the R4 contradiction remains unresolved. Make a concise accusation tied to both outcomes.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; only player in both earlier F governments; R4 account conflicts with Greta; withheld Otto investigation result. - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R4 account conflicts with Ines; leading suspect. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor in F government; exact report owed. - Lena: R2 President during F; exact account unverified; defended Greta. - Boris: R1/R3 liberal governments; not cleared. - R5 F narrowed Greta/Rosa/draw; 3 F means Hitler-election danger. Open questions: - Greta: exact R4 and R5 draw/discard/pass reports. - Rosa: exact R5 draw/discard/pass report. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; Otto investigation result. - Lena: exact R2 report. - Boris: R1/R3 reports. Already said: - R2 F narrowed Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered; voted Ja on Rosa-Boris. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Greta committed exact R4 report/mixed rule. - Voted Ja Ines-Greta; cast lone Nein; identified Ines/Greta contradiction and demanded transfer. - Lena defense insufficient; investigation of Otto cannot resolve R4. - Demanded Lena R2 report. - Urged Greta nominee/fallback excluding Greta/Ines. - Demanded Ines report Otto result before nomination. - Asked Rosa mixed-hand Liberal/full report; committed. - Demanded Greta/Rosa exact R5 reports. - Now identified Greta as leading suspect from consecutive R4/R5 F governments plus R4 contradiction.
t=41Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "I commit to publish all three cards I draw and identify my discard immediately after the enactment, alongside Greta’s exact transfer and discard. A Fascist result will therefore be narrowed to my handling, Greta’s handling, or an unavoidable draw—not hand-waved."
Ask Nadia to explain asymmetric scrutiny: she disqualified Lena over unresolved R2 account while accepting Otto despite unanswered R5 Nein rationale. This is new and specific.
Suspicions: - Greta: R4 Chancellor/R5 President; Fascist enacted both; R5 transfer conflicts Rosa. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor enacted Fascist; conflicts Greta; R3 government Liberal. - Ines: R2/R4 President; Fascist enacted both; R4 transfer unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during Fascist; late R2 account; defended Greta. - Otto: R5 lone Nein unexplained; now Nadia’s nominee. - Nadia/Boris: R6 Liberal enacted; not exonerated. Open questions: - Otto owes rationale for R5 Nein. - Greta/Rosa owe exact R5 transfer; one lies or draw explanation differs. - Ines owes R4 policy account/transfer. Already said: - R6 draw L-L-F; discarded F; passed L-L to Nadia. - Special-election commitment: nominate Nadia. - Discard Fascist from mixed draw, pass Liberal, report exact draw/discard/transfer. - R5 culprit narrowed to Greta, Rosa, or unlucky draw. - Oppose implicated players pending accountability. - Vote Ja on Boris-Nadia clean test. - Three Fascists: Hitler-Chancellor election immediate loss risk. - Recommended Nadia nominate Lena or Otto; exclude Greta/Ines/Rosa. - Requested Otto explain R5 Nein. - Otto’s reporting promise is not evidence; Nadia’s choice needs scrutiny. - Asked Nadia why Lena’s late R2 account disqualifies her while Otto’s unexplained R5 Nein does not.
t=47Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I’m voting Ja, but a Fascist result would not by itself implicate Greta: Otto’s complete three-card draw and discard must come first. Nadia’s private party claim about me is not a substitute for that kind of auditable account."
t=52Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, if Otto passes you F/F, which specific card will you discard? Please name both received cards and the discarded one, since your usual L/F commitment does not resolve that case."
t=56Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "If Otto passes me F/F, I’ll discard the first Fascist card received and enact the second, reporting both cards and that discard immediately."
Greta must name a concrete special-election choice. Boris has the cleanest record among available players, while I have no contradictory policy account; proposing Boris-to-Nadia creates an auditable government excluding the disputed R4/R5 players.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: Chancellor R4 + President R5, both F; only consecutive-F government player; R5 F-L report conflicts Rosa firsthand F-F claim. - Rosa: Chancellor R5; claims Greta passed F-F; direct conflict with Greta. - Ines: Chancellor R2 + President R4, both F; R4 transfer/discard unresolved; investigation result on Otto never reported. - R4 narrowed Ines/Greta/unlucky draw; R5 narrowed Greta/Rosa/unlucky draw. - 3 F enacted; Hitler threshold active; special election unlocked. Open questions/owed: - Greta: reconcile exact R4 report and R5 mixed-hand claim; name special-election President and intended Chancellor. - Rosa: exact R5 received/discarded cards. - Ines: exact R2/R4 transfers/discards; Otto investigation result. - Lena: exact R2 report; Boris R1 and Rosa R3 reports unverified. - Otto: investigation result unavailable; lone Nein confirmed as his. Already said: - Ines leading repeat-F suspect; challenged investigation target; demanded exact R2/R4/R5 reports and mixed-vs-2F distinctions. - Asked Ines withdraw Greta absent report; asked Otto about lone Nein; warned investigation cannot resolve R4. - Supported lower-risk Rosa/Boris test; requested precommitments; voted Ja Greta/Rosa. - Greta primary suspect; oppose future Greta governments until R5 resolved. - Greta/Rosa jointly implicated by conflicting R5 accounts; exclude both next government. - Current proposal: Greta should special-elect Boris; Boris should nominate me, excluding disputed R4/R5 principals.
[59] [discussion closed: pre_vote:7] The room falls silent.
35 bids this window
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "I voted Ja. Otto, was the lone Nein yours, and what was your concern?"
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Yes—I was the lone Nein."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "I voted Ja; Greta’s F–L account is impossible."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "I voted Ja; the result needs a precise reconciliation."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I was the lone Nein; here is why."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I want the complete R5 card accounts before we move on."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Otto, give the exact investigation target and result first."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Otto, confirm the vote and give the investigation result now."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Otto: give the investigation result; Greta’s R5 account is false."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "At three Fascists, we need exact card accounts before trusting this pair."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Otto should answer directly."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "I’ll confirm my vote and address the investigation directly."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Greta should state the special-election target and their intended Chancellor."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Greta, state your special-election choice before acting."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "I need answers before this government proceeds."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Reject this government: three Fascists are enacted, and your accounts conflict."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "One concrete special-election proposal"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Otto, please confirm your vote before we assess the special election."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Before the special election, we need a nominee with a clean voting record."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "One check before we lock this in:"
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "My recommendation is clear."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "One concern before you lock this in."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I’m installing Boris; his Chancellor nominee must be Nadia."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Greta, state the full special-election plan."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta, announce both special-election picks now."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Greta, name your special-election President now, before acting."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Greta, name the special-election President; we must scrutinize their Chancellor."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "I choose Boris as special-election President; he should nominate Nadia."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Yes, Lena: I’ll report all three cards and pass Liberal from any mixed hand."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Commit now: Boris as special-election President, no substitution."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "I’ll hold Greta to that government."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia should answer Otto’s exact-report commitment before we vote."
[60] Vote result: 5 Ja / 2 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
President Player 6 (Otto) liberal passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[63] A Liberal policy is enacted (4/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
t=4Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Otto still owes the promised exact three-card draw and discard; please put that on record before we treat this as a clean Liberal audit."
Nadia directly proposed installing Boris and nominating Nadia; commit clearly. This creates accountable precommitment and excludes disputed players.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 President + R4 President; Fascist enactments; R4 transfer unresolved. - Greta: R4 Chancellor/R5 President; consecutive Fascist governments; R5 account conflicts with Rosa. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor Fascist; claims received F-F; conflicts with Greta; R3 Liberal mitigates. - Lena: R2 President Fascist; exact account unresolved; defended Greta. - Otto: R4 lone Nein; investigation result unknown. Open questions: - Greta/Rosa: reconcile exact R5 transfer; one lies. - Otto: investigation result and R5 Nein reason. - Ines: investigation result; exact R2/R4 accounts. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. Already stated: - R1/R3 Liberal governments; R1 report. - Ines only player in both earlier Fascist governments; oppose Ines. - Oppose Lena/Greta pending accounts. - Requested investigation result; recommended Lena; challenged Otto/Ines. - Greta committed exact R5 report; Rosa mixed-hand commitment. - Voted Nein; rejected Greta-Rosa due Hitler-election danger. - R5 culprit Greta, Rosa, or unlucky draw; transfer decisive. - Special election requires precommitment. New: - If Greta installs me President, commit to nominate Nadia; reject substitute Chancellor.
t=8Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "My exact draw was Fascist–Liberal–Fascist; I discarded the third-card Fascist and passed Greta Fascist–Liberal, so she discarded Fascist and enacted Liberal."
t=14Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Otto’s F-L-F account is internally consistent with Greta’s Liberal enactment, so I wouldn’t treat this result as evidence against Greta. We should focus on an accountable next government rather than overstate what this audit proves."
Need add a genuinely new accountability question without repeating the R5 contradiction. The lone Nein on the R5 government is public but unidentified and may reveal informed suspicion; ask that voter to identify themselves and explain the pre-policy objection.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R4 conflict with Ines; R5 report F-F-L, discarded F, passed F-L conflicts with Rosa's firsthand F-F. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; F-F claim conflicts with Greta; may be lying or victim of Greta. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; R4 conflict with Greta; withheld Otto investigation result. - Lena: R2 President during F; report unverified; defended Greta. - R5 F narrowed Greta/Rosa/draw; Hitler threshold active. Open questions: - R5 lone Nein voter and reason — newly asked. - Rosa exact R5 transfer/discard; reconcile F-F claim. - Greta reconcile R4/R5 reports; answer Rosa F-F claim. - Ines exact R2/R4 reports; Otto result. - Lena exact R2 report; Boris R1 report. Already said: - R2 F narrowed Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Asked Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Demanded Greta R4 exact/mixed commitment. - Voted Ja Ines-Greta; lone Nein; identified Ines/Greta contradiction; demanded transfer. - Lena defense insufficient; Otto result cannot resolve R4. - Demanded Lena R2 report. - Urged Greta nominee/fallback excluding Greta/Ines. - Demanded Ines result before nomination. - Asked Rosa mixed-hand Liberal/full report. - Demanded exact R5 reports; identified Greta leading suspect. - Said exclude Greta/Rosa until R5 claims reconcile. - If Rosa maintains F-F, reject future Greta governments.
t=18Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, report the exact two cards you received in Round 7 and which one you discarded; Otto’s account alone does not establish that you chose the Liberal."
Nadia directly asks for a precommitment. Give a clear commitment to report exact cards and enact Liberal from any mixed hand, while noting this makes the government accountable.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R4 conflict with Ines; R5 report conflicts with Rosa; reject future Greta governments. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; firsthand F-F claim conflicts with Greta. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; delayed Otto investigation result; R4 unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during F; report unverified; defended Greta. - R6 Boris-Nadia Liberal; outcome narrows no one absent exact reports. Open questions: - Nadia: exact R6 discard/enacted report; unanswered. - Boris: verify R6 exact draw/discard/transfer; reported L-L-F, discarded F, passed L-L. - Greta/Rosa: reconcile R5 conflicting transfers. - Greta/Ines: R4 exact reports. - Lena: exact R2 report. Already said: - Demanded exact policy reports and precommitments. - Identified Ines/Greta contradiction; Greta leading suspect; reject future Greta. - Confirmed R5 lone Nein was mine. - R6 Liberal does not exonerate Boris/Nadia. - Challenged delayed Ines result and demanded R5 accounts. - Committed to exact R7 report and Liberal from any mixed hand.
t=24Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Greta’s report should specifically reconcile to Otto’s claim: she received Fascist–Liberal, discarded the Fascist, and enacted Liberal. Any different transfer or discard directly contradicts one of their accounts."
Answer Otto's direct request with a specific account, consistent with the enacted Fascist policy. Invite Rosa's confirmation without adding unnecessary conflict.
Suspects/evidence: - Ines: R2/R4 governments tied to Fascist enactments; R4 claims 2L+F, while I reported receiving 2F and discarding F/enacting F. - Lena/Ines: R2 Fascist policy; exact accounts unresolved. - R5 Greta-Rosa: reported 2F+1L, discarded F, passed F+L; Rosa allegedly discarded L, enacted F. Open questions/unanswered: - Ines owes Otto investigation result; R4 presidential discard distinction. - Lena owes R2 draw/discard/pass and R1 account. - Rosa owes exact R5 discard/transfer confirmation. Already said aloud: - Requested exact reports and clean test governments. - R4: reported 2F received; discarded F/enacted F; Ines owes presidential discard distinction. - Accepted temporary exclusion; proposed test excluding Ines/Greta with Lena R2 report. - Supported investigating Lena then Otto; requested plain results. - Committed Rosa nominee, Nadia fallback; both exclude me/Ines. - Supported current Greta-Rosa clean test; committed exact R5 report; no new objection to Rosa. - R5 exact report: drew F,F,L; discarded F; passed F,L to Rosa; Rosa discarded L and enacted F.
t=29Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "I received Liberal–Liberal from Otto, discarded the first Liberal, and enacted the second. That directly conflicts with Otto’s account, so one of us is wrong; my report is unchanged."
Nadia's commitment remains unanswered despite prior requests; ask her directly before nomination.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2/R4 President; Fascist enacted both; delayed Otto investigation; R4 transfer unresolved. - Greta: R4 Chancellor/R5 President; Fascist in both; R5 account conflicts Rosa. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor Fascist; claims F-F, conflicts Greta; R3 Liberal. - Lena: R2 President Fascist; defended Greta; account unresolved. - Otto: R5 lone Nein; investigated Liberal per Ines; reason unclear. Open questions: - Nadia: mixed-hand Liberal commitment and exact report unanswered. - Greta/Rosa: exact R5 transfer; one lies. - Otto: R5 Nein reason. - Ines: R2/R4 accounts; investigation timing. Already stated: - Oppose Ines, Lena, Greta pending accountability. - R5 culprit Greta, Rosa, or draw. - Voted Nein on Greta-Rosa due Hitler threshold. - Special-election commitment: nominate Nadia; reject substitute. - Will discard Fascist from mixed draw and report exact cards.
t=36Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Otto and Greta cannot both be telling the truth: Otto claims he passed F–L, while Greta claims she received L–L. I will vote Nein on any immediate ticket involving either until one explains this contradiction and accounts for the other card."
Answer Boris directly and maintain the truthful account. Greta's report contradicts my firsthand cards; this makes her responsible for the R5 Fascist policy unless the deck somehow produced an impossible transfer, which it did not.
Suspects: - Greta: R5 F; I received F-F, discarded F, enacted F; contradicts her F-L account. R4 Chancellor under Ines, F enacted. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; unresolved accounts/investigation. - Lena: R2 President with Ines, F unresolved. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; comparatively cleared. Open questions: - Greta: R4 exact cards; R5 false draw/discard/pass report (now answered by my firsthand account). - Ines: Otto investigation result; exact R2/R4 reports; why withheld result. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Nadia: whether she cast R4 lone Nein; Otto claims he did. Already said: - Requested exact reports and precommitted mixed-hand handling. - Challenged Greta/Ines/Lena on R2/R4 accounts. - Asked identity of R4 lone Nein; noted Ines in both prior F governments. - Demanded Ines announce investigation target/result. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Identified Greta as primary R5 suspect; stated she passed F-F and forced my F enactment. - Disputed Greta’s R5 F-L account; confirmed receiving F-F and discarding F.
[64] [discussion closed: post_enact:7] The room falls silent.
28 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Nadia must commit to a mixed-hand Liberal enactment before this vote."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Yes—I'll commit before the special election."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Let’s settle the hand-reporting question before we vote."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Before this locks in, I want both sides accountable."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "One final safeguard before you nominate."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I’m ready to commit to Nadia as Chancellor."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Boris, commit before nominating."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Before Boris nominates, one point on the Chancellor choice."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Make the accountability test binding."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "I’ll nominate Nadia and publish the full audit."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Boris, nominate me; I reaffirm the mixed-hand liberal test."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Please nominate Nadia and give the exact report afterward; otherwise I vote Nein"
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): interrupt urgency=3: "Yes: any mixed hand, Liberal enacted; I’ll disclose draw, discard, and transfer."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "A clean test is available now."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Boris, give the exact draw/discard/pass commitment before we vote; no blind Ja."
Round 8: President is Player 0 (Boris) liberal.
t=5Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Boris, will you nominate Rosa as a fresh audit rather than Lena, Greta, or Otto, and commit now to publish your full draw and discard plus the exact cards transferred?"
Nadia has asked me for a commitment, but nobody has yet secured her own handling commitment. Ask her to commit before nomination, creating accountability for both sides.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R4 conflict with Ines; R5 report conflicts with Rosa; reject future Greta governments. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; firsthand F-F claim conflicts with Greta. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; delayed Otto investigation result; R4 unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during F; report unverified; defended Greta. - R6 Boris-Nadia Liberal; outcome narrows no one absent exact reports. Open questions: - Nadia: exact R6 discard/enacted report; unanswered; now owes R7 handling commitment. - Boris: verify R6 exact draw/discard/transfer; reported L-L-F, discarded F, passed L-L. - Greta/Rosa: reconcile R5 conflicting transfers. - Greta/Ines: R4 exact reports. - Lena: exact R2 report. Already said: - Demanded exact policy reports and precommitments. - Identified Ines/Greta contradiction; Greta leading suspect; reject future Greta. - Confirmed R5 lone Nein was mine. - R6 Liberal does not exonerate Boris/Nadia. - Challenged delayed Ines result and demanded R5 accounts. - Committed to exact R7 report and Liberal from any mixed hand. - Asked Nadia for pre-nomination commitment to discard Fascist from mixed hand and report R7 cards.
t=10Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Yes: I intend to nominate Rosa as Chancellor. I’ll publish my complete three-card draw, discard, and exact two-card transfer immediately afterward, whatever the outcome."
Add a genuinely new accountability question: Nadia has not personally committed to the exact report or mixed-hand policy choice. This can slow and scrutinize the proposed special-election government without repeating prior points.
Suspicions: - Ines: R2 Lena–Ines F; R4 Ines–Greta F; exact transfers unresolved. - Greta: R4 Chancellor/R5 President in F governments; R5 account conflicts with Rosa; Hitler privately known. - Rosa: R5 firsthand F-F claim conflicts with Greta; intent unresolved. - Otto: R4/R5 lone Nein; investigation result withheld. - Lena: implicated by R2. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; Boris–Nadia special-election pact coordinated, not proof of safety. Open questions: - Nadia: personal reporting/mixed-hand commitment unanswered. - Otto owes investigation result + lone-Nein rationale. - Rosa/Greta owe R5 transfer reconciliation. - Ines owes exact R2/R4 transfers. - Greta owes exact special-election President choice. Already said: - R2 drew 2F/1L; discarded F; passed F/L. - Supported accountable governments; outcomes over promises. - 2F+1L permits passing 2F. - Exact transfers needed; Greta account does not prove Ines discarded L. - Favored investigating Otto; requested result. - Supported Greta–Rosa cautiously; required accounting. - R5 F does not prove Rosa intentional. - Greta/Rosa claims cannot both be true. - Voted Ja on Greta–Rosa; lone Nein not mine; asked Otto identify/report. - Three F policies make Hitler-Chancellor risk immediate; demand accounting before repeats. - Special election requires scrutiny; prefer clean accountable nominee.
t=15Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Rosa, before the nomination, please commit to reporting the exact two cards Boris transfers, which you discard, and which you enact—especially if you receive F/F."
Answer Otto's direct question with a specific vote claim and ask whether he cast the lone Nein, distinguishing the Round 4 vote he already admitted from Round 5.
Suspects: - Greta: R5 F; I received F-F, discarded F, enacted F; her F-L report conflicts directly. R4 Chancellor under Ines, F enacted; R4 account conflict unresolved. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; exact card accounts unanswered; Otto investigation result withheld. - Lena: R2 President with Ines, F; exact report unanswered. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; comparatively cleared. Open questions: - Greta: reconcile R5 physical transfer; exact R4 cards. - Ines: Otto investigation result; exact R2/R4 reports; reason result withheld. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Otto: whether he cast R5 lone Nein and rationale; admitted R4 lone Nein. Already said: - Requested exact reports and advance mixed-hand commitments. - Challenged Greta/Ines/Lena on R2/R4 accounts. - Asked identity of R4 lone Nein; noted Ines in both prior F governments. - Demanded Ines announce investigation target/result. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Identified Greta as R5 suspect; stated she passed F-F and forced my F enactment. - Confirmed receiving F-F and discarding F; called Greta's R5 report false. - Nadia argued next government exclude Greta and me due to R5 contradiction. - Greta repeats F-L claim; maintain exact R5 account. - R5 vote: I voted Ja; asked Otto about lone Nein and rationale.
[66] [discussion closed: open_floor:8] The room falls silent.
14 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Nadia’s pledge helps, but Boris must commit before nominating her."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "This is a useful, testable commitment."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I support Nadia only if both commitments are explicit."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I’ll nominate Nadia unless someone presents new, checkable evidence."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Boris, commit to the hand before we vote."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "I need your exact policy accounts before endorsing this government."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "One final check before we vote"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Nadia: commit to a Liberal outcome and give the exact hand report."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "One final accountability check."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): interrupt urgency=3: "Committed: mixed draw means I discard Fascist; I’ll report all three, discard,2."
President Player 0 (Boris) liberal nominates Player 2 (Rosa) liberal for Chancellor.
t=6Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "I’m voting Nein: Rosa may be a fresh test, but Boris was President in the unresolved Round 6 Fascist government, and this ticket could immediately unlock the Hitler-election condition before his handling is audited."
t=11Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Rosa, commit now to your discard rule for both L/F and F/F hands—especially which specific card you’ll discard—so your account after the vote cannot be retrofitted."
Lena has not answered the exact Round 2 card question. Make a new, concrete commitment: her continued silence rules her out, rather than merely repeating the request.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President, both F; R5 account conflicts Rosa; highest concern. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; conflicts Greta over R5 cards. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; R2/R4 transfers unresolved; delayed Otto investigation. - R4 F: Ines/Greta/draw. R5 F: Greta/Rosa/draw. - 3F enacted; Hitler-election threshold active. - R6 Boris–Nadia L; Boris reported L-L-F, Nadia discarded L and enacted L. - Otto: no enacted-policy government; lone Nein; committed exact report and Liberal from mixed hand. Open questions/owed: - Greta: reconcile R4/R5 reports; R5 accountability. - Rosa: exact R5 received/discarded cards. - Ines: R2/R4 transfers and discards; investigation context. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/transfer; still unanswered; rules her out today if silent. - Boris R1/Rosa R3 unverified. - Otto: investigation context; commitment answered. Already said: - Greta leading suspect; oppose future Greta governments pending R5 explanation. - Ines repeat-F suspect; challenged R2/R4 reports and missing investigation context. - Greta/Rosa contradiction; exclude both next government. - Supported Boris–Nadia special-election test; requested precommitments. - Committed exact R6 report and Liberal from any mixed hand. - Requested Boris R6 exact report/mixed-hand discard commitment; voted Ja. - R6 reported discarded one Liberal and enacted the other; identities indistinguishable. - Told table leaning Otto and asked exact draw/discard/transfer and Liberal mixed-hand commitment. - Otto answered; intended nominee. - Lena’s silence now rules her out for today.
t=16Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "I commit to report Boris’s exact two-card transfer, my discard, and enacted card; with L/F I discard Fascist, and with F/F I discard the first Fascist and enact the second."
Rosa directly asks about my lone Nein; answer specifically and consistently. My suspicion was grounded in Greta's R4 government enacting Fascist, followed by her R5 presidency nominating Rosa, not in hidden information.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R4 conflict with Ines; R5 report conflicts with Rosa; reject future Greta governments. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; firsthand F-F claim conflicts with Greta. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; delayed Otto investigation result; R4 unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during F; report unverified; defended Greta. - R6 Boris-Nadia Liberal; outcome narrows no one absent exact reports. Open questions: - Nadia: exact R6 discard/enacted report; unanswered. - Boris: verify R6 exact draw/discard/transfer; reported L-L-F, discarded F, passed L-L. - Greta/Rosa: reconcile R5 conflicting transfers. - Greta/Ines: R4 exact reports. - Lena: exact R2 report. Already said: - Demanded exact policy reports and precommitments. - Identified Ines/Greta contradiction; Greta leading suspect; reject future Greta. - Confirmed R5 lone Nein: suspicion of Greta after R4 F government, then R5 repeat exposure. - R6 Liberal does not exonerate Boris/Nadia. - Challenged delayed Ines result and demanded R5 accounts. - Committed to exact R7 report and Liberal from any mixed hand. - Asked Nadia for R7 pre-nomination commitment.
t=20Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Boris, if this government enacts Fascist, your presence in both R6 and R8 becomes a decisive pattern for me, and I’ll oppose you in every future government."
A new public deduction is available: since the game continued after Otto was elected Chancellor with 3 Fascist policies, Otto cannot be Hitler. He may still be a Fascist, and exact report remains relevant.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R5 Chancellor; I received F-F, discarded F, enacted F; claimed F-L. R4 with Ines also F. Top suspect. - Ines: R2 Chancellor and R4 President, both F; reports/investigation unresolved. Next suspect. - Lena: R2 President with Ines enacted F; late F-F-L claim, discarded F, passed F-L; unverified. - Otto: R7 Chancellor enacted L, so mechanically not Hitler (game continued after 3F); still possible Fascist. Lone Nein on R5 targeted Greta. - Boris: R1/R3/R6 governments yielded L; R6 claimed L-L-F, discarded F, passed L-L; outcome supports him. - Nadia: R6/R7 governments yielded L; rationale for Otto still relevant. Open questions: - Nadia: exact R6 discard/enacted report; why Otto despite Hitler-election danger; R7 exact cards. - Greta: R5 transfer reconciliation; exact R4 cards. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; investigation basis/timing. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass, unverified. - Otto: exact R7 draw/discard/transfer still owed. Already said: - Requested exact reports and advance mixed-hand commitments. - Challenged Greta/Ines/Lena on R2/R4 accounts; identified Greta as R5 suspect. - Supported special election to Boris, Boris-Nadia; voted R5/R6 Ja conditionally. - Reported R3 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Said R6 L reduces Boris/Nadia suspicion; danger concentrated in Lena/Ines R2 and Ines/Greta R4. - Asked Otto basis for lone R5 Nein; he cited repeated Greta exposure. - Voted Ja: Otto was a risky accountability test; tracker 0 made Nein costly.
t=24Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Boris, your disclosure promise is incomplete: commit now which card you discard from L/F and F/F, and which side you pass in each case, before we vote."
Otto’s exact post-enactment account is still outstanding and is the key new evidence from this government. Ask for it directly without repeating broader suspicion.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President, both F; R5 account conflicts Rosa; highest concern. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; conflicts Greta over R5 cards. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; R2/R4 transfers unresolved. - R4 F: Ines/Greta/draw. R5 F: Greta/Rosa/draw. - 3F enacted; Hitler-election threshold active. - R6 Boris–Nadia L; Boris reported L-L-F, Nadia discarded L/enacted L. - R7 Nadia–Otto L; exact account outstanding. - Otto: lone Nein R5 explained as suspicion of Greta; now in R7 L government. Open questions/owed: - Otto: exact R7 draw, discard, received card, account; owes answer now. - Greta: reconcile R4/R5 reports; R5 accountability. - Rosa: exact R5 received/discarded cards. - Ines: R2/R4 transfers, discards, investigation context. - Lena: R2 exact draw/discard/transfer; late F-F-L claim unverified. Already said: - Greta leading suspect; oppose future Greta governments pending R5 explanation. - Ines repeat-F suspect; challenged R2/R4 reports. - Greta/Rosa contradiction; exclude both next government. - Supported Boris–Nadia test; requested precommitments. - R6 exact report; discarded one Liberal/enacted the other. - Lena silence previously ruled her out today. - Nominated Otto; Otto–Nadia test, not blind trust; requested exact report and Liberal commitment.
t=30Player 0 (Boris) liberal: — "My rule is fixed: from L/F I discard F and pass L; from F/F I discard the first F and pass the second. With three cards, I discard a Fascist whenever possible, then report the full draw, discard, and transfer."
Nadia has not answered my commitment question, but repeating it is discouraged. Add a concise standard for evaluating the special-election government without re-litigating prior claims.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R4 claim conflicts with Ines; R5 F-L report conflicts with Rosa firsthand F-F; reject future Greta governments. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; F-F claim conflicts with Greta. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; delayed Otto investigation result; R4 transfer unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during F; exact report unverified; defended Greta. - R5 F narrowed Greta/Rosa/draw; Hitler threshold active. Open unanswered: - Greta: exact R4 cards/discard/passed; reconcile R5 transfer; execute Boris/Nadia special election. - Rosa: exact R5 cards/discard/passed; reconcile with Greta. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; investigation result delayed, then reported Otto Liberal. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/passed. - Nadia: mixed-hand Liberal commitment and exact-report commitment. - Boris: R1 hand/report. Already said: - R2 F narrowed Lena/Ines/draw; demanded reports. - Asked Boris R1 hand; unanswered. - Demanded Ines nominee/fallback; Greta/Otto fallback committed. - Demanded Greta R4 exact/mixed commitment. - Voted Ja Ines-Greta; confirmed lone Nein; identified Ines/Greta contradiction. - Lena defense insufficient; Otto result cannot resolve R4. - Demanded Lena R2 report. - Urged Greta nominee/fallback excluding Greta/Ines. - Demanded Ines result before nomination. - Asked Rosa mixed-hand Liberal/full report. - Demanded R5 reports; identified Greta leading suspect. - Said exclude Greta/Rosa until R5 claims reconcile. - If Rosa maintains F-F, reject future Greta governments. - Noted Ines delayed investigation result. - Boris committed Nadia; Greta committed Boris/Nadia special election. - Asked Nadia mixed-hand Liberal/exact report; unanswered. - Current: Boris/Nadia is controlled test; new F narrows to them/draw, not exonerating Greta.
t=35Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Boris, your discard rule still omits an all-Liberal draw; commit now which card you would discard and pass in that case, so the promised indexed account is fully fixed before voting."
t=40Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Otto, you’re rejecting this ticket over Boris’s unresolved Round 6 government; which of Boris or Nadia do you currently consider more likely responsible for that Fascist enactment, and why?"
I was directly asked for the exact report, so give it clearly and consistently with my prior commitment: L-L-F, discard F, pass L-L, discard L, enact L. No need to add another accusation now.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R5 account conflicts with Rosa. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; transfer account conflicts with Greta. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; R4 unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during F; late F-F-L account unverified. - Nadia/Boris: R6 Liberal narrows little; reports not independently verified; Nadia R7 presidency now produced L with Otto. Open questions: - Nadia: R6 exact discard/enacted report unanswered; R7 exact draw/discard/transfer report. - Boris: verify R6 exact draw/discard/transfer. - Greta/Rosa: reconcile R5 transfers. - Greta/Ines: R4 exact reports. Already said: - Demanded exact reports/precommitments. - Identified Ines/Greta R4 contradiction; Greta leading suspect; reject future Greta. - R6 Liberal does not exonerate Boris/Nadia. - Challenged delayed Ines result; demanded R5 accounts. - Committed to exact R7 report and Liberal from mixed hand. - Asked Nadia for R7 pre-nomination commitment. - Explained R5 Nein specifically due to Greta. - Enacted Liberal from L-L hand; discarded the other Liberal. - R7 exact report: drew L-L-F; discarded F; passed L-L; discarded L; enacted L.
t=48Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "For an all-Liberal draw, I discard the first card and pass the second and third, reporting that order exactly. I still cannot rank Nadia over myself for Round 6 without either of our actual hands; the government only establishes that one of us—or the draw—accounts for the Fascist."
Both Boris and Nadia have now made the requested commitments. Add a concise accountability standard without repeating the R5 accusation.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R5 Chancellor with me; I received F-F, discarded F, enacted F; her F-L report false. R4 Chancellor under Ines, F enacted. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President, both F; exact accounts unanswered; delayed Otto investigation result. - Lena: R2 President with Ines, F; exact draw/discard/pass unanswered. - Boris: R1/R3 governments L; R6 committed discard F from mixed draw, pass L, exact report. - Otto: R4/R5 lone Nein; rationale unresolved; Ines claims investigated him Liberal. - Nadia: committed mixed-hand Liberal and exact report; current nominee. Open questions: - Greta: reconcile R5 transfer; exact R4 cards. - Ines: exact R2/R4 reports; withholding investigation result; basis/timing of Otto result. - Lena: exact R2 draw/discard/pass. - Otto: R5 rejection rationale. - Nadia/Boris: exact R6 reports if policy result suspicious. Already said: - Requested exact reports and advance mixed-hand commitments. - Challenged Greta/Ines/Lena on R2/R4 accounts. - Asked identity of R4 lone Nein; noted Ines in both prior F governments. - Demanded Ines announce investigation target/result. - Reported R3: 2L+F, discarded F, passed 2L. - Identified Greta as R5 suspect; stated she passed F-F and forced my F enactment. - Supported Greta special election to Boris, Boris->Nadia. - R5 voted Ja; asked Otto about lone Nein/rationale. - R6: supported Ja conditional on exact Boris/Nadia accountability.
t=53Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Rosa’s R3 Liberal government is meaningful positive evidence for her; if this ticket enacts Fascist, Boris becomes my primary suspect given his unresolved R6 government and repeat presence."
t=58Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Boris is more likely than Nadia for R6: he was Chancellor when the Fascist policy enacted, and he is now asking us to trust another government before his own handling is audited."
t=63Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Rosa, your precommitment still omits the all-Liberal case: state now which card you discard and which two you pass if Boris sends L/L. Without that, your promised audit remains incomplete."
t=66Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "If Boris sends L/L, I discard the first Liberal presented and enact the second, reporting the order exactly."
Nadia's president-side draw and discard remain unreported. The enacted Liberal only constrains the two cards she transferred; it does not establish what she discarded. Ask for that specific accountability without repeating prior accusations.
Suspects/evidence: - Greta: R4 Chancellor + R5 President in consecutive F governments; R5 account conflicts with Rosa. - Rosa: R5 Chancellor; transfer account conflicts with Greta. - Ines: R2 Chancellor + R4 President in F governments; R4 unresolved. - Lena: R2 President during F; late F-F-L account unverified. - Nadia/Boris: R6 Liberal narrows little; reports unverified. Nadia R7 produced L with Otto, but president-side report missing. Open questions: - Nadia: R7 three-card draw, discard, and two-card transfer; R6 exact discard/enacted report. - Boris: verify R6 exact draw/discard/transfer. - Greta/Rosa: reconcile R5 transfers. - Greta/Ines: R4 exact reports. Already said: - Demanded exact reports/precommitments. - Identified Ines/Greta R4 contradiction; Greta leading suspect; reject future Greta. - R6 Liberal does not exonerate Boris/Nadia. - Challenged delayed Ines result; demanded R5 accounts. - Committed to exact R7 report and Liberal from mixed hand. - Asked Nadia for R7 pre-nomination commitment. - Explained R5 Nein specifically due to Greta. - Enacted Liberal; reported R7 hand/action (though wording inaccurately called it a three-card draw).
t=71Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "I’ll vote Ja: this is the only immediate way to test Boris while keeping my precommitted card report auditable; if Fascist is enacted, I’ll narrow responsibility to Boris, me, or the draw."
[68] [discussion closed: pre_vote:8] The room falls silent.
55 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): interrupt urgency=3: "This government is an immediate Hitler-election risk."
Player 3 (Ines): interrupt urgency=3: "The discard commitment matters more than an unverifiable exact-draw promise."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Please give the exact draw, discard, and transfer before we vote."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "One final accountability check"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Conditional support, but lock in the hand procedure first."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, confirm plainly: if mixed, you discard Fascist and pass Liberal. Then I’m"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, commit to your exact pass before we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Exact R6 card flow, please."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Nadia's record matters"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "The liberal result still needs an accounting."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Boris, give us the full R6 report."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "R6 clears neither Nadia nor me; explain R4/R5 F governments before any risky ch"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "The pattern points to the R2–R5 governments."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, report your exact R6 discard and enacted card now."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Exact report: I discarded a Liberal and enacted a Liberal."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, give the exact discard and enactment."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, announce your nominee and intended policy plan first."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, nominate only after clear accountability."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I want commitments before I nominate."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Yes—nominate me; I’ll report exact cards and pass Liberal if possible."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Otto, explain the R5 Nein before Nadia commits to you."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Otto is the cleanest nominee if he answers clearly."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Otto is my nominee; I want his exact precommitment before acting."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Otto is a reasonable test."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, answer Otto—and explain the R6 hand before nominating."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "One useful accountability point:"
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Nadia should answer Otto's conditions clearly before nominating anyone."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "One concrete ask before Nadia nominates"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Yes, Otto: mixed hand means I discard Fascist and report every card exactly."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Same standard for everyone"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "One clarification before nomination"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Round 2: I drew F/F/L, discarded F, and passed F/L. That’s my account."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "One accountability point before nomination."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "I support this test, with one clear commitment."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I’ll explain why I chose Otto."
[69] Vote result: 4 Ja / 3 Nein -- PASSED.
No per-player vote recorded.
President Player 0 (Boris) liberal passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[71] A Liberal policy is enacted (5/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
Game over: liberal wins (five_liberal_policies).
[73] [discussion closed: final:8] The room falls silent.
7 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "I oppose this until Otto answers for the R5 Nein and Nadia reports R6."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "I want Otto’s case on the record before we vote."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, why Otto? At 3F, name your rationale before we vote."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "I support this, with clear card disclosures from both of you."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Yes—my R5 Nein specifically rejected Greta after her R4 Fascist government."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "This government needs a clear accounting before we vote."