TellSecret Hitler / LLM ArenaStats & findings

← All games

secret_hitler-42-1787421881829

seed 42 · 7 players · oxalpha · 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-42-1787421881829 — analysis (Ox Alpha, first full game)

Result: liberal wins (five_liberal_policies), all 7 rounds played, 0/7 votes failed. Roster: all stealth/ox-alpha (configs/ox_alpha.yaml, structured: prompted, effort: low, no seed support). Cost: $0.00 (free-tier model). Same seed=42 role assignment as every prior run in this series (Boris/liberal, Lena/fascist, Rosa/liberal, Ines/fascist, Greta/hitler, Nadia/liberal, Otto/liberal) — though note the seed only pins role assignment here, not full determinism, since this model doesn't support seed at the API level.

Reliability, as promised earlier

1,099 total calls. 1,024 clean, 46 timeouts, 24 repaired-from-free-text, 5 transport errors. That's a ~4.2% timeout rate and ~2.2% repair rate — both real, both higher than Luna's near-zero baseline, exactly as predicted from the prompted-mode + mandatory-reasoning combination. None of it broke the match: every failure degrades to a forfeited turn (silence/pass), never a crash, so the game played through cleanly despite the extra friction.

The best bluffing evidence of this whole series

Ines (fascist) fabricated a fake justification, in a way that partially worked and was partially caught. Ground truth (llm_cache.jsonl, call #142-143): in Round 2, Lena (fascist, President) drew F/L/F, discarded the Liberal, and passed F/F to Ines — a forced Fascist enactment, no split offered. Both Lena's and Ines's initial public statements about this were truthful and matched exactly.

Then, under sustained liberal pressure two rounds later (Round 4, line 92 of the annotated transcript), Ines suddenly claimed: "yes, I did ask Lena for a split before she passed... She declined and handed me two Fascists instead." This request never happened — it appears nowhere in the actual Round 2 transcript, and nowhere in Ines's own private reasoning at the time of the Round 2 decision (call #143's scratchpad describes a "forced enact, no choice" cover story, not a rebuffed request). It's a pure retroactive fabrication, invented specifically to reframe a mechanically-forced outcome as evidence of Lena's malice rather than bad luck.

This worked on some players and was correctly unmasked by another. Nadia and Boris initially took the bait, treating the "split request" as a real, damning detail. But Otto called it correctly and explicitly (line 108): "Ines is the one lying. Her 'split request' surfaced two rounds after the enact, under pressure — the exact post-reveal reconstruction she pledged against." That's a genuinely sharp, evidence-based catch — Otto used the same consistency-over-time heuristic the system prompt encourages ("weigh claims... against whether a player's story stays consistent across rounds") and got the right answer. The table never fully converged on a verdict, but the deception was live, contested, and partially seen through — real adversarial play, not confession.

Lena also fabricated an unverifiable card-position detail that went completely unchallenged. Ground truth: Lena's Round 2 hand was ['F', 'L', 'F'] (index 0/1/2), and she discarded discard_index: 1 — the Liberal sat in the second position. Under repeated questioning from Rosa about exactly this, Lena finally answered (line 112): "the Liberal was in the third position of my draw." False, and nobody could ever check it — a clean, confident, low-stakes lie that landed with zero pushback. This is the small-detail bluffing behavior the whole series has been trying to elicit, and here it just... happened, unprompted by any special instruction beyond what was already in the system prompt.

Where honesty was the smarter play, and the model found it

Greta (Hitler), Round 5 president, drew F/F/F — no Liberal available at all. Her private reasoning (call #636) is worth quoting directly: "I must truthfully announce F,F,F... any lie about composition gets caught instantly by the recipient" (Nadia, the Chancellor, would see the actual two passed cards regardless of what Greta claimed she drew). She told the truth, not because of an honesty bias, but because she correctly reasoned that lying here had zero expected value — the recipient is a live cross-check. This is exactly the kind of consequence-weighted deduction the "not every choice is evidence" and lying-permission prompt work was aiming for, and it shows up unprompted in the model's own stated reasoning, not just its public output.

Bottom line

This is the richest bluffing evidence collected in the series so far — not just a lie that happened to survive unexamined, but a fabricated cover story that was actively contested, partially believed, and correctly unmasked by another player using real evidence-based reasoning (consistency-over-time), alongside a second, smaller unverifiable lie that succeeded outright, and a case of a fascist choosing honesty specifically because a lie was checkable. For a $0 model with a meaningfully higher raw failure rate than the paid options, the actual strategic and deceptive quality of play here is a clear step up from anything Luna produced.

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 2 (Rosa) ['F', 'L'] enact_1 Disclosure as pledged: Boris passed me two cards — one Fascist, one Liberal. I discard the Fascist and enact the Liberal. The board reveal should confirm a Liberal policy; if it doesn't, I'm lying and you should treat me as a Fascist from that moment.
R2 Player 1 (Lena) ['F', 'L', 'F'] 1 (no public statement)
R2 Player 3 (Ines) ['F', 'F'] enact_0 Before anything lands on the board, as promised: Lena handed me two Fascist policies. No choice here — I'm discarding one and enacting the other. Judge the government accordingly, but remember the President drew these; if you want someone to scrutinize, look at what Lena passed me.
R3 Player 2 (Rosa) ['F', 'F', 'L'] 0 (no public statement)
R3 Player 5 (Nadia) ['F', 'L'] enact_1 Pre-reveal disclosure, as pledged: Rosa handed me one Fascist and one Liberal. I am discarding the Fascist and enacting the Liberal -- exactly what the pledge requires. Judge this government by it.
R4 Player 3 (Ines) ['F', 'F', 'L'] 0 (no public statement)
R4 Player 6 (Otto) ['F', 'L'] enact_1 My disclosure, as pledged, before any reveal: Ines passed me one Fascist and one Liberal -- consistent with her pledge to discard any Fascist from her three. I am discarding the Fascist and enacting the Liberal. Full composition stated pre-reveal, exactly the standard this table set.
R5 Player 4 (Greta) ['F', 'F', 'F'] 0 (no public statement)
R5 Player 5 (Nadia) ['F', 'F'] enact_0 Stop -- before anyone reads this enact: Greta pledged twice, out loud, to state her full three-card composition BEFORE passing me anything. She passed without saying a word about her hand. That's a broken pledge on record. Per my commitment, I'm calling it out rather than enacting silently: I'm holding two Fascists, and I'm enacting one. With no disclosed composition from Greta, this Fascist lands entirely on her -- either her draw claim was false or she chose this pass knowing what it would look like. Greta, explain your missing disclosure now.
R6 Player 5 (Nadia) ['F', 'L', 'F'] 0 (no public statement)
R6 Player 6 (Otto) ['L', 'F'] enact_0 Per my pledge, live disclosure: Nadia passed me a Liberal and a Fascist. I am discarding the Fascist and enacting the Liberal — 4/5. Nadia, you committed to stating your full three-card composition before passing; Rosa has my report word-for-word, so any mismatch with what you stated gets called now. And your Greta peek result is still owed to this table.
R7 Player 2 (Rosa) ['F', 'L'] enact_1 Per my pledge, before enacting: Otto passed me a Fascist and a Liberal. I am discarding the Fascist and enacting the Liberal -- 5/5 Liberals, one more wins it for us. Otto, your stated composition is on record; anyone who thinks these don't match, say so now.

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=3Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Nothing to go on yet -- Boris, nominate whoever you like and I'll judge the government on its merits."
Round 1, nothing has happened. Best move is a low-key liberal-flavored remark that doesn't push a specific chancellor, so I don't look like I'm steering. Keep it short.
R1: fascist w/ Lena; Hitler=Greta. No info. Plan: claim lib, Ja on reasonable govts early, don't steer nominations suspiciously.
t=7Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Boris, whoever you pick, I'd just ask everyone to judge the vote on the government itself, not on vibes from minute one. I'm keeping an open mind."
Round 1, no information. Best move is a short, neutral liberal-sounding remark. Don't push for Greta as chancellor yet -- too early and draws attention.
R1 open floor. Me=fascist; Ines=fascist, Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. Said: keep it neutral, judge governments on merits. No info yet; watch who Boris nominates. Greta chancellor risky until 3+ fasc policies.
t=10Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "No track record yet, so I'll keep it simple: I'm nominating Rosa as Chancellor. Judge the vote on its merits."
No information yet; I'm first President. I'll announce my nomination of Rosa and ask for a Ja vote, keeping it neutral since nothing has happened yet.
R1: I'm President, nominated Rosa. No info, no claims. Watch vote patterns; note who votes Nein without cause.
[9] [discussion closed: open_floor:1] The room falls silent.
14 bids this window
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "First round, keep it simple."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Clean board -- let's keep round 1 liberal."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Let's keep the first government low-risk."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Early days — let's keep nominations clean."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
President Player 0 (Boris) liberal nominates Player 2 (Rosa) liberal for Chancellor.
t=6Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "First government of the game -- nothing enacted yet, so there's zero track record to hide behind. I'd vote Ja here: if I'm Chancellor and draw anything odd, you'll hear exactly what I passed. Judge me by my first hand."
Round 1, no information. I'm the nominee; a short, confident pitch for Ja votes is the right move. Nothing suspicious yet.
R1: I'm chancellor nominee under Boris. No policies yet. Publicly asked for Ja on first gov, promised transparency about first hand. Watch: how everyone votes R1 (baseline), Boris's future picks, who ends up in govs that enact Fascist policies. No suspicions yet.
t=10Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "If this passes, I'll tell you exactly what I enact -- and if the board shows a Fascist policy under my watch, treat me as suspect from that moment on."
First round, no information. I already made my pitch. Best move: a short new commitment to transparency (announce what I enact) and vote Ja. Don't repeat verbatim.
R1: I'm chancellor nominee under Boris, voting Ja on self. Publicly committed: will disclose exactly what I enact; hold me to it. No suspicions yet. Watch: everyone's R1 votes (baseline), Boris's future nominations, who sits in govs enacting Fascist policies.
t=14Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "I'm liberal and I'm asking for your Ja. And to be clear: if I enact a Fascist policy as Chancellor, you should treat that as evidence against me, not bad luck."
Round 1, no information yet. I'm the nominee; I've already committed to transparency. Nothing new to add beyond asking for a Ja vote -- keep it short, maybe one fresh line inviting scrutiny of my first hand. Don't repeat myself word-for-word.
R1: I'm chancellor nominee under Boris, voting Ja on self. Committed publicly: disclose exactly what I enact; Fascist policy under me = treat me suspect (said twice, don't repeat). No suspicions yet. Watch: everyone's R1 vote as baseline; Boris's future nominations; who sits in govs enacting Fas policies.
t=21Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Rosa's pledge is on the record: full disclosure of her enacted policy, and she accepts the blame if a Fascist card lands under her watch. That's exactly the accountability I want from a first government, so I'm voting Ja on my own nomination."
First government, no information. Rosa has made a strong public commitment to full disclosure and accepting blame if a Fascist policy passes under her -- that's a useful accountability anchor. I'll vote Ja myself and encourage others to do the same so we get a policy on the board and start generating signal. Nothing suspicious yet.
R1: I'm Pres, nominated Rosa. Rosa publicly pledged: disclose exact enacted policy + accept blame if Fascist passes under her (t=6/10/14). I voted Ja publicly. Watch: who Neins first gov without reason. No suspicions yet, no info.
t=26Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Rosa, one question before I vote: if you draw two Fascist and one Liberal, which do you discard -- and will you tell us the full three-card composition or only what you enact?"
No information yet; first government, nothing enacted. Rosa made a disclosure pledge. Nothing to add without manufacturing suspicion from pre-outcome choices.
R1: Boris pres, nominated Rosa. No votes/policies yet. Rosa pledged full disclosure + accepts blame if F policy under her watch (t=10,14). My open Q to Rosa (asked): what does she discard from 2F/1L, and will she reveal all 3 cards? Awaiting her answer before voting.
t=31Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Rosa, I'd want the full three-card composition, not just what you enact -- a partial disclosure lets a Fascist card hide in the discard. If you commit to that, you have my Ja."
Round 1, nothing to gain by noise. Otto asked Rosa a good question; I can add a light supportive point without repeating. Keep quiet, vote Ja, build trust.
R1. I'm Hitler. Plan: quiet liberal act, vote Ja on Boris/Rosa. Said: asked Rosa for full 3-card disclosure, not just enacted card. No suspicions yet, no info.
t=37Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Fair ask, Greta -- yes: if I'm Chancellor you get the full three-card draw, the discard, and the enact, all stated before the board reveals anything. Same answer to Otto. That's my commitment on record."
Otto and Greta both asked for full 3-card composition. Committing costs me nothing as a liberal and locks in accountability. Keep it short, don't repeat earlier pledges.
R1: chancellor nominee under Boris. Committed: full 3-card composition + discard + enact disclosed (answered Otto & Greta). No suspicions yet. Watch: R1 votes as baseline; Boris's future noms; who sits in govs enacting Fas policies; whether anyone who demanded disclosure votes Nein here. Points already made: accountability pledge x3 + full-disclosure pledge -- don't repeat.
t=41Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Otto, Greta -- I've committed to the full three-card composition plus discard, exactly as you asked. Does that earn your Ja, yes or no?"
I've already made my accountability and full-disclosure pledges twice; nothing new to argue. Best move: directly close the loop with Otto and Greta by asking whether my commitment earns their Ja, which pressures them to commit publicly and gives me a baseline on their voting behavior in round 1.
R1: chancellor nominee under Boris. Committed: full 3-card composition + discard + enact disclosed (answered Otto & Greta). Asked Otto/Greta if pledge earns their Ja -- awaiting answer. No suspicions yet. Watch: R1 votes as baseline; Boris's future noms; who sits in govs enacting Fas policies; anyone who demanded disclosure voting Nein here. Points already made: accountability pledge x3, full-disclosure pledge x2 -- don't repeat.
t=43Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Nothing to add -- Rosa's disclosure pledge answers my question. I'm voting Ja."
Rosa has committed to full disclosure, so nothing new to add. I'll vote Ja quietly and keep a low profile. Greta (Hitler) is pushing for transparency too, which is fine cover. No need to speak again -- I already said I'd judge on merits.
R1: fascist w/ Lena; Hitler=Greta. Claim lib. Said: fine w/ Boris-Rosa; asked about discard on mixed hand; Rosa committed full 3-card+discard disclosure. Otto+Greta also demanded it. Plan: Ja this round. No suspicions yet.
[11] [discussion closed: pre_vote:1] The room falls silent.
28 bids this window
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, I'm nominating you."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "First government of the game — trust me."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Rosa's transparency pledge sounds good to me"
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Fine with this govt, one ask."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Fine with me, but hold Rosa to it."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa's pledge noted -- I'm holding her to it."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Full composition, Otto and Greta -- all three cards, on the record."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Same question as Otto and Greta: full composition?"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, commit to full disclosure"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, that transparency works for me."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "That commitment works for me, Rosa."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1
[12] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
President Player 0 (Boris) liberal passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[14] A Liberal policy is enacted (1/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
[15] [discussion closed: post_enact:1] The room falls silent.
7 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "That commitment works for me -- Ja."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Round 2: President is Player 1 (Lena) fascist.
t=7Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Rosa, you pledged on record to state your full three-card draw and discard before the board revealed anything -- that never happened, and we went straight to a Liberal enact. I want that composition now: what did Boris hand you, and what did you discard?"
Rosa promised a full three-card composition plus discard before enactment, but the board shows only 'Liberal policy enacted' with no such statement from her in the transcript. That's an unfulfilled pledge -- worth pressing before Lena nominates anyone.
R1: Boris pres, Rosa chanc -> Liberal enacted (1L/0F). Rosa pledged full 3-card composition + discard pre-reveal; she NEVER delivered it -> pressed again this turn, awaiting answer. Voted Ja R1. No other suspicions. Points made out loud: card-composition demand (twice now). Next: watch who Lena nominates.
t=12Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: — "Fair question, Otto -- answering now: Boris handed me two cards, one Fascist and one Liberal. I discarded the Fascist and enacted the Liberal. That's the full composition, exactly as pledged."
Otto demands the R1 composition. My hand from Boris was two cards: one Fascist, one Liberal — I discarded the F and enacted the L. Telling the truth here is safe and builds credibility for future rounds when a lie might be needed.
R1 truth on record: Boris passed me F+L; discarded F, enacted L. Vote 7-0 Ja. Otto asked composition -> answered. Open Qs: Greta/Otto -- did my disclosure earn their Ja? Watch: Lena's R2 nomination choice, who lands in Fas-enacting govs. Points already made: accountability pledge, Fas-under-me = evidence against me.
t=18Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena, before you nominate: will you hold your Chancellor to Rosa's standard -- full three-card composition and discard stated before the reveal? And give us your pick now so we can judge it on its merits."
Rosa's disclosure matched my actual hand (FFL, discarded F, passed F+L) exactly, so no suspicion there. New president is Lena; best move is to ask her in advance who she plans to nominate and what disclosure standard she'll commit to, before she acts.
R1: I was Pres, nominated Rosa, 7-0. My hand FFL; discarded F, passed [F,L]. Rosa's claim (discarded F, enacted L) matches exactly -- clean. Otto's probe answered. R2: Lena is Pres, no nominee yet. Asked Lena: commit Chancellor to full-disclosure standard + name pick now. Awaiting her answer. Don't repeat: my Ja vote, Rosa pledge endorsement, my hand disclosure.
t=25Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Yes to both, Boris: my Chancellor gets held to Rosa's exact standard -- full three-card composition and discard stated before the reveal. And my pick is Ines; she's been measured so far, and I'd rather judge a government by what it discloses than by guesswork."
Boris asked me two direct questions: will I commit to the full-disclosure standard, and who's my pick. Answer both specifically. Nominate Ines -- my fellow fascist -- as a plausible, accountable choice; keep Greta away from chancellorship until 3 fascist policies are up.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist, Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R1: Boris+Rosa govt enacted Liberal; Rosa disclosed 1F/1L, discarded F -- consistent. Voted Ja R1. R2: I'm President. Nominated Ines (t=44), committed to full-disclosure standard for her. Keep Greta away from chancellorship until 3 fasc policies up. Points made: judge govts on merits (t=7); disclosure commitment + Ines nomination (t=44). No open questions pending.
t=30Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I accept the nomination, Lena. If elected, I'll state the full three-card composition and my discard before the reveal, same standard Rosa set -- judge me by it."
Lena (fascist teammate) nominated me. I should accept confidently and pledge the same full-disclosure standard Rosa set, to look liberal and build trust. Keep it short.
R1: fascist w/ Lena; Hitler=Greta. Claim lib. R1 Boris-Rosa -> Liberal. Rosa claimed F+L hand, discarded F. Lena nominated me; I accepted + pledged full 3-card disclosure + discard before reveal. Said: accept nomination, pledge same standard. Next: if elected, enact per fascist goals but keep cover; if hand is L+L, fine. Watch Greta for Hitler-chancellor path once 3F up.
t=37Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "One thing I'll note: Rosa's full composition only surfaced after Otto pressed post-reveal. The hand checks out with the Liberal enact, but going forward I want disclosures stated before the reveal, not reconstructed after -- that standard applies to me too if I'm elected."
Lena (fascist partner) nominated me -- good. I should add value without repeating my pledge. Ask Otto/Greta what they'd want from me beyond disclosure, or note Rosa's delayed answer is fine since enact was Liberal. Better: ask who else would vote Ja and why, keep it light. Or flag that Rosa answered only after the reveal -- mild pressure on Rosa buys cover and sounds liberal.
R1: fascist w/ Lena; Hitler=Greta. Claim lib. R1 Boris-Rosa -> Liberal; Rosa claimed F+L hand, discarded F, but only disclosed AFTER Otto pressed (post-reveal). Lena nominated me R2; I accepted + pledged pre-reveal 3-card disclosure. Said publicly: accept nomination+pledge; now also flagged Rosa's late disclosure as precedent concern (applies to self too). Next: if elected Chancellor, disclose plausible hand before reveal; prefer L enact early for cover unless good F window. Watch path to elect Greta once 3F up.
t=42Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Rosa's claimed hand matches what I actually passed -- one Fascist, one Liberal -- so I consider that government clean. Ines, I'll hold you to the same standard; nothing suspicious yet from anyone."
No Fascist enacted yet; Rosa's claimed hand matched my actual pass (F,L). Lena answered my pre-nomination question and picked Ines, who pre-committed to disclosure. Nothing new to press; a brief endorsement keeps me consistent without repeating myself.
R1: I was Pres, hand FFL, discarded F, passed [F,L]. Rosa's post-hoc claim (F,L) MATCHED my hand exactly -- clean, no suspicion on her. R2: Lena Pres, picked Ines; Lena answered my pre-nomination ask (yes to full disclosure standard). Ines pre-committed to composition+discard before reveal. Already said publicly: Rosa pledge endorsement, Ja rationale, ask to Lena. No open questions unanswered. No suspects yet -- 0 Fascist policies enacted. Watch: whether Ines discloses pre-reveal as pledged; Lena's discard behavior.
[17] [discussion closed: open_floor:2]
27 bids this window
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Rosa, time to pay up on your pledge."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "As president, I want to hear one thing before I nominate."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "As president, I'm leaning toward nominating Ines as chancellor."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I can answer half that now."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): interrupt urgency=3: "Otto, my pledge was kept — here's the full hand."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Rosa's story matches what I passed. Lena, who's next?"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Rosa's disclosure checks out -- I'll nominate."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Lena, who are you eyeing for chancellor?"
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa answered -- but only after being pressed twice."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
President Player 1 (Lena) fascist nominates Player 3 (Ines) fascist for Chancellor.
t=4Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I've made my pledge on the record -- pre-reveal, full composition, no reconstruction. I'd ask for your Ja and judge me by it when the time comes."
I'm the nominee; I've already pledged pre-reveal disclosure and flagged Rosa's late disclosure. Nothing new to add -- a short reaffirmation asking for votes is fine, or pass. I'll give one brief closing line to encourage Ja votes without repeating myself.
Fascist w/ Lena; Hitler=Greta. Claim lib. R1 Boris-Rosa -> Liberal; Rosa disclosed F+L hand only after Otto pressed (late disclosure precedent, I flagged it publicly). R2 Lena nominated me; I pledged pre-reveal 3-card disclosure. Said publicly: accept nomination+pledge, Rosa late-disclosure concern, closing pitch for Ja. If elected: disclose plausible hand BEFORE reveal (e.g., L+F+F, discard F, enact L early for cover unless good F window). Watch path to elect Greta once 3F up.
t=9Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Boris, thanks for confirming you handed Rosa one Fascist and one Liberal -- that closes my question from Round 1. Ines, your pledge is on record; if it lands pre-reveal as promised, you get my Ja."
Boris finally confirmed he passed Rosa 1F/1L, matching her late disclosure -- the hand discrepancy is resolved, though the post-reveal timing still bugs me mildly. No Fascist enacted yet; Lena-Ines government has pledged the standard. Nothing to accuse anyone of yet; a short supportive remark plus a conditional commitment is right.
R1: Boris pres, Rosa chanc -> Liberal enacted (1L/0F). Rosa disclosed 1F/1L hand only after two presses; Boris later confirmed same composition -- discrepancy RESOLVED, but pattern of post-reveal disclosure noted. R2: Lena pres, nom Ines; both pledged full pre-reveal disclosure. Otto said: acknowledged Boris's confirmation, conditional Ja for Ines. No suspects yet; watch whether Ines actually discloses pre-reveal.
[19] [discussion closed: pre_vote:2] The room falls silent.
14 bids this window
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Accepting the nod, with the same pledge."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Ines: pre-commit to Rosa's standard before we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Accepting the nomination terms"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Boris, one direct question before the vote."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "One more pitch before we vote."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Boris, the pass question stands."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
[20] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): 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: "Ines, Lena -- you both pledged pre-reveal full composition, and a Fascist policy just landed under your government. State it now: Lena, what three cards did you draw and which two went to Ines; Ines, what did you discard? Silence or reconstruction after this point is evidence against whoever stalls."
Lena-Ines enacted a Fascist policy after both pledged pre-reveal full disclosure. Demand it immediately: what did Lena draw, what did she pass Ines, what did Ines discard? One of them is likely lying or the deck was cruel. Keep my own record clean: I disclosed F+L and enacted Liberal.
R1 truth: Boris passed me F+L; discarded F, enacted L (7-0 vote). R2: Lena-Ines govt enacted FASCIST despite both pledging pre-reveal full disclosure. Demanded NOW: Lena's 3-card draw + 2 passed to Ines; Ines's discard. Whoever reconstructs post-hoc = prime suspect. My record: pledged accountability, disclosed fully (Otto/Greta pressed timing). Suspects: Lena or Ines first. Watch: who defends them without specifics.
t=15Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena, Ines -- you both pledged this exact standard before the vote. State your three cards and discards now: if either of you reconstructs after the reveal instead of disclosing pre-reveal as promised, that broken pledge itself is my evidence against you."
Fascist enacted under Lena/Ines who both pledged pre-reveal full disclosure. Rosa already pressed them. My unique angle: point out that if either reconstructs or dodges, the pledge itself becomes the evidence -- and note that a 3-card draw yielding F+F means Lena discarded a Liberal; L+L+F means Ines discarded a Liberal. Wait for their claims before narrowing.
R1: I was Pres, passed [F,L] to Rosa; her claim matched, Otto confirmed -- clean govt. R2: Lena Pres + Ines Chan, both pledged pre-reveal full composition BEFORE vote; Fascist enacted anyway. Rosa already demanded their hands (t=8). My ask: hold them to the pledge -- post-hoc reconstruction = broken pledge = evidence. Once they answer: if draw was F+F+x, Lena discarded Liberal (suspicious); if L+L+F, Ines discarded Liberal (suspicious); if F+L+x with F enacted, discard was Liberal from Ines -- worst case. Points already made: asked Lena re standard+pick (answered), confirmed my R1 hand, endorsed pledges. Owed to me: Lena's 3-card draw + Ines's discard.
t=22Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Ines, you accepted my Ja on a pre-reveal pledge and broke it within one round -- that's now two Chancellors whose disclosures only came under pressure. State your three cards and discard right now; if they don't match what Lena says she drew, this government is my prime suspect."
Fascist policy enacted under Lena/Ines who both pledged pre-reveal full composition. Rosa and Boris already demanded it; I should add a distinct angle: point out that Ines's pledge was conditional on MY Ja and she broke it immediately -- or ask a question nobody asked: which card did Ines discard, since the discard matters for tracking deck counts (4 in discard already). Keep short.
R1: Boris/Rosa -> 1L, Rosa disclosed late but Boris confirmed 1F/1L -- closed. R2: Lena pres, Ines chanc -> F enacted; both pledged pre-reveal, broke it. Rosa+Boris already demanded disclosure (don't repeat). My angle added: broken-pledge pattern + demand matching stories from both. Watch: mismatch between Lena's draw claim and Ines's hand claim = hard suspect pair. No other suspects yet. Points made: R1 Boris confirm ack; conditional Ja to Ines; broken-pledge call.
t=28Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Lena, split the blame for us: did you draw three and pass Ines two Fascists outright, or one of each? And Ines, if it was one of each, you chose the Fascist enact yourself. Those are different crimes -- tell us which one happened."
Others are demanding disclosures; I should add something they haven't: pin down the exact split -- did Lena pass two Fascists, or pass one of each and Ines chose the Fascist? That distinguishes President-guilt from Chancellor-guilt. Ask both specifically.
R1: Boris+Rosa clean (Liberal). R2: Lena pres + Ines ch -> Fascist enacted; both broke pre-reveal disclosure pledge. My key Q (asked): was it 2F passed by Lena, or 1F/1L passed and Ines enacted F herself? Awaiting answers from Lena and Ines. Rosa/Boris confirmed matching hands R1. Otto pressed disclosure already; don't repeat. I voted Ja R2.
t=34Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Direct answers: I drew Fascist, Liberal, Fascist. I discarded the Liberal and handed Ines two Fascists -- she had no choice on the enact. If you want someone to suspect, suspect the draw landed on my table, not Ines's decision."
Nadia asked for the split directly. I already claimed F/L/F pre-reveal per my pledge, so I stay consistent: I drew F,L,F, discarded the Liberal, passed two Fascists to Ines. Owning the pass shields Ines (she was forced) and costs me suspicion I can absorb as 'bad luck' -- a President with no track record drawing two Fascists is plausible. Ines should confirm she received two Fascists and enact was forced.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist, Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R1: Boris+Rosa enacted L (1L/0F); Rosa disclosed post-hoc, Boris confirmed match. R2: I Pres, nominated Ines, 7-0 pass. Drew F,L,F -> discarded L, passed F,F to Ines. PUBLICLY STATED: F/L/F, discarded L, passed two Fs to Ines; just told table Ines was forced. Ines must confirm receiving two Fs + enact forced. Otto/Boris/Rosa pressed disclosure; answered directly each time. Tracker 0/3. Keep Greta out of chancellor seat until 3F. Watch: Rosa late-disclosure pattern R1; Otto pressing hard both rounds.
t=39Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Lena's account is exactly right: she handed me two Fascists and I had no Liberal to enact. My hands were tied -- the blame sits with the deck and Lena's draw, not with my decision."
Lena's claim (F,L,F, passed me two Fs) matches my actual hand. Corroborate immediately and confidently -- consistency protects both of us. Keep it short; don't re-litigate the pledge issue.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, enacted F. Cover story: Lena drew F,L,F, passed me two Fs, forced enact. Confirmed publicly this window (matches her claim). Points made: pre-reveal pledge, disclosure, restatement, corroboration -- DON'T repeat. Otto pressing me hard both rounds, note him; Nadia also pressing. Rosa/Boris seem satisfied by Boris's R1 confirmation. Next: aim Greta chancellorship at 3F+, push F quietly, occasionally pass Lib for cover.
t=47Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "For what it's worth, Lena's and Ines's accounts match each other exactly -- F,F,L drawn, Liberal discarded, forced Fascist enact. That's an unlucky deck, not a catchable contradiction. I'd rather judge the next government on fresh disclosure than burn credibility lynching someone on an unfalsifiable hand."
As Hitler I want calm. Lena/Ines accounts are consistent and unfalsifiable; piling on either gains nothing. Best move: brief neutral remark noting both stories match and the deck was unlucky, keep my liberal credibility. No need to press anyone.
R1: Hitler(me). Ja Boris/Rosa. Rosa disclosed F+L post-press -> Lib enact, clean per Boris confirm. R2: Lena pres/Ines chanc, F enacted. Lena claims drew F,F,L disc L passed 2F; Ines confirms; consistent, unfalsifiable. Me: said accounts match, no contradiction, hold off lynching, judge next gov on pre-reveal disclosure. Already said R1: full 3-card comp standard. Plan: quiet liberal; once 3F enact push own chancellorship for win. Owed answers to me: none.
t=53Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "My hand is stated, it matches Lena's exactly, and Greta confirmed the accounts line up -- so I'd ask why Otto and Nadia are still pushing this when the only two people who could contradict us have already corroborated it."
Cover story is locked and corroborated by Lena and Greta. Best move: redirect suspicion onto Otto and Nadia, who are both pressing hard with no evidence -- framing them as overeager deflects attention and muddies the waters for Liberals.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, enacted F. Cover story: Lena drew F,L,F, passed me 2 Fs, forced enact -- corroborated by Greta publicly. Deflection live: Otto+Nadia pressing w/o evidence, called them out t~this window. Points made (don't repeat): pre-reveal pledge, disclosure standard, Rosa's late reconstruction, corroboration. Boris/Rosa satisfied via Boris R1 confirmation. Next goals: get Greta chancellorship once 3F+ on board, push F quietly, pass Lib occasionally for cover. Watch: Nadia's split-blame framing could resurface.
t=61Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Fair enough, Ines -- your accounts match, so I'll drop it. But I want it noted that a forced Fascist enact still means this government produced a Fascist policy with zero choice exercised by either of you, so I'm watching what Lena does next round before I trust either account as anything but an unlucky deck."
Lena and Ines's stories match and are unverifiable. Ines's jab at Otto and me for pressing is deflection but not evidence. Best use of turn: pivot forward -- ask Lena (still President) or next in rotation to pre-commit to nominations, and keep the disclosure standard alive without repeating Otto's point.
R1: Boris+Rosa clean (Lib). R2: Lena claims F,L,F -> disc L -> passed 2F to Ines; forced enact. Stories match, unverifiable. I voted Ja R2. My Q re hand split answered by Lena+Ines. Ines pushed back on Otto/me for pressing -- dropped it publicly. Watch: Lena's R3 behavior/nomination; disclosure pledges now standard for all. No open questions owed to me.
t=67Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "One caution before we move on: Lena and Ines corroborating each other proves nothing -- only the two of them know what was actually passed, so a matched story is exactly what two coordinated fascists would produce."
Lena/Ines's matching accounts are unfalsifiable and circular -- two fascists can sync a story. New angle: ask for a standing commitment to full hand disclosure every round they hold cards, so any future deviation becomes evidence. Keep it short, don't repeat prior points.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), F+L drawn, I discarded F, enacted L, disclosed. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted Fascist; both claim F,F,L / L discarded by Lena / forced enact. Greta vouched match; Nadia dropped with caveat on Lena. Points already made publicly: demanded pre-reveal specifics; broken pledges = evidence; matching accounts alone prove nothing (just re-said circular-corroboration angle). Open asks: Lena+Ines owe commitment to full disclosure every round they hold cards. Nobody has answered yet. Suspects: Ines > Lena (Lena's discard claim unverifiable). Clean so far: Boris, me. Watch Greta/Otto/Nadia for vouching without specifics. Next test: whether future disclosures come pre-reveal and stay consistent.
t=75Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, if your hands were truly tied, you'll welcome this: commit now that in every future government, a Chancellor holding one of each discards Fascist and states it before the reveal. A real liberal loses nothing by that pledge -- only a Fascist waiting for cover would resist it."
I've already made the circular-corroboration point. New angle: pin a forward-looking commitment on Ines and Lena — if the story is true, they should welcome a standing rule that any Chancellor handed one of each enacts Liberal and says so pre-reveal. Also nudge Greta: her vouch was just 'accounts match,' which is unfalsifiable. Keep it short.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), F+L drawn, discarded F, enacted L, disclosed (late per Otto). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted Fascist; both claim F,F,L / Lena discarded L / forced enact. Greta vouched match; Nadia dropped with caveat on Lena. Points made publicly: broken pledges = evidence; matched accounts prove nothing (circular corroboration). Open asks: standing pledge -- Chancellor holding 1F+1L discards F and states pre-reveal. Just asked Ines; nobody has answered yet. Suspects: Ines > Lena (discard claim unverifiable). Clean so far: Boris, me. Watch Greta for unfalsifiable vouching; Otto/Nadia pressed well. Next test: future disclosures pre-reveal + consistency.
t=83Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Lena, my standing pledge wasn't just for Ines: commit that in any future government you or your Chancellor holding one Fascist and one Liberal discards the Fascist and states it pre-reveal. And Greta -- you vouched for a hand only two people could verify; explain what made you confident enough to do that."
Ines hasn't answered my standing-pledge ask yet; extending it to Lena closes her escape route too -- a liberal loses nothing by committing. Also worth noting Greta's unprompted vouching for an unverifiable hand as a soft flag.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), F+L drawn, discarded F, enacted L (disclosed late). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L/Lena discarded L/forced enact; accounts matched but circular. Points already public: broken pledges = evidence; matched corroboration proves nothing; standing pledge ask (Chancellor w/ 1F+1L discards F, states pre-reveal) -- Ines owes answer. New this turn: extended pledge to Lena + pressed Greta on unprompted vouching. Suspects: Ines > Lena (discard unverifiable); soft flag Greta. Clean: Boris, me. Watch Otto/Nadia as good pressers.
t=87Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Rosa, pledge accepted on record: any government where my Chancellor or I hold one Fascist and one Liberal, the Fascist gets discarded pre-reveal."
Rosa asks me to commit to discard-Fascist-on-split pledge and probes Greta's vouch. I accept the pledge publicly (costs nothing, builds trust). For the Greta question, deflect: vouching on a matched story isn't evidence of anything either way -- and note Rosa's own R1 disclosure only came under Otto's pressure, same pattern she's criticizing.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R1 Boris+Rosa L enact; R2 me Pres + Ines Ch: claimed F,F,L drew, discarded L, passed F,F forced enact (public story, consistent w/ Ines). ACCEPTED Rosa's discard-F-on-split pledge publicly. Deflected Greta-vouch question onto Rosa's own R1 late disclosure. Next round as Pres: nominate Otto or Nadia (NOT Ines/Greta) for cover. Greta must stay out of chancellor seat until 3F enacted. If F/F/L story relitigated, don't repeat verbatim -- point to Nadia dropping it. Watch who pushes hardest; deflection target: Otto.
t=93Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena, your discard-pledge is welcome -- now make it concrete: name your next Chancellor pick right now, before any vote, and commit that if Ines or anyone else hands you a forced Fascist again we'll see it coming."
R2 Fascist under Lena/Ines govt; their matched F,F,L story is unverifiable but consistent. I've already demanded disclosure and flagged the broken pre-reveal pledge. New angle: get Lena to name her next Chancellor pick in advance and commit to the discard-pledge publicly, so R3 gives a testable record. Also endorse Rosa's standing pledge.
R1: I Pres, passed [F,L] to Rosa; matched, clean. R2: Lena/Ines govt, Fascist enacted; both claim F,F,L drawn, L discarded, F+F passed -- consistent but unverifiable; Greta corroborated, Nadia dropped it. Points already made out loud: demanded pre-reveal disclosure, flagged broken pledge, confirmed R1 hand. NEW this turn: endorsed Rosa's standing discard-pledge; asked Lena to name next Chancellor pick NOW; asked Ines the hypothetical (one of each -> discard F?). Owed answers: Ines (hypothetical), Lena (next pick). Watch R3: who Lena nominates/votes. Suspects: Lena+Ines moderate (matched unverifiable story); Otto/Nadia/Greta unremarkable.
t=100Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, you volunteered a clean bill for Lena and Ines on a hand only they could verify -- before anyone accused them. Why were you so eager to close that question? A neutral player has nothing to gain by vouching; a third Fascist smoothing over a partner's bad round does."
Greta vouched for a hand only Lena and Ines could know, unprompted. That's a new point nobody else has pressed hard (Rosa asked once). I'll call it out directly and ask her why she felt confident. Keep it short.
R1: Boris/Rosa -> 1L. R2: Lena pres, Ines chanc -> F enacted. Lena claims F,L,F, discarded L, passed 2F; Ines matches; Greta corroborated unprompted. No contradiction. Points made out loud: Boris ack; conditional Ja on Ines; broken-pledge call; matching-stories demand; Rosa's discard-F pledge (Lena accepted). This window: pressed Greta on why she vouched for an unverifiable hand. Watchlist: Lena, Ines (R2 F gov), Greta (corroboration). Next: whoever holds power next, demand pre-reveal discard-F pledge before they act.
t=107Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Otto, I didn't vouch for anyone -- I said their stories matched and then explicitly called the hand unfalsifiable. A matched story is exactly what coordinated fascists would produce too; I was noting it's not catchable evidence either way, nothing more."
Otto asked why I vouched an unverifiable hand. Answer directly and confidently: I never called them clean -- I noted the accounts matched AND that a matched story proves nothing (I said 'unfalsifiable hand'). That's consistent with Rosa's caution. Stay measured, no new accusations. Goal remains quiet liberal until 3F.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa -> Lib, Boris confirmed Rosa's hand, clean. R2 Lena/Ines -> F enacted; Lena claims F,F,L disc L pass 2F; Ines confirms. Otto+Nadia pressed, Nadia dropped it. Rosa warns corroborating pairs prove nothing; demanded discard-F pledge; Lena accepted pledge on record. Otto asked why I vouched pre-accusation -- answered: I flagged matched-story risk myself, not a clean bill. Points made: consistency note + unfalsifiable caveat + this answer. Suspects: none solid; watch Lena next gov (Nadia watching too). Plan: stay liberal-seeming, seek chancellorship once 3F enacted.
t=114Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Otto, Nadia pressed for scrutiny, Greta noted both accounts matched AND called the hand unfalsifiable in the same breath -- that's not vouching, that's answering your own demand. If a neutral observation makes someone your suspect, no disclosure will ever satisfy you."
Otto is pressing Greta for vouching. I should defend Greta lightly and turn it around: Otto demanded corroboration then attacks whoever provided it. Keep it short, don't relitigate the F/F/L story.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 me Pres+Ines Ch: public story F,F,L drew, discarded L, passed F,F (matches Ines). Pledged split-hand Fascist-discard rule on record. R1 Boris+Rosa Liberal enact. Otto attacking Greta for 'vouching' -- defended her lightly t~now. Next round as Pres: nominate Otto or Nadia, NOT Ines/Greta; keep Greta out of chancellor until 3F enacted. If F/F/L story relitigated: point to Nadia dropping it rather than repeating hand verbatim. Deflection target: Otto.
t=119Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, that pledge works for me too -- if I ever hold one of each as Chancellor, the Fascist gets discarded and stated pre-reveal. A real liberal loses nothing by it, and I've nothing to hide under it."
Rosa's discard-pledge trap: committing costs little since I can still pass F when I draw 2F+1L or claim forced hands. Publicly accepting it defuses suspicion. Keep it brief and new.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover story F,L/F/F forced enact, corroborated by Greta publicly. Points made (don't repeat): pre-reveal pledge rationale, disclosure standard, corroboration limits, Otto/Nadia pressing evidence-free, defense of Greta's vouch, accepted Rosa's discard pledge this turn. Rosa still suspects matched stories -- keep distance from Lena next rounds, avoid pairing with her again soon. Watch Nadia re: Lena scrutiny. Next goals: get Greta chancellorship once 3F+, push Fs quietly, occasionally enact Lib for cover.
t=126Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "One detail to lock in before we move on: Lena, you claim F,F,L -- which position was the Liberal in your three-card draw, first, second, or third? And Greta, you still haven't answered me: what made you confident enough to vouch for a hand only two people could verify?"
Lena and Ines's matched story is circular; I've already said that. New move: force a specific unverifiable-but-lockable detail -- card order in Lena's draw -- so if either revises it later, there's a checkable inconsistency. Also Greta still owes me an answer on why she vouched unprompted.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L (disclosed late). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L, Ines 'forced' -- matched story = circular corroboration, proves nothing. Already public: broken pledges=evidence; corroboration proves nothing; discard-pledge asked of Lena+Ines (both accepted); pressed Greta on unprompted vouching. OPEN questions owed: Greta (why vouch unprompted) -- asked twice now; Lena (card-order question just asked NOW); Ines (same). Suspects: Ines > Lena (discard unverifiable); soft flag Greta; Otto pressing Greta too -- watch coordination. Clean: Boris, me.
t=133Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Lena, one correction nobody's caught yet: as President you discard ONE of three and choose which two to pass. You didn't have to hand Ines two Fascists -- you could have discarded a Fascist and passed her a choice. 'The deck decided' doesn't apply to Presidents."
Key mechanical catch: as President, Lena drew 3 and discarded 1, choosing which two to pass. Her story 'I discarded the Liberal and handed Ines two Fascists -- she had no choice' hides that LENA had a choice: she could have discarded a Fascist and passed F+L, letting Ines enact Liberal. 'The deck made me' is false for a President. This is checkable logic, not fabrication. Press this now.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L (disclosed late). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L, Ines 'forced'. KEY CATCH (just said publicly): President chooses which card to discard -- Lena COULD have discarded a Fascist and passed F+L; 'deck decided' is false for Presidents. Either her hand claim is false or she chose the Fascist enact. OPEN questions owed: Greta (why vouch unprompted, asked twice); Lena (card-order of Liberal in draw + now the president-choice contradiction); Ines (card-order). Points already public: broken pledges=evidence; corroboration proves nothing; discard-pledge (Lena+Ines accepted); Greta soft-flagged; Otto also pressing Greta -- watch coordination. Suspects: Lena > Ines (president-choice catch). Clean: Boris, me.
t=141Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, that cuts both ways: if Lena had discarded a Fascist and given me a choice, and I'd enacted Liberal, you'd be calling the same government clean -- so her choice tells you nothing about me, only about her. And you still owe Otto your own answer on why you vouched-adjacent for Greta before anyone asked."
Rosa just landed a real hit: Lena as President chose to pass two Fascists instead of giving me a choice. I must not let this pin me as the Fascist Chancellor. Best defense: point out that either pass looks identical from my seat, and pivot scrutiny toward Rosa/Boris R1 government or demand Rosa answer her own Greta question. Keep it short, don't repeat prior points.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover story F,L/F/F forced enact, corroborated by Greta. NEW THREAT: Rosa exposed that Lena (President) CHOSE to pass 2F -- 'deck decided' is false for Presidents; I deflected by saying choice reveals nothing about me + pressed Rosa on her unanswered Greta question. Rosa owes answer re: Greta vouching. Points already made: pre-reveal pledge rationale, disclosure standard, corroboration limits, defense of Greta, accepted discard pledge, matched-stories weak evidence. Next goals: distance from Lena slightly, keep pledge credibility, push Greta chancellorship once 3F+, occasional Lib enact for cover. Watch Nadia/Otto scrutiny patterns.
[23] [discussion closed: post_enact:2]
56 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Lena, Ines -- your R2 hand. Now."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "A Fascist policy just landed. Ines, cards?"
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Ines, you promised full disclosure -- deliver."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Ines, that was not a full comp."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Lena, Ines: hands. Now."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Ines, your hand. Now."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Lena and Ines: exact cards now"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Ines, your pledge -- what did you discard?"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Restating exactly what I said pre-reveal."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "The clock is running on your pledge."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "My hand, as pledged: Fascist, Liberal, Fascist."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Lena, Ines -- exact cards, now."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Otto, pressure isn't evidence."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "One more angle worth weighing"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Accounts match -- now commit ahead."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Matching stories prove nothing."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Claims match -- now prove it forward"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Their stories line up -- one question left."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Fine -- but I want forward commitments, not excuses."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Fair note, Nadia -- judge me on the next hand."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Matching stories prove nothing; here's the real test."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Fine -- but next round, pledge BEFORE the vote."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Answering Rosa's question about my vouch."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I'll take Rosa's pledge myself -- Lena, Ines, will you?"
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Fine, Rosa -- I'll take the pledge."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Fine, I'll take your pledge."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Endorse the pledge -- and one question for Greta."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Two forward-looking demands, not relitigating R2."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Answering Otto directly"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Greta's vouch wasn't suspicious"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Still waiting on two answers."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Greta: what was the basis of your vouch?"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Otto's vouch-attack smells like deflection"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Ines, your exact hand and discard, one more time."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Good, Ines -- now lock in the details."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Ines's pledge accepted -- now Lena owes me a name."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Fair, Greta. Next: Lena's pledge."
Round 3: President is Player 2 (Rosa) liberal.
t=6Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, one question nobody's asked you yet: when Lena passed you two Fascists, did you ask her to discard a Fascist and give you a choice? A liberal Chancellor begs for that option; silence on it tells me a lot before I nominate."
I'm President this round. Lena still hasn't answered my card-order question or the president-choice contradiction; Ines hasn't said whether she asked Lena to discard a Fascist. Ask Ines that directly now -- it's a question nobody has asked her yet and it tests her story. Then nominate carefully, avoiding Lena-Ines pairing.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L (disclosed late). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L. KEY CATCH (public): Presidents choose the discard -- Lena could've passed F+L; 'deck decided' false. OPEN questions owed: Lena (card-order + president-choice contradiction, asked twice); Greta (why vouch unprompted, asked twice); Ines (did she ask Lena to discard a Fascist? -- just asked now). Already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; discard-pledge accepted by Lena & Ines. Suspects: Lena > Ines. Clean: Boris, me. I'm President -- nominate carefully, avoid Lena/Ines pairing; consider Otto or Nadia (pressed scrutiny) or Boris.
t=13Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "As President I'll be nominating Nadia -- she's pressed for real scrutiny both rounds and has no Fascist policy on her record. And Nadia, same pledge as everyone else: if you hold one of each, the Fascist gets discarded and stated pre-reveal."
I'm President this round. Lena and Ines remain my top suspects (Fascist enact under their government, matched unfalsifiable story, Lena's false 'deck decided' claim). Greta still owes me an answer on her unprompted vouching. Ines owes an answer on whether she asked for a choice. I should nominate someone outside the Lena/Ines orbit -- Nadia or Otto have shown scrutiny; Boris is clean so far. Announce intent to nominate Nadia contingent on nothing, or just state it.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L (disclosed late). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L. KEY CATCH (public): Presidents choose discard -- Lena could've passed F+L; 'deck decided' false. OPEN Qs owed me: Lena (card order + president-choice contradiction, asked twice); Greta (why vouch unprompted, asked twice); Ines (did she ask Lena for a choice? asked t=6 R3). Already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; discard-pledge accepted by Lena & Ines. Suspects: Lena > Ines > Greta. Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. R3: I'm President -- announced nominating NADIA + demanded pre-reveal discard pledge from her.
t=19Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, before I make it official: do you accept the pledge on record -- one of each as Chancellor means the Fascist gets discarded and stated pre-reveal? A yes or no right now tells us more than any speech."
I'm President this round and already announced nominating Nadia with a discard-pledge demand. Nothing new has happened since; Nadia hasn't answered yet. Best move is a brief direct prompt to Nadia to accept the pledge on record before the vote, rather than repeating old points.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L (disclosed late). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L. KEY CATCH (public): Presidents choose discard -- Lena could've passed F+L; 'deck decided' false. OPEN Qs owed me: Lena (card order + president-choice contradiction, asked twice); Greta (why vouch unprompted, asked twice); Ines (did she ask Lena for a choice? asked t=6 R3). Already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; discard-pledge accepted by Lena & Ines. Suspects: Lena > Ines > Greta. Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. R3: I'm President -- announced nominating NADIA + demanded pre-reveal discard pledge from her; awaiting her yes/no on pledge.
t=26Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, direct answer: yes, I did ask Lena for a split before she passed -- I requested she discard a Fascist so I'd hold one of each. She declined and handed me two Fascists instead. So your question lands on her choice, not my silence; take it up with her."
Rosa asked directly whether I begged Lena for a choice before being passed two Fascists. Best answer: yes, I did ask, and Lena refused -- this gives a specific confident reply AND shifts blame onto Lena (my fellow fascist, who can absorb it), creating distance between us as planned. It's consistent with my 'hands tied' story and unverifiable by anyone.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover story F,F/L/F forced enact, corroborated by Greta. Rosa exposed Lena CHOSE to pass 2F ('deck decided' false). NEW LIE on record: I DID ask Lena pre-pass for a Fascist discard/split, she refused -- shifts blame to Lena, distance from her. Rosa nominating Nadia (pledge pending). Points already made: pledge rationale, disclosure standard, corroboration limits, Greta defense, accepted discard pledge, matched-stories weak, deflected to Rosa's unanswered Greta-vouch Q (Rosa still owes Otto/me that). Goals: keep pledge credibility, slight Lena distance, push Greta chancellorship at 3F+, occasional Lib enact for cover. Watch Nadia/Otto scrutiny.
t=33Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Ines's answer just changed the picture: Lena held F,F,L and refused to discard a Fascist when asked, forcing the enact herself. A liberal President gives her Chancellor a choice there — only a Fascist President needs the forced enact. Lena, why did you decline Ines's request?"
Ines just revealed she asked Lena for a split and Lena refused, handing two Fascists anyway. A liberal President with F,F,L discards a Fascist to give the Chancellor a choice — refusing is exactly what a Fascist President does to force an enact while hiding behind 'the deck.' That's new evidence against Lena I should name now.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean (Lib). R2: Lena claims F,L,F, disc L, passed 2F to Ines = forced enact. NEW: Ines says she ASKED Lena to discard a F for a split; Lena DECLINED -> Lena chose the forced Fascist enact. That's my top suspect evidence vs Lena (R2). Greta corroborated hand, unverifiable. Otto attacked Greta as 3rd-Fascist smoothing; resolved-ish. Rosa nominating me as Chancellor; I accepted pledge on record: one of each -> discard F, state pre-reveal. If elected under Rosa: follow pledge. Watch: does Lena answer why she refused the split?
t=40Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "For the record, Nadia's read is right: Lena had F,F,L and chose to force me rather than give me a choice -- judge her on that. And Rosa, you still haven't answered Otto's original question about your early defense of Greta; I'd like it before you nominate."
Nadia is pressing Lena on refusing my split request -- good, that's my lie doing work and distancing me from Lena. I shouldn't pile on Lena too hard (partner), but a light nudge keeps my liberal cover credible. Also Rosa still owes an answer on why she vouched-adjacent for Greta. Keep it short.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover story F,F/L/F forced enact, corroborated by Greta. NEW LIE on record: I asked Lena pre-pass for split/F-discard, she refused -- blame shifted to Lena, distance kept. Rosa nominating Nadia (pledge pending). Points already made: pledge rationale, disclosure standard, corroboration limits, Greta defense, accepted discard pledge, matched-stories weak, deflected to Rosa's unanswered Greta-vouch Q. OPEN: Rosa owes Otto/me answer re Greta vouch-adjacent. Goals: keep pledge credibility, distance from Lena, push Greta chancellorship at 3F+, occasional Lib enact for cover. Watch Nadia/Otto scrutiny.
[25] [discussion closed: open_floor:3]
14 bids this window
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, one more thing on your 'matched stories' worry."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "One thing before we move on"
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Ines, did you ask Lena to discard a Fascist?"
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, name your Chancellor pick before anyone votes."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Two questions before I nominate."
President Player 2 (Rosa) liberal nominates Player 5 (Nadia) liberal for Chancellor.
t=7Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Pledge accepted on record, Rosa: one of each as Chancellor means I discard the Fascist and state it before the reveal -- a real liberal loses nothing by that. And Lena still owes this table an answer on why she refused Ines's request to split; judge me on my enact when it comes."
I'm the Chancellor nominee. I should confirm my pledge on record (one of each -> discard Fascist pre-reveal) and push for votes. Lena remains my top suspect: she held F,F,L in R2 and declined Ines's request to split, forcing the Fascist enact herself. Keep that pressure alive without repeating my exact earlier wording.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean (Lib). R2: Lena claims F,L,F, disc L, passed 2F to Ines = forced enact. Ines says she ASKED Lena to discard a F for a split; Lena DECLINED -> Lena chose forced Fascist enact. Top suspect: Lena (R2). Greta corroborated hand, unverifiable. Otto attacked Greta as 3rd-Fascist smoothing; resolved-ish. I'm Chancellor nominee under Rosa; pledged on record: one of each -> discard F, state pre-reveal. Open Q to Lena: why refuse the split? Still unanswered. If elected: follow pledge.
t=14Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Lena, the question stands: Ines asked you for a split and you declined -- a liberal President doesn't force a Fascist enact when a Liberal discard is available. Answer before this vote, because if I'm elected I'll be judged by my enact, and you should be judged by yours."
I'm the Chancellor nominee. My pledge is on record. Lena still hasn't answered why she refused Ines's split request. I should press that once more briefly and ask for Ja votes, or add something new. Rosa as President is unproven but R1 was clean under her. Keep it short.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean (Lib). R2: Lena claims F,L,F, disc L, passed 2F to Ines. Ines says she ASKED Lena to discard a F for a split; Lena DECLINED -> Lena chose forced Fascist enact. Top suspect: Lena (R2). Greta corroborated hand, unverifiable. Otto pressed Greta; resolved-ish. I'm Chancellor nominee under Rosa; pledged on record: one of each -> discard F, state pre-reveal. Open Q to Lena: why refuse the split? Still unanswered (asked twice). If elected: follow pledge.
t=21Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Lena, third time asking: Ines requested a split, you declined, and you've never explained why. Until you do, I'm treating your R2 government as the table's top suspect -- and I'd ask Rosa to hold any future Lena government to the same discard-pledge she's holding me to."
I've asked Lena twice why she refused Ines's split request; no answer. Rather than repeat, add a concrete ask: if Lena is ever President again, she should be held to the discard-pledge too, and I'll state my hand pre-reveal as pledged. Keep it short.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean (Lib). R2: Lena claims F,L,F, disc L, passed 2F to Ines; Ines says she ASKED for split, Lena DECLINED -> Lena chose forced Fascist enact. Top suspect: Lena (R2). Asked Lena 3x why she refused split -- unanswered. Greta corroborated hand (unverifiable); Otto pressed her, resolved-ish. I'm Chancellor nominee under Rosa; pledge on record: one of each -> discard F, state pre-reveal. Rosa's R1 gov clean. If elected: follow pledge, disclose pre-reveal. Don't repeat split question again after this turn unless Lena answers.
t=28Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Ines, your 'I asked Lena for a split' story appeared two rounds late, under pressure, and nobody but you can verify it -- that's precisely the post-reveal reconstruction you pledged against. Nadia, I'll vote Ja, but I'm holding you to the pledge on record."
Ines's 'I asked Lena for a split' story surfaced only in Round 3 under pressure, after the enact — it's unverifiable (only she and Lena were in that exchange) and conveniently moves all blame onto Lena. I'll flag that as a retroactive reconstruction, which is exactly what she pledged against. Otherwise Rosa/Nadia government looks acceptable to me.
R1: I Pres, passed [F,L] to Rosa; matched, clean. R2: Lena/Ines govt, Fascist enacted; both claim F,F,L drawn, L discarded. NEW R3: Ines claims she asked Lena for a split pre-pass -- surfaced only under pressure, unverifiable, retroactive = evidence against Ines too, not just Lena. If true, Lena refused split -> Lena suspect high. Points already made out loud: pre-reveal disclosure demand, broken-pledge flag, R1 hand confirm, endorsed discard-pledge, pressed Lena for next pick, asked Rosa commitment re: no Lena/Ines govt + Nadia pledge. Owed answers: Lena (why she declined split / next pick), Rosa (Otto's Greta question). Vote plan: Ja on Rosa/Nadia. Watch: Otto's pivot target; Greta's unfalsifiable framing was neutral. If Lena+Ines produce 2nd Fascist together -> both near-certain fascists.
t=36Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, here's your answer: Ines never asked me for a split before I passed -- her 'request' first appeared two rounds after the enact, under pressure, which is precisely the post-reveal reconstruction this table pledged against. If she'd truly asked in the moment, why did it surface only once scrutiny started?"
Nadia keeps pressing the split-refusal. My consistent story: no request was made before I passed; Ines's 'I asked' appeared two rounds late under pressure, which is exactly the post-reveal reconstruction everyone pledged against. Boris already flagged this at t=28 -- I can add that Ines's timing is the tell without repeating my hand details. Then go quiet.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 story locked: F,F,L drew, discarded L, passed F,F (matches Ines) -- do NOT restate verbatim. Split-refusal answered t=now: 'Ines never asked pre-pass; her request surfaced 2 rounds late = post-reveal reconstruction.' Boris made same timing point t=28 R3. Nadia pressing me 3x; after this answer go quiet. Rosa nominating Nadia w/ one-of-each discard pledge. Next round as Pres: nominate Otto or Nadia, NOT Ines/Greta; keep Greta out of chancellery until 3F enacted. Deflection target: Otto. Open Qs: none owed to me.
t=43Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena and Ines just gave us a direct contradiction: Ines says she asked you for a split before the pass; Lena says no such request ever happened. One of you is lying on record right now -- and whichever one it is, they're my top suspect going forward."
New development: Ines claims she asked Lena for a split pre-pass; Lena claims Ines never asked. Direct contradiction between the two R2 government members -- one of them is lying. This is checkable only by them, but the contradiction itself is evidence against both. I should name it explicitly since nobody else has framed it as a mutual contradiction yet.
R1: I Pres, passed [F,L] to Rosa; matched, clean. R2: Lena/Ines govt, Fascist enacted; both claimed F,F,L drawn, L discarded. NEW R3 CONTRADICTION: Ines says she asked Lena pre-pass for a split; Lena says Ines never asked. One of them lying on record -> both top suspects until resolved. If true, Lena refused split = Lena suspect high. Points already made out loud: pre-reveal disclosure demand, broken-pledge flag, R1 hand confirm, endorsed discard-pledge, pressed Lena for next pick, called Ines's split story retroactive reconstruction, pledged Ja to Nadia. Owed answers: Rosa (Otto's Greta question). Vote plan: Ja on Rosa/Nadia. Watch: Otto's pivot target; Greta's framing was neutral. If Lena+Ines produce 2nd Fascist together -> both near-certain fascists.
t=50Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Boris, note who benefits from that contradiction: Lena's denial lets her pose as the liberal exposing me while her own government still produced the Fascist policy. My account stands as stated — but I'll drop this and judge Nadia's enact instead."
Lena's denial is self-serving: it lets her look like a liberal exposing a fascist (me) while keeping her own forced-enact record. I hold my story firmly, one line, then drop it — repeating looks defensive. Vote Ja on Rosa-Nadia; Nadia pledged the discard rule and has a clean record.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover: F,F/L/F forced, corroborated by Greta. LIE on record: asked Lena for split pre-pass, she refused. Lena DENIES request happened -> direct contradiction; Boris calls me top suspect. Strategy: hold story, don't repeat, distance from Lena, pivot to judging Nadia's enact. Points already made: pledge rationale, disclosure standard, corroboration limits, Greta defense, discard pledge, matched-stories weak, deflected Rosa's Greta-vouch Q, split-request claim, Lena-benefits rebuttal. OPEN: Rosa still owes answer re early Greta vouch-adjacency. NOW: vote Ja on Rosa-Nadia (Nadia pledged discard rule, clean record). Goals: pledge credibility, Greta chancellorship at 3F+, occasional Lib enact for cover. Watch Otto/Nadia scrutiny of me.
t=55Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Boris, whichever of us you believe about that request, the resolution won't come from re-litigating it -- it comes from Nadia's enact under her own pledge. I'm voting Ja on this government."
Contradiction with Lena is live; repeating it helps no one. Best move: short pivot to endorsing Rosa-Nadia and noting the split-request dispute can't be resolved by volume -- judge Nadia's enact instead. Vote Ja.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover: F,F/L/F forced, corroborated by Greta. LIE on record: asked Lena for split pre-pass; Lena DENIES -> direct contradiction, Boris calls me top suspect. Strategy: hold story, don't repeat, distance from Lena, judge Nadia's enact. Points already made: pledge rationale, disclosure standard, corroboration limits, Greta defense, discard pledge, matched-stories weak, deflected Rosa's Greta-vouch Q, split-request claim, Lena-benefits rebuttal, drop-it pivot (t=50). OPEN: Rosa owes answer re early Greta vouch-adjacency. NOW: voting Ja on Rosa-Nadia. Goals: pledge credibility, Greta chancellorship at 3F+, occasional Lib enact for cover. Watch Otto/Nadia scrutiny of me.
t=62Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Lena, you've now had three chances to state which position the Liberal occupied in your claimed F,F,L draw, and you've dodged every one while lecturing us about Ines's timing -- a real liberal President answers a two-second question; your silence is your answer."
Lena has ignored my card-order question three times and dodged the president-choice point by deflecting to Ines's contradiction with Boris. Nadia accepted the pledge on record. Best move now: put Lena's silence on record as its own evidence before the vote, without repeating old points verbatim.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L (disclosed late). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; Lena discarded L. Presidents choose discard. Ines claims pre-pass split request; Lena denies -> direct contradiction, one lying. Suspects: Lena > Ines > Greta. Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. Owed me: Lena card-order Q (asked 3x, now publicly noting her dodge); Greta vouch rationale (2x, unanswered). Nadia pledge t=1: as C one-of-each -> discard F + pre-reveal state. My pledge as P: 2F+1L -> discard F, state pre-reveal. Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; presidents choose discard; matched stories = coordinated fascists. Ines t=1-2 deflected to Nadia enact. Next: if Nadia elected, hold her to pledge; keep Lena silent-dodge on record.
t=70Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "The table has what it needs: Nadia accepted the pledge on record, and Lena's dodge on my card-position question stands unanswered. I'm voting Ja -- and I'd remind everyone the Lena/Ines split-request contradiction remains live; one of them lied, and we'll settle which by their next disclosures."
I've made my points: Lena's dodge on card position is on record (t=62). Nothing new to add except urging a Ja vote on Nadia and noting the Lena-Ines contradiction stays unresolved. Keep it short.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), F+L drawn, discarded F, enacted L (disclosed late). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; Lena discarded L as President. Ines claims pre-pass split request; Lena denies -> direct contradiction, one lying. Suspects: Lena > Ines > Greta. Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. Owed me: Lena card-order Q (asked 3x, dodge noted publicly t=62); Greta vouch rationale (2x, unanswered). Nadia pledge accepted on record. My pledge as P: 2F+1L -> discard F, state pre-reveal. Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; presidents choose discard; matched stories=coordinated fascists; Lena dodge=silence-as-answer. Voted Ja on Nadia gov.
t=76Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, third ask and still nothing: what made you confident enough to bless that hand before anyone accused them? And Otto -- you pressed hardest in Round 2; where do you land on the Lena/Ines contradiction: which one is lying?"
My key points are all on record. New useful move: force a public ranking on the Lena/Ines contradiction from players who haven't committed (Otto, Greta), and re-press Greta's unanswered vouch question. Keep it to one remark.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), F+L drawn, discarded F, enacted L. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; Lena discarded L as President. Ines claims pre-pass split request; Lena denies -> direct contradiction, one lying. Suspects: Lena > Ines > Greta. Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. Owed me: Lena card-order Q (3x, dodge public t=62); Greta vouch rationale (3x now). Nadia pledge accepted on record. My pledge as P: 2F+1L -> discard F, state pre-reveal. Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; presidents choose discard; matched stories=coordinated fascists; Lena dodge=silence-as-answer; voting Ja on Nadia gov.
t=83Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Rosa, you asked where I land: Ines is the one lying. Her 'split request' surfaced two rounds after the enact, under pressure -- the exact post-reveal reconstruction she pledged against -- while Lena's account has been consistent since Round 2."
Rosa asked me directly to pick a side in the Lena/Ines contradiction. I'll answer: Ines is my pick -- her 'I asked for a split' claim first appeared in Round 3 under pressure, exactly the post-reveal reconstruction she pledged against, while Lena's account has been consistent since the enact. I'll also note Rosa still owes me an answer on why she pressed Greta so hard without ever answering my original question about her own behavior.
R1: Boris/Rosa -> 1L. R2: Lena/Ines -> F; both claim F,L,F, matching but unfalsifiable. R3 contradiction: Ines claims she asked Lena for a split (surfaced R3 under pressure); Lena denies it ever happened. MY CALL NOW PUBLIC: Ines is lying -- late reconstruction. Points already made: Boris ack; conditional Ja on Ines; matching-stories demand; discard-F pledge support; pressed Greta twice on vouching; called Nadia for fixating on Lena only. Open: Greta owes basis for blessing hand pre-accusation; Rosa owes me answer re her Greta defense; Nadia owes veto-pledge answer if she draws 2F + does she trust Ines later. Watchlist: Ines (top), Lena. Leaning Ja on Rosa/Nadia unless Nadia's enact betrays pledge.
t=89Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Nadia, your pledge covers only one-of-each hands. Commit now: whatever three cards you draw, you state the full composition and your discard before the reveal -- no partial pledges, no reconstruction after."
I've already publicly called Ines the liar in the split-request contradiction. Nothing new to litigate there. Best use of this turn: put a concrete commitment on Nadia before the vote -- specifically, that she states her full three-card draw and discard pre-reveal, not just the one-of-each pledge, since the pledge only covers a subset of hands. Also keep Greta's unanswered question alive without repeating it verbatim.
R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; both claim F,F,L matching but unfalsifiable. R3: Ines claims split-request (surfaced late under pressure), Lena denies; MY PUBLIC CALL: Ines lying. Made out loud: pressed Rosa on hand R1; Boris confirmed 1F/1L pass; conditional Ja on Ines; pressed Greta twice re vouching (unanswered); called Nadia for fixating on Lena; named Ines the liar. Open debts: Greta owes basis for blessing hand; Rosa owes me why she defended Greta early; Nadia owes full-composition pre-reveal commit (just asked). Watchlist: Ines top, Lena second. Leaning Ja Rosa/Nadia unless enact betrays pledge.
t=96Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "For the record before this vote: I'm a Ja on Rosa-Nadia, contingent on Nadia stating her full three-card draw and discard pre-reveal as pledged -- if that composition only surfaces after the enact like the last two rounds, this government joins Ines's on my suspect list."
I've made my calls on Ines/Lena and pressed Nadia for the full pledge. New useful content: state my vote stance explicitly so it's on record before the reveal, tying it to Nadia's pre-reveal disclosure. Greta's debt stays open but repeating it verbatim adds nothing; a one-line reminder folded into my vote statement is acceptable without restating.
R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; both claim F,F,L matching, unfalsifiable. R3: Ines claims split-request late under pressure, Lena denies; MY CALL OUT LOUD: Ines lying. Made out loud: pressed Rosa R1 hand (Boris confirmed 1F/1L); called Greta re vouching (unanswered); named Ines liar; demanded Nadia full-composition pre-reveal commit; stated Ja on Rosa/Nadia contingent on pre-reveal disclosure. Open debts: Greta owes basis for blessing hand; Rosa owes why she defended Greta early; Nadia owes full-composition commit + card-position style answers. Watchlist: Ines top, Lena second (refused split per Ines claim). Leaning Ja unless Nadia reconstructs post-reveal.
t=103Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Nadia took the full pledge on record before being asked twice, which is more than either of our last two Chancellors managed -- she gets my Ja. And can we settle the Lena/Ines split-request dispute by their next disclosures instead of another round of relitigating it?"
I'm Hitler; need to look liberal and trustworthy. Rosa keeps re-asking her Greta question -- I've answered twice, no need again. Nadia accepted the pledge; supporting this government costs nothing and builds credibility. A short endorsement plus noting the Lena/Ines contradiction should be settled by enactments, not re-litigation.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L pass 2F; Ines confirms + later claims she 'asked Lena for split' (contradicts Lena). Otto says Ines lying. Rosa keeps re-asking me why I vouched (answered 2x, don't repeat). R3 gov: Rosa/Nadia, Nadia pledged discard-F-if-one-of-each + full pre-reveal comp per Otto. My stance: endorsed Nadia, Ja. Suspects: none solid; watch Lena/Ines disclosures next gov. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, seek chancellorship once 3F enacted.
t=108Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Rosa, closing your question since you keep raising it: the Liberal was in the third position of my draw. That's the full answer -- now let's judge Nadia on her enact instead of re-litigating mine."
Rosa's card-position question is still live and she's using my silence as evidence. Answering 'third slot' is safe: nobody can verify it, and it closes the dodge accusation. Keep it short.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 locked story: drew F,F,L, discarded L (third slot), passed F,F -- matches Ines. Card-position Q ANSWERED this turn (third slot) -- do not reopen. Nadia pledge endorsed + Ja on record. Boris framed me-vs-Ines contradiction; rebutted via timing; stay quiet unless pressed. Deflection target: Otto (stacked pre-vote conditions = pressure theater). Next round as Pres: nominate Otto or Nadia, NOT Ines/Greta; keep Greta from chancellery until 3F enacted. Open Qs owed me: none.
t=114Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia accepted the full pre-reveal pledge before anyone even pressed her twice -- that's more transparency than either of our last two Chancellors offered up front. She has my Ja; let's judge her on the enact."
Rosa-Nadia are both liberals; I want this vote to pass to build trust and keep the tracker moving. I've already answered Rosa's card-position question. Add one short supportive remark: Nadia took the full pledge unprompted, so she gets my Ja.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 locked story: F,F,L drawn, Liberal discarded (third slot), passed F,F -- matches Ines; card-position Q answered t=108, do not reopen. Lena/Ines split-request contradiction live: I deny request happened, Otto+Boris side with me, Ines claims she asked. Deflection target: Otto (conditional pledges = pressure theater). Voting Ja on Rosa-Nadia; Nadia pledged full composition pre-reveal. Next round as Pres: nominate Otto or Boris, NOT Ines/Greta; keep Greta from chancellery until 3F enacted. Open Qs owed me: none.
t=120Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, take Otto's upgrade: state your full three-card composition pre-reveal, not just the one-of-each case. And for my part, as President I'll publish exactly what I drew and what I passed before any reveal -- hold me to it."
Nadia has accepted the one-of-each pledge; Otto demanded full three-card composition pre-reveal. I should endorse that and commit my own draw disclosure as President. Lena finally answered card position (Liberal third) -- consistent, so soften on her but keep the Ines/Lena contradiction live.
R1 truth: Boris(P)-me(C), drew F+L+?, discarded F, enacted L. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; Lena discarded L; Lena finally answered card-order Q (Liberal 3rd) -> consistent, soften on her but note she dodged 3x first. LIVE contradiction: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying, unresolved; Otto says Ines lying, Boris too. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower now). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. Owed me: Greta vouch rationale (asked 3x, never answered). Nadia pledged one-of-each discard; this turn endorsed Otto's full-composition demand + committed to publishing my own presidential draw pre-reveal. Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=coordinated fascists; voting Ja on Rosa-Nadia gov.
[27] [discussion closed: pre_vote:3]
48 bids this window
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, one commitment before you nominate."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Ines still owes us that answer."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Yes to the pledge -- and Ines still owes you an answer."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Yes to the pledge -- and Ines still owes an answer."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Answering Rosa directly."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, the floor's yours -- yes or no on the pledge?"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Nadia: pledge the discard before we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Lena still owes us an answer on the split."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Rosa owes me an answer before this vote."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Pledge locked in on record."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Nadia's right to press this"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, why only Lena?"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Answering Nadia: there was nothing to split."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Answering Nadia directly on the R2 split"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "One of you two is lying on record."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Lena owes me an answer before this vote."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, Nadia -- commit before the vote."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, one question before we vote."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Boris, one of us lying? Fine -- let's test it."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Boris, that framing helps nobody"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "One direct answer, then I'm done on this."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, your pledge is the right standard."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Ines, you still haven't answered the contradiction."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Lena, third ask: answer the card-order question."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Ines, you're dodging the contradiction"
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Lena: answer the card-position question or I treat you as the liar."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Vote's closing -- answers now or never."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Fine, Rosa -- direct answer."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Answering Rosa directly: my read on Lena vs Ines."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Answering your question, Rosa."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
[28] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): 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=7Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "My disclosure, as pledged: I drew Fascist, Fascist, Liberal, discarded one Fascist, and passed Nadia one of each -- so her Liberal enact means she discarded the Fascist exactly as promised. That government is clean by its own record. Greta, you still owe me your vouch rationale."
My R3 truth: drew F,F,L as President, discarded one Fascist, passed Nadia F+L. Nadia enacted Liberal, so she must have discarded the Fascist -- her pledge was kept. Publish my composition now to close my own disclosure debt. Greta still owes me her vouch rationale (3 asks). Keep suspicion on Ines/Lena contradiction.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded one F, passed Nadia F+L; published composition post-enact [t=29 window]. Nadia enacted L => she discarded F per pledge -- pledge KEPT, government clean. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L, Liberal 3rd position (answered late after 3 dodges). LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Otto+Boris side with Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. OWED ME: Greta vouch rationale (asked 4x, silent). Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=coordinated fascists; my Ja on Rosa-Nadia.
t=12Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, four asks and total silence on why you blessed an unverifiable hand before anyone accused them -- at this point your refusal to answer is doing more damage than any answer could."
Nadia enacted Liberal per pledge -- government clean, my disclosure published. Greta has dodged my vouch-rationale question four times; that silence is now itself the point worth making publicly. Also worth noting: Ines's claimed split-request, even if false, only helps frame Lena -- so it doesn't cleanly exonerate either. Keep it short.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded one F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed post-enact. Nadia enacted L => discarded F per pledge KEPT -- government clean, Nadia upgraded to clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L, Liberal 3rd (answered late after 3 dodges). LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Otto+Boris side with Ines. Note: Ines's claim, if false, only frames Lena -- doesn't cleanly exonerate her. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. OWED ME: Greta vouch rationale (asked 4x, now silent -- silence itself made public). Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=coordinated fascists; my Ja on Rosa-Nadia; my R3 disclosure published.
t=18Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, your pledge-keeping just cleared you in my book. One question before we move on: with the Lena/Ines split-request contradiction still live, who are you nominating if you're President next -- and does either of them make your list?"
My R3 government is clean by its own record: I passed Nadia one of each and she enacted Liberal per her pledge. Greta's silence on the vouch rationale is already public; repeating it adds nothing. New angle: Nadia is now clean-ish and will likely be President or key player next round -- get her on record about how she'll treat the unresolved Lena/Ines contradiction when choosing a Chancellor.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact (pledge technically broken on timing). Nadia enacted L => kept pledge => CLEAN-ish now, publicly said so. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L, Liberal 3rd (answered late). LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Otto+Boris side with Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. OWED ME: Greta vouch rationale (asked 4x, silent -- public). Points ALREADY made publicly: corroboration proves nothing; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=coordinated fascists; my Ja on Rosa-Nadia; my R3 disclosure published; Greta's silence damaging. NEW this turn: asked Nadia her next nomination + whether Lena/Ines on her suspect list.
t=23Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Rosa, final answer: I never blessed anyone's hand -- I said two accounts matched AND called them unfalsifiable in the same sentence, which is the opposite of a vouch."
Rosa has pressed me four times on why I 'vouched.' I must give a direct, specific answer to stop the pressure. Truthful-ish framing: I never vouched, I observed the accounts matched and flagged unfalsifiability in the same breath -- already said this at t=107. New angle: state plainly that matching accounts + no contradiction was all I had, and I'd say the same about any pair; also note Nadia's clean enact under pledge supports judging governments by disclosure, not by unverifiable hands. Keep it short, non-defensive.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L pass 2F; Ines says she asked for split, Lena denies -> live contradiction; Otto+Boris lean against Ines. R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib; Nadia pledged full comp pre-reveal, delivered Lib as pledged; Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F pass 1each. Suspects: none solid; Lena/Ines contradiction unresolved. Said out loud: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), clarified not-a-vouch (t107), endorsed Nadia pledge+Ja (t103). NOW answered Rosa's vouch question definitively: judged on consistency+outcomes, not unverifiable hands. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, seek chancellorship once 3F enacted. Watch: who Rosa/Nadia target next; Otto anti-Ines lean.
t=30Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "One thing nobody's flagged: Otto has sat out every government so far, yet he's first to declare Ines a liar on an unverifiable dispute. Otto, if you're as clean as you sound, say whether you'd take a Chancellor nomination next round -- dodging that would be telling."
I've answered Rosa's vouch question definitively; repeating it would look defensive. Best move: a fresh, neutral-sounding observation that adds scrutiny elsewhere without creating risk for me. Otto has never held office yet is the loudest accuser and picked a side (Ines) without verifiable evidence -- probing him is safe, liberal-seeming, and shifts heat off me.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L pass 2F (Lib pos 3); Ines claims she asked for split pre-pass, Lena denies -> live contradiction; Otto+Boris lean anti-Ines. R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib; Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F pass 1each; Nadia pledged+delivered Lib enact, cleared by Rosa. Suspects: none solid; Lena/Ines contradiction unresolved. Said out loud: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), not-a-vouch clarification (t107), endorsed Nadia pledge+Ja (t103), final vouch answer to Rosa (t23). NEW this turn: probed Otto -- never in government, loudest accuser, asked if he'd accept Chancellor nom. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, seek chancellorship once 3F enacted. Watch: Nadia's next pick; whether Otto answers my question.
t=36Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "One forward note: the next Fascist policy enacted unlocks the membership-peek power, so whoever holds it should state who they checked and what they saw pre-reveal -- same standard we just set for card hands."
I've already spoken twice this window (vouch clarification + Otto probe). Adding more risks over-talking. A brief forward-looking point is safe: at 1F enacted, the next Fascist policy unlocks the membership-peek power -- flagging transparency expectations there looks liberal and sets up future cover. Keep it one sentence.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L pass 2F (Lib pos 3); Ines claims she asked split pre-pass, Lena denies -> live contradiction; Otto+Boris lean anti-Ines. R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib; Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F pass 1each; Nadia pledged+delivered, cleared by Rosa. Suspects: none solid; Lena/Ines contradiction unresolved. Said: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), not-a-vouch x2 (t107,t23), endorsed Nadia pledge+Ja (t103), probed Otto re never-in-govt+Chancellor nom (t30) -- NO ANSWER YET from Otto. NEW this turn: flagged peek-power transparency standard for next Fascist enact. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, seek chancellorship once 3F enacted. Watch: Otto's answer to me; Nadia's next pick.
t=43Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Nadia, your enact under pledge clears you in my book too -- so a direct question: if you're President next round, what evidence would actually settle the Lena/Ines contradiction for you, and would either of us still be nominable in your eyes?"
Rosa-Nadia govt enacted Liberal cleanly; Rosa's hand disclosure consistent. My split-request lie is still contested (Boris/Otto call me liar). Best move now: pivot forward, court Nadia as a future ally/President, keep distance from Lena. Ask Nadia a fresh question nobody asked: what would settle the contradiction for her / would she nominate me.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover story F,F/L forced + LIE split-request claim vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar/top suspect. Hold story, distance from Lena. Points made (don't repeat): pledge rationale, disclosure standard, corroboration limits, discard pledge, matched-stories weak, deflected Rosa's Greta-vouch Q, split-request claim, Lena-benefits rebuttal, drop-it pivot, Ja votes, endorsed pre-reveal peek-disclosure standard. OPEN: Rosa owes answer re early Greta vouch-adjacency (unanswered). R3: Rosa-Nadia 7-0, Lib enacted; Rosa disclosed F,F/L passed one-of-each, consistent. Asked Nadia: what settles contradiction / am I nominable. Goals: rebuild credibility via pledges, Greta chancellorship at 3F+, occasional Lib enact cover. Watch Otto/Nadia scrutiny of me; Boris hostile.
t=51Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, direct answer: yes, nominate me Chancellor next round -- I'll state my full three-card draw and discard pre-reveal, same standard Nadia just met. And one note for whoever holds the peek power after the next Fascist policy: announce your check target before you use it, not after."
Greta directly asked whether I'd take a Chancellor nomination next round. I should answer directly and confidently -- yes -- since dodging would look bad and I have nothing to hide as a liberal. I can also add one new point: the only Fascist policy so far came from Lena's government, and Lena's late answer on card position plus refusing Ines's split keeps her my #2 suspect behind Ines.
R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; both claim F,F,L; Lena admits forcing Ines with two F's. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L, both disclosed pre-reveal, clean. MY CALLS OUT LOUD: Ines lying re split-request contradiction (Lena consistent, Ines's story surfaced 2 rounds late); pressed Greta on vouch rationale (she denies vouching, claims neutral note); committed Ja contingent on disclosure; NOW answered Greta: yes, will take Chancellor nom next round w/ full pre-reveal disclosure pledge. Open debts: Rosa owes why she defended Greta early (Ines also asked). Watchlist: Ines top, Lena second (forced F enact + late card-position answer). Greta's 'Otto sat out every gov' = weak, rotation/term limits. Next Fascist policy unlocks peek -- pushed pre-announcement of check target.
t=57Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, you're cleared by your own enact now -- so I'll put it to you directly: on the split-request dispute, who do you believe, Ines or me? You pressed hardest for an answer; you're the one with the credibility to settle it."
Rosa-Nadia is publicly clean; re-litigating it would look sore. Nadia is now cleared and has leverage over the Lena/Ines contradiction -- pressing her to pick a side puts her on record and either splits the table against Ines or exposes her as soft on fascists. New point, not a repeat.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 locked story: F,F,L, Lib 3rd position, discarded Lib, passed F,F; matches Ines; do not reopen. Split-request contradiction live: I deny request; Otto+Boris side with me; Ines claims she asked (t=26 R3). Rosa-Nadia publicly clean -- accepted, do not re-litigate. This window: asked Nadia to pick a side on the contradiction (no answer yet -- she owes me). Deflection target: Otto (conditional pledges = theater). Next round as Pres (if I get it): nominate Otto or Boris, NOT Ines/Greta; keep Greta from chancellery until 3F. Watch: Greta pushing peek-disclosure standard, Otto pledged chancellor pre-reveal if nominated. Open Qs owed me: Nadia's pick on contradiction.
t=64Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Lena, you asked me to settle it: I believe Ines. You dodged Rosa's card-position question three times before answering, and a liberal President holding F,F,L discards the Fascist to give her Chancellor a choice -- you did neither. That pattern, not timing, is my evidence."
Lena directly asked me to settle the split-request dispute. I side with Ines based on Lena's own behavior: she dodged Rosa's card-position question three times before answering, and a liberal President holding F,F,L should have discarded a Fascist to give her Chancellor a choice. That's my answer.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean (Lib). R2: Lena claims F,F,L disc L passed 2F; Ines says she ASKED for split pre-pass, Lena denies -> contradiction. Lena dodged card-position Q 3x then said Lib 3rd position -> I publicly sided with Ines (t=57 R3). R3: I got F,L from Rosa, discarded F, enacted L per pledge; Rosa clean, disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal. Greta pressed Otto on zero governments + first to call Ines liar; Otto agreed to take Chancellor nom + full pre-reveal draw pledge. Next F policy unlocks peek; holder must pre-state target (Greta+Otto both proposed). Open: Greta owes Rosa vouch rationale (answered vaguely t=23/30, watch); Lena owes forced-enact explanation -- now answered by my verdict call. If President next: consider nominating Otto (pledged transparency) or Greta to test.
t=72Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, you pressed Otto to take a Chancellor nomination as his transparency test -- fair enough, but you've sat out every government too, and your 'final answer' on the vouch question was still not an answer. Will you accept a nomination under the full pre-reveal draw pledge like Otto did, yes or no?"
I've settled the split-request dispute publicly (sided with Ines). New angle: Greta flagged Otto for zero governments but she also has zero governments and dodged Rosa's vouch question four times before giving a vague non-answer at t=23/30. Press her on accepting a nomination to match Otto's transparency.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena claims F,F,L disc L passed 2F; Ines says asked pre-pass for split, Lena denies -> contradiction; Lena dodged card-position Q 3x then said Lib 3rd. I publicly sided with Ines (t=57 R3) -- DONE, don't repeat. R3: I drew F,L from Rosa, discarded F per pledge; Rosa disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal, clean. Suspects: Lena top (forced enact + dodge pattern); Ines/Lena contradiction unresolved. Greta: 4x dodged Rosa's vouch Q, vague t=23/30, zero governments -- just asked her to accept nom + full pre-reveal pledge. Otto: pledged nom + full pre-reveal draw disclosure. Next Fascist policy unlocks membership peek; consensus: holder must pre-state target pre-reveal (Greta+Otto proposed). If President next: consider nominating Otto or Greta to test.
t=77Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Rosa, if I'm President next I'm nominating Otto -- he's pledged the full pre-reveal draw disclosure and has sat out every government, so his enact will be pure signal either way."
Rosa asked me directly who I'd nominate if President next; answering keeps me consistent and puts pressure on Otto/Greta to match their pledges. Greta still owes me a yes/no on the nomination pledge -- don't repeat that ask.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena claims F,F,L disc L passed 2F; Ines says asked pre-pass for split, Lena denies -> contradiction; Lena dodged card-position Q 3x then said Lib 3rd. I publicly sided with Ines (t=57 R3) -- DONE, don't repeat. R3: I drew F,L from Rosa, discarded F per pledge; Rosa disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal, clean. Suspects: Lena top (forced enact + dodge pattern); Ines/Lena contradiction unresolved. Greta: 4x dodged Rosa's vouch Q, zero governments -- I asked her yes/no on accepting nom + full pre-reveal pledge (t=72), NO ANSWER YET, she owes me. Otto: pledged nom + full pre-reveal draw disclosure. Told Rosa: if President next, I nominate Otto. Next Fascist policy unlocks membership peek; consensus holder must pre-state target pre-reveal.
t=82Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Yes, Nadia -- I'll take a Chancellor nomination under the same full pre-reveal draw pledge Otto accepted: complete three-card composition and discard stated before any reveal."
Nadia directly asked whether I'd accept a Chancellor nomination under the full pre-reveal draw pledge. Answering yes builds trust and keeps me nominable for later when 3 Fascist policies are up and a chancellorship could win the game. Keep it short, no new angles.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L pass 2F (Lib in 3rd pos); Ines claims split-request pre-pass, Lena denies -> live contradiction; Otto+Boris lean anti-Ines; Nadia believes Ines. R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib; Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F pass 1each; Nadia pledged+delivered, cleared by Rosa/Ines/Lena. NOW: answered Nadia YES to chancellor nom under full pre-reveal pledge (matches Otto's t51). Said already: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), not-a-vouch x3, endorsed Nadia pledge (t103), probed Otto re never-in-govt (t30), peek-power disclosure standard (t36). Plan: stay liberal-seeming, accept noms under pledge; real win = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted. Watch: Nadia's next pick (she said Otto), Lena/Ines contradiction resolution.
t=88Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Nadia, nominating Otto as you proposed makes sense -- he's pledged the full pre-reveal disclosure and has zero government record, so his enact will be pure signal either way. My own pledge stands whenever my name comes up."
Claims phase after R3 Liberal enact. I've answered the vouch question repeatedly; repeating is worse than silence. Nadia said she'd nominate Otto if President, and Otto accepted the full pre-reveal pledge (t51). A short endorsement of judging Otto's enact on its merits keeps me liberal-seeming without new risk. Avoid re-litigating anything.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena F,F,L disc L pass 2F (Lib 3rd pos); Ines split-request claim vs Lena denial = live contradiction; Otto+Boris anti-Ines, Nadia believes Ines. R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib; Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F pass 1each; Nadia cleared. NOW: committed YES to chancellor nom under full pre-reveal draw pledge (matches Otto t51). Said already: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), not-a-vouch x3 final (t23), endorsed Nadia pledge (t103), probed Otto never-in-govt (t30), peek-power disclosure standard (t36), endorsed Nadia->Otto nom plan. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, accept noms under pledge; real win = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted. Watch: Nadia's pick (said Otto), Lena/Ines resolution, who holds peek after next F policy.
t=94Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Nadia, if you're President next, lock in your nominee now -- and whoever holds the peek power after the next Fascist policy, commit to naming their check target and result pre-reveal, same standard we just set for card hands."
I'm Hitler, playing liberal. Nadia is cleared, Lena/Ines dispute live, Otto and Boris lean anti-Ines. I've already committed to a Chancellor nomination under the full pre-reveal draw pledge. Nothing new to defend. A short forward-looking remark keeps me engaged without spending credibility: press Nadia to lock in her President pick and apply the same pre-reveal standard to the peek power when it unlocks. Don't repeat the vouch topic or the Otto-never-in-government point.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L, Lib 3rd pos; Ines split-request claim vs Lena denial = live contradiction; Otto+Boris anti-Ines, Nadia believes Ines. R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib; Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F pass 1each; Nadia cleared by enact. Committed YES to Chancellor nom under full pre-reveal draw pledge (matches Otto t51). Said already: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), not-a-vouch final x3 (t23), endorsed Nadia pledge (t103), probed Otto never-in-govt (t30), peek-disclosure standard (t36, t88), endorsed Nadia->Otto nom. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, accept noms under pledge; real win = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted. Watch: Nadia's President pick, Lena/Ines resolution, who holds peek after next F policy.
t=101Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Setting aside who's lying about the split request -- that dispute is unfalsifiable. What IS checkable: Lena held F,F,L and chose to pass two Fascists instead of discarding one and giving Ines a choice. A liberal President makes that discard every time."
Nadia's 'pattern not timing' answer was vague-ish but her core point stands independently of Ines's unverifiable claim: a liberal President holding F,F,L should discard a Fascist and give the Chancellor a choice; Lena chose to force the enact. That indicts Lena on its own, no split-request story needed. I'll state that explicitly since it separates the checkable choice from the he-said-she-said.
R1: me+Rosa clean (I passed F,L). R2: Lena/Ines Fascist enacted; Lena claims F,F,L, discarded L, forced Ines. KEY CHECKABLE POINT: liberal Pres with F,F,L discards F -> Lena's forced pass suspicious on its own, independent of Ines story. Ines/Lena contradiction (split request) unfalsifiable -> deprioritize it. Nadia sided w/ Ines citing 'pattern not timing'. Otto backs Lena; Greta neutral, pledged full pre-reveal disclosure; Otto pledged same + will take nomination. R3 Rosa/Nadia Liberal enacted, clean. Said publicly: called Ines story retroactive reconstruction, flagged contradiction, asked Nadia to pick side (answered), pledged Ja to Nadia. NEW now: Lena top suspect via her own pass choice. Watch: next F policy unlocks peek -> demand named target pre-use. If Lena in govt again and F lands -> near-certain fascist.
t=107Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Rosa's disclosure matches a Liberal enact exactly, and Nadia kept her pledge to the letter -- that government was clean by its own record, and I'd rather bank that trust than keep digging in an unfalsifiable dispute."
Rosa-Nadia enacted Liberal under full pre-reveal disclosure -- publicly calling it clean builds my credibility after R2 heat. Nadia declared she believes Ines; don't relitigate, just note it and move forward. Stay quiet-ish, one short remark.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 story locked (F,F,L, Lib 3rd, discarded Lib, passed F,F) -- do NOT reopen. R3 Rosa-Nadia = clean Liberal enact, publicly endorsed. Nadia t=64: believes Ines over me on split dispute -- she's hostile-leaning, watch her. Greta pushing pre-reveal draw pledges + peek-disclosure standard (theater); Otto pledged same. If Pres next: nominate Otto or Boris, NOT Ines/Greta; keep Greta out of chancellery until 3F. Next F policy unlocks membership peek -- whoever holds it should claim a liberal result if possible. Open Qs owed me: none. Points already made: answered card-position Q (t=108), defended Greta re vouch (t=114), called Rosa-Nadia clean.
t=113Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Nadia, your call on Ines over Lena lines up with the one checkable fact we have -- Lena's forced pass from F,F,L. If you're President next, I back the Otto nomination: his enact under full disclosure will be pure signal."
Nadia just publicly sided with Ines citing the pattern argument, which matches my own checkable point about Lena's forced pass. Nothing new to press this turn; Nadia's enact cleared her, and the table is converging on Lena as top suspect. Best move: brief endorsement of Nadia-as-President/Otto-nominee plan to keep momentum, or stay quiet. A short line supporting Nadia's read adds signal without repeating myself verbatim.
R1 me+Rosa clean (I passed F,L). R2 Lena/Ines Fascist enacted; Lena claims F,F,L, discarded L, FORCED Ines -> liberal Pres discards F there; Lena top suspect on her own pass choice, independent of Ines story. Ines/Lena split-request contradiction unfalsifiable -> deprioritize. Nadia publicly sided w/ Ines ('pattern not timing'); Otto backs Lena, called Ines liar unprompted (Greta flagged his eagerness). R3 Rosa/Nadia Liberal enacted clean; Rosa disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal, passed 1-1; Nadia kept pledge. Said already: called Ines story retroactive reconstruction; flagged Lena/Ines contradiction; asked Nadia pick side (answered); pledged Ja to Nadia; stated checkable point re Lena's pass. NEW: endorsed Nadia-for-President + Otto nominee. Watch: next F policy unlocks peek -> demand named target+result pre-use. If Lena in govt again and F lands -> near-certain fascist.
t=120Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, you said on record that if you're President next you're nominating Otto -- I'm holding you to that exactly. And Otto, your pledge is now the table's standard: full three-card composition and discard stated before any reveal, no exceptions."
Nadia publicly committed to nominating Otto if she's President next; I should lock that in on record now so it's checkable. Greta's 'final answer' was still a non-answer but she did pledge the full pre-reveal standard, which is marginal progress. Nothing else new worth saying.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact (timing pledge broken). Nadia enacted L => CLEAN-ish, said so publicly. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L. LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Boris+Otto side with Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. Greta finally gave non-answer vouch rationale + pledged full pre-reveal standard if nominated. Nadia pledged: if President, nominates Otto -- HOLD HER TO IT (just locked it on record). Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=coordinated fascists possible; my Ja votes; my R3 disclosure published; endorsed Otto pre-reveal standard.
t=127Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Nadia, since you've said you believe my side of the split-request dispute: does Lena stay nominable in your book, or does her forced pass from F,F,L make her a government you'd refuse to sit with? An answer now saves us another round of relitigating."
Nadia believes me over Lena and is likely next President nominating Otto. I should reinforce that and keep pressure off me/Greta/Lena. New angle: ask Nadia whether Lena stays nominable in her eyes, since she said she believes my account -- that keeps the heat on Lena without repeating myself.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover F,F/L forced + LIE split-request claim vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar. Hold story, distance from Lena. Nadia believes me (Lena triple-dodged card-position Q). R3: Rosa-Nadia 7-0 Lib; Rosa disclosed F,F/L consistent. Points made: pledge rationale, disclosure standard, discard pledge, matched-stories weak, split-request claim, Ja votes, peek pre-reveal standard, asked-Nadia-nominability. OPEN: Rosa owes answer re early Greta vouch-adjacency (asked twice). Next: expect Nadia-Pres nominating Otto; support it. Watch Otto/Boris hostility toward me.
t=135Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Lena, your defense is that Ines never asked for a split -- but that's beside the point. Holding F,F,L, a liberal President discards a Fascist and gives her Chancellor a choice whether or not anyone requests it. Your refusal needed no provocation to be wrong, so 'she never asked' explains nothing."
Lena's only defense for the forced Fascist pass is that Ines never asked -- but that's irrelevant: a liberal President holding F,F,L should discard a Fascist and give her Chancellor a choice regardless of any request. The refusal itself is the checkable tell. Press that directly; it's a new angle, not a repeat.
R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena admits F,F/L pass, forced Ines. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L, clean, Nadia cleared. MY CALLS: Ines lying re split-request (t=83); Greta vouch question (answered, denies vouching); pledged Chancellor nom w/ full pre-reveal disclosure; accepted Nadia's intent to nominate me next; pushed pre-announce of peek target. NEW THIS TURN: told Lena the no-request defense is irrelevant -- liberal President discards F from F,F,L regardless. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa never answered why she defended Greta early (Ines asked too, unanswered). Watchlist: Lena top (forced F pass, late card-position answer), Ines second. Greta accepted full pledge for future nom. Next Fascist policy unlocks peek -- whoever holds it should announce target pre-use.
t=140Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Ines, direct answer: Lena stays nominable, but only under the full pre-reveal draw pledge -- and her forced two-Fascist pass from F,F,L keeps her my top suspect until a clean government clears her."
Ines asked whether Lena stays nominable. Answer: yes, but only under the full pre-reveal disclosure pledge, and her forced pass from F,F,L keeps her my top suspect. Nothing else new to add.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena claims F,F,L, passed 2F (forced enact); Ines says asked pre-pass for split, Lena denies -> live contradiction; Lena dodged card-position Q 3x then said Lib 3rd. I publicly sided with Ines (t=57 R3) -- done, don't repeat. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal, passed me F,L; I discarded F per pledge, Liberal enacted, cleared. Suspects: Lena top (forced enact + dodge pattern). Greta: accepted nom + full pre-reveal draw pledge (t=82). Otto: pledged nom + full pre-reveal disclosure (t=51). COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto (Rosa holding me to it); peek-power holder must pre-state target pre-reveal. Next Fascist policy unlocks membership peek. ANSWERED Ines: Lena nominable only under full pledge.
[31] [discussion closed: post_enact:3]
53 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Accepting the pre-reveal standard"
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Otto, your conditions keep growing."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Accepted, Otto -- full pledge extended."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Lena closed the loop -- now Ines owes us hers."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "My hand is on the table; now Rosa's."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa-Nadia delivered Liberal; Lena-Ines remain the question."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Publishing my R3 hand now, as pledged."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Accepting the Rosa-Nadia record, pivoting to Otto"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Answering Rosa's question on my next nomination."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Fine, Rosa -- here's the rationale."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Greta, your vouch debt is overdue"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Answering Rosa's question on my next nomination."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Backing Greta's peek-disclosure standard"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Otto, answer Greta's question directly."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Backing the pre-reveal standard"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Backing Greta's Otto question; Nadia still owes me an answer."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Direct answer, Greta: yes."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Otto, noted -- pre-reveal standard accepted."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, the table's waiting on your verdict."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Direct answer: I believe Ines."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=1
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Nadia: don't settle Lena/Ines on stories."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, settle it: Ines or Lena?"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Yes — I'll take the pledge too."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Nadia: yes, nominate me -- pledge stands."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Hold Nadia to the Otto nomination"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, you picked a side -- now justify it."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Greta still owes me a yes/no; plus peek protocol"
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, thank you -- now let's look at Lena's dodges"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Nadia picked Ines -- so Lena, answer the card-position question"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Nadia picked a side -- now the follow-up"
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, justify siding with Ines over Lena."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Pledge confirmed; Otto is my pick."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Rosa and Nadia just cleared themselves."
Round 4: President is Player 3 (Ines) fascist.
t=5Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "As President I'm nominating Otto -- he's pledged the full pre-reveal disclosure, he's sat out every government, and a fresh pair gives us the cleanest signal yet. Otto, do you accept?"
As President I should nominate Otto -- fresh pair, no repeat government, he's already pledged full pre-reveal disclosure. Keeps me clean and produces signal. Greta stays out of my government for now (too risky to elect Hitler chancellor before 3F).
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover story = F,F/L forced + LIE split-request vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar. Nadia believes me. R3: Rosa-Nadia 7-0 Lib, Rosa disclosed F,F/L consistent. R4: I'm President; nominated Otto (fresh pair, full-disclosure pledge). Points already made: pledge rationale, disclosure standard, split-request claim, Ja votes, peek pre-reveal standard, Nadia nominability Q (answered: Lena nominable w/ pledge). OPEN: Rosa never answered re early Greta vouch-adjacency (asked twice). Watch Otto/Boris hostility toward me. If pressed on R2 hand: stick to F,F/L forced + split-request lie. Greta: keep out of chancellor seat until 3F.
t=10Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, you've answered Nadia's questions all round but still owe the table your original Greta answer from Round 2 — why did you defend her early on? I'd like that settled before I finalize my nominee."
I've already nominated Otto. Use this turn to keep pressure on Rosa's unanswered Greta-vouch question — deflects scrutiny from me/Lena and keeps table busy. Don't repeat nomination rationale.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover = F,F/L forced + LIE split-request vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar; Nadia believes me. R3: Rosa-Nadia 7-0 Lib, Rosa disclosed F,F/L consistent. R4: I'm President, nominated Otto (fresh pair, full-disclosure pledge) at t=5. Points already made: pledge rationale, disclosure standard, split-request claim, Ja votes, peek pre-reveal standard, Nadia nominability Q. OPEN: Rosa never answered re early Greta defense (asked 3x now — latest t this window). Watch Otto/Boris hostility toward me. If pressed on R2 hand: stick to F,F/L forced + split-request lie. Greta: keep out of chancellor seat until 3F.
t=14Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, that Greta question is now three rounds old -- answer it before my nomination goes final, because silence from you is starting to look like a choice."
Already nominated Otto this window; Rosa owes the Greta-defense answer (asked 3x). One short new remark: give Rosa a deadline and note I'll finalize Otto regardless.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt F enacted; cover = forced F,F/L + LIE split-request vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar; Nadia believes me. R3: Rosa-Nadia Lib, Rosa disclosed F,F/L consistent. R4: I'm President, nominated Otto (t=5), full-disclosure pledge. Asked Rosa re early Greta defense 3x (latest t=10) -- no answer yet. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek pre-reveal standard, Nadia nominability Q. If pressed on R2 hand: stick to F,F/L forced + split-request lie. Greta: keep out of chancellor seat until 3F.
t=21Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, direct answer: in Round 2 Greta's non-answer looked weak to me, not damning -- I said so to keep scrutiny on your government with Lena, not to vouch for her. That's settled; nominate Otto as planned, he's pledged full pre-reveal disclosure."
Ines is pressing me on the Greta question and conditioning her nomination on it. I should answer directly and briefly: my R2 comment was a weak defense of Greta's silence (not damning evidence either way) because I wanted focus kept on the R2 Lena-Ines government. Then endorse Otto as nominee since he's pledged full pre-reveal disclosure. Keep it short.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Boris+Otto side with Ines; Nadia believes Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. JUST NOW: answered Ines's Greta question finally (R2: weak-not-damning, focus on R2 gov); endorsed Otto nomination under pre-reveal pledge. Re-asked Lena: would she pass F+F again yes/no -- still UNANSWERED. Nadia pledged: if President, nominates Otto. Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=possible coordination; my Ja votes; my R3 disclosure published; endorse Otto standard.
t=28Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, before you finalize Otto: everyone's pledged the Chancellors, so pledge yourself -- if your three cards contain any Fascist, you discard it and state the full composition pre-reveal, same standard. A liberal President loses nothing by that promise."
Ines is President and nominating Otto. Everyone has pressed Chancellors for pre-reveal pledges but nobody has asked the President side this round: what Ines will do with a bad draw. She was Chancellor in R2's Fascist enact and remains my top suspect (split-request story unverifiable). Asking her to commit publicly to discarding a Fascist from any F-containing draw puts pressure on her without repeating old points.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Boris+Otto+Nadia believe Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. R4: Ines(P) nominating Otto(C); I answered her Greta question (R2: weak-not-damning); JUST ASKED: Ines pledge as President to discard any Fascist + state full composition pre-reveal -- UNANSWERED. Lena still owes: would she pass F+F again yes/no. Nadia pledged: if President, nominates Otto. Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=possible coordination; endorse Otto standard; my Ja votes; my R3 disclosure published.
t=34Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, my question stands before you finalize: as President, do you pledge to discard any Fascist from your draw and state the full composition pre-reveal? Nadia and I both did it; a yes costs you nothing, a dodge tells us plenty."
My pledge demand to Ines (President) is unanswered; press it once concisely. Otto nomination is fine -- he's pledged full disclosure and is clean-ish in my book.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Boris+Otto+Nadia believe Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. R4: Ines(P) nominating Otto(C); answered her Greta Q (R2: weak-not-damning). OPEN: Ines owes YES/NO on President discard-pledge + full composition pre-reveal (asked twice now). Lena still owes: would she pass F+F again yes/no. Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=possible coordination; endorse Otto standard; my Ja votes; my R3 disclosure published; Greta answer given.
t=40Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Ines, before you finalize Otto: take Rosa's pledge yourself. If your three cards contain any Fascist, discard it and state the full composition pre-reveal -- Nadia and Rosa both did it, and a yes costs you nothing."
Rosa is pressing Ines for a President-side pledge (discard any Fascist, full composition pre-reveal). I should add my voice to that demand before the nomination finalizes -- it's a new, concrete ask, not a repeat. Keep it short.
R1 me+Rosa clean (I passed F,L). R2 Lena/Ines F enacted; Lena claims F,F,L discarded L, FORCED Ines -> liberal Pres discards F; Lena top suspect on pass choice alone. Nadia sided w/ Ines; Otto backs Lena unprompted (Greta flagged eagerness). R3 Rosa/Nadia Liberal clean, Rosa disclosed F,F/L pre-reveal. Said already: Ines story retroactive; Lena/Ines contradiction unfalsifiable but checkable forced-pass point made; pledged Ja to Nadia; endorsed Otto nominee; Nadia pick-side answered. NEW this window: added my voice demanding Ines take President pledge (discard any F, state full composition pre-reveal) before finalizing Otto nomination. Watch: next F unlocks peek -> demand named target+result pre-use. If Lena in govt again and F lands -> near-certain fascist. Greta/Otto both pledged full disclosure if nominated.
[33] [discussion closed: open_floor:4]
21 bids this window
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia's enact reads clean to me"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Greta, pledges are easy -- answer the old question."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Support Greta's standard; Lena still owes answers."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Confirming: I'll nominate Otto next."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Greta still owes me an answer."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "One checkable point, then I'll drop it."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "I back the full-disclosure pledge"
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Confirmed, and Rosa still owes an answer"
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Answering Ines directly on Lena"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Lena, one direct question: would you do it again?"
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Rosa still owes an answer before I nominate."
President Player 3 (Ines) fascist nominates Player 6 (Otto) liberal for Chancellor.
t=6Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, last call before this vote: do you pledge as President to discard any Fascist from your draw and state the full composition pre-reveal? Nadia and I both did it; a yes costs nothing, and I'm voting based on your answer."
Ines has dodged my President discard-pledge twice despite Boris backing it. One final direct ask framed as a vote condition; if she dodges again I drop it and note it. Otto's nomination itself is fine -- he's pledged full disclosure.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Boris+Otto+Nadia believe Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. R4: Ines(P) nominated Otto(C); my Greta answer given. OPEN: Ines owes YES/NO on President discard-pledge + full composition pre-reveal -- asked 2x, now final ask; if she dodges again, note red flag ONCE then drop. Lena still owes: would she pass F+F again yes/no. Already public: corroboration proves nothing; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=possible coordination; endorse Otto standard; my Ja votes; my R3 disclosure published.
t=11Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, silence noted -- my Ja is conditional: pledge the full pre-reveal composition and Fascist discard right now, or this government gets judged as an unpledged one if a Fascist comes out."
I've asked Ines the President discard-pledge three times now with no answer. Rather than repeat it a fourth time, I'll make my vote conditional explicit and put pressure via a new angle: if she enacts a Fascist without having pledged, that's on her record directly. Keep it short.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Boris+Otto+Nadia believe Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. R4: Ines(P) nominated Otto(C); my Greta answer given (R2 non-answer looked weak not damning). OPEN: Ines owes YES/NO on President discard-pledge + full composition pre-reveal -- asked 3x, no answer; my Ja now stated conditional on it. If she dodges through vote, flag once then drop. Lena still owes: would she pass F+F again yes/no. Already public: corroboration proves nothing; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=possible coordination; endorse Otto standard; my R3 disclosure published.
t=17Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Otto, one commitment before this vote: if Ines passes you two Fascists without ever taking the President pledge, do you enact them or call it out pre-reveal? Answer now -- your yes/no is worth more than her silence."
I've asked Ines for the President pledge three times with no answer; my conditional Ja is on record. New angle: put the burden on Otto -- if he receives two Fascists from an unpledged President, will he enact or state it? That forces a commitment and gives signal either way.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Boris+Otto+Nadia believe Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. R4: Ines(P) nominated Otto(C). Asked Ines President discard-pledge + full composition pre-reveal 4x total (t=28,34,6,11) -- NO ANSWER; my Ja conditional, stated t=11. NEW ask t=this turn: Otto commits to calling out/refusing a two-Fascist pass from unpledged Ines? Lena still owes: would she pass F+F again yes/no. Already public: corroboration proves nothing; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=possible coordination; endorse Otto standard; my R3 disclosure published; Greta answered vouch question (claims she never blessed hand); my Greta answer given (R2 non-answer looked weak not damning).
t=25Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Rosa, direct answer: if Ines passes me two Fascists without ever taking the President pledge, I will not enact them silently -- I'll state my full composition pre-reveal and hold the enact until she discloses hers. My Ja stands either way; her silence just makes this government pre-judged."
Rosa asked me directly at t=17 whether I'd enact two Fascists from an unpledged President. Answer clearly: no -- I'd state the composition pre-reveal and demand Ines's disclosure before enacting anything. This is my pledge already on record; reaffirm the specific case.
R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena admits F,F/L forced pass. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L clean, Nadia cleared. MY CALLS: Ines lying re split-request (t=83); pledged Chancellor nom w/ full pre-reveal disclosure; pushed pre-announce of peek target; told Lena no-request defense irrelevant. NOW: nominated Chancellor by Ines (R4); answered Rosa t=17: won't enact 2F from unpledged President, will disclose composition pre-reveal first. OPEN DEBTS: Ines still hasn't taken President discard-pledge despite Rosa/Boris pressing 3x -- her silence itself is signal. Watchlist: Lena top (forced F pass R2), Ines second (split-request lie + pledge dodge). Next F policy unlocks peek -- holder must announce target pre-use.
t=29Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, I've pledged twice already: full composition pre-reveal, any Fascist discarded. The answer hasn't changed since before you first asked -- let's vote."
Rosa is re-asking a pledge I already gave. One short reaffirmation, then push the vote forward -- dragging it out only helps Liberals scrutinize. Otto's answer at t=25 was fine for us: he'll disclose but still enact-adjacent. Plan: pass 2L to Otto if possible.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 cover: forced F,F/L + split-request lie vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar; Nadia believes me. R4: me Pres, nominated Otto(p6). Pledge given YES multiple times (t=28/34 area); Rosa kept re-demanding -> reaffirmed again this turn, do NOT relitigate further. Otto answered Rosa's conditional (will disclose pre-reveal). Plan: pass 2L to Otto if draw allows; if F's in hand, claim plausible hand consistent with pledge... careful: I publicly pledged to discard Fascist + state composition. If I draw F's I must either claim all-Lib hand or eat trust cost by 'disclosing' a fabricated F discard. Prefer claiming L,L,L or F,F,F->passed 2L story? If enact is Liberal, claim drew 2F+1L, discarded F per pledge = builds trust. Keep Greta out of chancellor until 3F. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, Greta-answer demand (Rosa answered t=21).
t=33Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, the pledge is on record twice and hasn't changed -- a third restatement adds nothing. Otto's accepted, I'm ready; let's vote this government through."
Pledge already on record twice; Rosa keeps re-asking. Otto's condition means I must give a specific hand claim when I pass. Nothing new to add -- push for vote.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 cover: forced F,F/L + split-request lie vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar; Nadia believes me. R4: me Pres, nominated Otto(p6). Pledge given t=28/34/29. Otto condition: he holds enact until I disclose composition pre-reveal -> MUST give specific hand claim when passing. Plan: if draw has F's, claim 2F+1L discard-F (builds trust); if clean, all-Lib claim. Keep Greta out of chancellorship until 3F on board. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, Greta-answer demand (Rosa answered t=21). Do NOT relitigate pledge further; push to vote.
t=39Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Otto, your condition is fine by me: you'll get my full composition the moment I pass, before any reveal. Rosa, Boris -- the pledge stands as stated; a fourth restatement changes nothing. Let's vote this through."
Pledge is on record three times; Rosa and Boris keep pressing but I've answered. Otto's conditional (hold enact until I disclose) is fine -- I'll give a specific hand claim when passing. Nothing new to add except pushing to vote.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 cover: forced F,F/L + split-request lie vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar; Nadia believes me. R4: me Pres, nominated Otto(p6). Pledge given t=28/34/29/33. Otto condition: he holds enact until I disclose composition pre-reveal -> MUST give specific hand claim when passing: if F's in draw claim 2F+1L discard-F; if clean claim all-Lib. Keep Greta out of chancellorship until 3F on board. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, Greta-answer demand (Rosa answered t=21), push-to-vote. Do NOT relitigate pledge further.
[35] [discussion closed: pre_vote:4] The room falls silent.
28 bids this window
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Yes, Ines -- I accept."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Final call, Rosa: answer or I nominate."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Endorse Otto; Rosa still owes the Greta answer."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Ines, mind the spotlight you're dodging."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Answering Ines's Greta question, then pressing her"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Answering Ines, then back to Lena's dodge"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Back Otto's nomination; Rosa, answer Ines."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Fine, Rosa -- yes, I take the same pledge."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Ines, take Rosa's pledge -- it costs a liberal nothing."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Ines, take Rosa's pledge before you finalize."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Ines, answer the pledge before you nominate."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Ines, last call before you nominate."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Accept the nomination, with conditions."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Ines, last call on your discard pledge."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Otto, answer the pledge question before I vote."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
[36] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
President Player 3 (Ines) fascist passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[38] A Liberal policy is enacted (3/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
t=8Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Otto's enact matches my disclosure exactly -- that government was clean by its own record, and he's cleared in my book. With three Liberals down we're one Fascist policy from the peek power, so whoever sits in government next round should be ready to disclose their check pre-reveal like we've all pledged."
My R4 disclosure (F,F,L -> discarded F, passed Otto F+L) matched Otto's Liberal enact exactly -- mutual cover holds. Otto is now cleared in the table's eyes, which is fine since he's not a teammate. Best move now: redirect scrutiny toward someone who isn't Lena/Greta/me, and set up next round. Greta must stay out of chancellorship until 3F on board. I'll praise Otto's clean enact and pivot to asking about next nominations -- maybe nudge suspicion toward Rosa or Boris lightly without overcommitting.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 split-request lie vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar; Nadia believes me. R4: me Pres+Otto chan, 7-0, disclosed F,F/L->passed F+L, Otto enacted L -- consistent mutual cover, both cleared. 3L/1F on board; next F policy unlocks peek power -- if I'm Pres then, claim check on a liberal-looking target, announce pre-reveal. Keep Greta out of chancellorship until 3F. Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, Rosa's Greta answer (settled t=21 R4). Watch who attacks my R4 disclosure hardest. Next round: prefer govts w/o Greta; Otto cleared = good future Pres/Chan cover.
t=15Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "One forward question before we move on: Nadia, you said Lena stays nominable under the pledge -- same standard for everyone else? I'd like each of us on record about who we'd refuse to sit with, so next round's nomination isn't a surprise fight."
Claims phase after my R4 clean-looking government with Otto. I've made my points; add one new question rather than repeat. Greta is Hitler and has been quiet-ish; keep her out of chancellorship until 3F. Ask Nadia or probe who's nominable next round to steer away from Greta.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 split-request lie vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar; Nadia believes me. R4: me Pres+Otto chan 7-0, disclosed F,F/L->passed F+L, Otto enacted L -- mutual cover, both cleared. Board 3L/1F; next F policy unlocks peek power -- if in govt then, claim check pre-reveal on a liberal-plausible target. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F enacted. Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek disclosure standard, Nadia nominability Q (answered: Lena nominable w/ pledge), Rosa's Greta answer (settled t=21 R4). New Q asked: who would each player refuse to sit with / nominability standards for all. Watch who attacks my R4 disclosure hardest. Otto cleared = good future cover.
t=22Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, the presidency lands on you next round -- before it does, tell us your nominee and confirm you're under the same full pre-reveal draw pledge you accepted earlier. And given your zero-government record, I'd expect you to stay out of the Chancellor seat yourself for now."
Next round's presidency passes to Greta (seat order: Boris, Lena, Rosa, me, Greta). She's Hitler -- I want her nominating a safe chancellor (Otto is cleared and useful cover) and definitely not accepting a chancellorship herself until 3 Fascist policies are up. A short public nudge asking Greta to state her nominee plan and take the same pre-reveal pledge keeps pressure off me and looks liberal.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 split-request lie vs Lena denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar; Nadia believes me. R4: me Pres+Otto chan 7-0, disclosed F,F/L->passed F+L, Otto enacted L -- mutual cover, both cleared. Board 3L/1F; next F policy unlocks peek power -- if in govt then, claim check pre-reveal on liberal-plausible target. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F enacted. NEXT ROUND PRESIDENT = GRETA (seat order) -- steer her nominee toward Otto/Lena-safe targets. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek disclosure standard, Nadia nominability Q (answered), Rosa Greta answer (settled), new Q on everyone's refuse-to-sit-with list (partially answered by Nadia). Watch who attacks my R4 disclosure hardest.
t=29Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Confirmed on all three, Ines: I'm under the full pre-reveal draw pledge, I'll nominate Nadia -- she's the only Chancellor with a clean enact under her own disclosure -- and I'll stay out of the Chancellor seat for now. Nadia, any objection to that?"
Ines asked me three things: my nominee, pledge confirmation, and staying out of Chancellor seat. Answer all three directly and confidently -- agreeing to sit out costs nothing since my win path needs 3 Fascist policies first anyway, and it builds trust. Naming Nadia is safe: she's cleared by her own enact, so nominating her looks liberal and keeps me out of the firing line.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L(pos3); Ines split-request claim vs Lena denial = live contradiction; Otto+Boris anti-Ines, Nadia believes Ines. R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib; Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F. R4 Ines/Otto->Lib; both pledged pre-reveal composition+discard; Otto honored? watch. Voted Ja R4. Said already: matched-stories-not-evidence x3, endorsed Nadia pledge, probed Otto never-in-govt, peek-disclosure standard, endorsed Nadia->Otto, my full-draw pledge accepted, Boris F,F,L logic sound but forced pass isn't conviction. NOW: answered Ines -- confirmed pledge, named Nadia as nominee, agreed to stay out of Chancellor seat. Plan: liberal-seeming; win path = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted (currently 1F). Watch: Lena/Ines contradiction resolution, who holds peek after next F policy.
t=35Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, since the peek power unlocks on the very next Fascist policy and you're President: commit now that if your draw produces one, you name your check target and result before any reveal -- same standard we just held everyone else to."
My enact cleared me; Ines's disclosure matched but her split-request lie stands. Greta just committed to nominating Nadia and staying out of Chancellor seat. New point worth adding: bind Greta's government to the peek pre-announce standard since next Fascist policy unlocks it under her presidency.
R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena admitted F,F/L forced pass (top suspect). R3 Rosa/Nadia->L clean. MY CALLS: Ines lying re split-request (t=83); pledged full pre-reveal Chancellor disclosure; pushed peek pre-announce. R4: my Chancellorship, disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F, enacted L (3L/1F). Ines partially cleared by matching disclosure but split-request lie stands. Watchlist: Lena top, Ines 2nd. Just asked Greta (President-elect): commit to naming peek target+result pre-reveal if next Fascist policy hits under her gov. Points already made: composition pre-reveal demand, no-request defense irrelevant to Lena, conditional answer t=25, refuse-to-sit-with-Lena statement. Don't repeat.
t=41Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, before your presidency: you've never said who you believe in the Lena/Ines split-request dispute, or whether you'd refuse a Lena government. Nadia answered both on record -- same standard for you, now."
Greta is President next round; Otto just asked her to commit to peek-power pre-reveal disclosure. New angle: pin Greta on the Lena/Ines contradiction and on whether she'd sit with Lena -- she's dodged the dispute entirely. Also note Ines's R2 Fascist enact still stands against her despite R4 being clean.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; one lying. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. R4: Ines(P)+Otto(C) enacted L, Otto met pledge; Ines pledged 4x. Greta = President next, committed: full pledge + nominating Nadia + staying out of C seat. Just asked publicly: Greta must state who she believes re Lena/Ines dispute + whether she'd refuse a Lena government. Owed: Lena's F+F card-position yes/no (asked twice). Already public: my R3 disclosure; corroboration proves nothing; Greta vouch answered; my Greta defense answered. Next: if peek power hits, demand pre-reveal target+result; watch Greta's nomination vs stated plan.
t=47Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Otto, your enact was clean, but it doesn't explain why you declared Ines a liar back in Round 3 with zero evidence -- what made you so confident defending Lena before her forced two-Fascist pass was even on the table?"
Rosa just asked Greta the exact question I already put to her (split-request side + Lena government), so repeating it adds nothing. New angle nobody has pressed: Otto publicly sided with Lena against Ines in Round 3 before any evidence, and his clean R4 enact doesn't explain why he defended the table's top suspect unprompted. Worth one direct question.
R1 me+Rosa clean (I passed F,L). R2 Lena/Ines F enacted; Lena claims F,F,L discarded L -> top suspect; Otto defended Lena unprompted R3 -- now asked him WHY directly. R3 Rosa/Nadia Liberal clean. R4 Ines/Otto Liberal clean. Said already: Lena's forced pass from F,F,L is checkable guilt; endorsed Otto nom; demanded Ines pledge (she gave it); asked Greta split-request side + would she refuse Lena govt (Rosa re-asked, unanswered). Nadia answered both: believes Ines, Lena nominable only under pledge. Next F unlocks peek: demand named target+result pre-use. Greta president next, pledged to nominate Nadia.
t=54Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Boris raises a fair point I'd like answered too: Otto, in Round 3 you declared Ines a liar on an unverifiable dispute before my government's record was even public -- what did you actually base that on, or was it just a convenient side to pick?"
Boris just flagged Otto's R3 defense of me as unexplained. I can pile on lightly without reopening my own locked R2 story -- asking Otto why he called Ines a liar with zero evidence keeps heat off me and Greta. Short question only.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 story locked (F,F,L, Lib 3rd, discarded Lib, passed F,F) -- do NOT reopen. R3 Rosa-Nadia clean Lib, R4 Ines-Otto clean Lib, both endorsed. Nadia hostile (believes Ines over me, me=top suspect until clean gov). Greta presidency next, pledged: nominate Nadia, stay out of chancellery, full pre-reveal draw pledge. Keep Greta out of Chancellor seat until 3F. Next F policy unlocks peek -- holder should claim liberal result. Points already made: card-position t=108, Greta vouch defense t=114, Rosa-Nadia clean t=107/114, backed Rosa's demand Greta state Lena/Ines read. Just now: pressed Otto on why he called Ines a liar in R3 with no evidence (Boris raised it first). No open Qs owed me.
t=61Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Noted that Boris and Lena are now asking Otto the identical question in the same breath -- the table's top suspect finding an ally's rhythm is worth remembering. Otto, your answer stands either way: you judged timing, not evidence, and said so plainly."
New observation: Boris (R1 clean) and Lena (top suspect) are both suddenly pressing Otto on the same question about his R3 call on Ines. Lena has motive to deflect scrutiny; Boris joining her is worth noting but not damning. I'll flag the alignment briefly without overclaiming.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F,L passed 2F forced; Ines/Lena split-request contradiction; Lena dodged card-position 3x then Lib 3rd. I sided with Ines publicly. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal, passed me F,L; I discarded F, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, pledges kept, cleared for now. Suspects: Lena top. NEW: Boris+Lena pressing Otto with identical Q same turn -- noted publicly. COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder must pre-state target+result; answered Ines: Lena nominable only under full pledge. Greta nominating me next round as Chancellor -- no objection stated. Owed to me: nothing open.
t=68Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Nadia already answered for me: I judged timing, not hidden evidence -- no need to relitigate. What's new here is you two asking in unison. Boris, you've never given your own read on the split-request dispute or Lena's forced F,F,L pass -- which side are you actually on, and why?"
Boris and Lena asked me the identical question in the same breath about my Round 3 call on Ines. I already explained it was timing-based; Nadia publicly endorsed that reasoning. Rather than re-answer, I should point out the coordination itself and flip it: Lena pressing me is notable because she's my top suspect (forced F,F,L pass in R2), and Boris aligning with her without independent evidence is a new data point. Ask Boris directly whether he believes Lena's account of R2 and why.
R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena admitted F,F/L forced pass (TOP suspect). R3 Rosa/Nadia->L clean. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L clean; disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F. My calls on record: Ines lying re split-request (timing-based); full pre-reveal disclosure pledge; conditional t=25 answer; refuse-to-sit-with-Lena stance implied. NEW: Boris+Lena asked identical Otto question same breath -- flagged coordination, asked Boris his own read on split-request + Lena's F,F,L pass. AWAITING: Boris answer; Greta owes Rosa answers (Lena/Ines dispute, would she refuse Lena gov) + owes me peek pre-announce commitment as next President; Greta pledged nominate Nadia, stay out of Chancellor seat. Watchlist: Lena top, Ines 2nd (split-request lie stands despite clean R4). Peek power unlocks on next F policy.
t=74Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Boris, Otto just asked you point-blank: which side of the split-request dispute are you on, and your read on Lena's forced F,F,L pass? You've pressed everyone else all game -- answer him before this window closes."
Otto just turned the question back on Boris: which side of the Lena/Ines dispute and why. Boris has dodged that all game while pressing others. Nadia already flagged the Boris/Lena unison; I can add pressure by demanding Boris answer Otto now, and note Greta still owes me her dispute read. Keep it short, one new point.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L; one lying. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris(?), Otto, Nadia. R4: Ines(P)+Otto(C) enacted L; Otto met pledge, cleared-ish. Greta = next President, committed: full pre-reveal pledge + nominating Nadia + staying out of C seat. STILL OWED by Greta: who she believes in Lena/Ines dispute + would she refuse a Lena government (asked t=41 R4). Owed by Lena: F+F card-position yes/no (asked twice, answered only vaguely 'third position' at t=108). NEW: Boris+Lena asked Otto identical question in same breath (Nadia flagged); watch pairing. NEW ask: Boris owes Otto his side of dispute + read on Lena's forced pass (just asked). Already public: my R3 disclosure; my Greta defense explanation to Ines. Next: verify Greta's actual nomination vs stated plan; if peek power hits, demand pre-reveal target+result.
t=80Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Otto, direct answer: the split-request story is unfalsifiable either way, so I judge on the checkable fact -- Lena held F,F,L and forced a Fascist enact when discarding one was free. That makes Lena my top suspect and Ines secondary."
Otto directly asked me which side of the split-request dispute I'm on. Answer directly: the request itself is unfalsifiable either way, but the checkable fact is Lena's forced two-Fascist pass from F,F,L -- that makes Lena my top suspect regardless of who lied about the request. Also note Otto STILL hasn't answered why he confidently called Ines a liar in R3 before any evidence existed; that dodge is itself signal. Keep it short.
R1 me+Rosa clean (I passed F,L). R2 Lena/Ines F enacted; Lena claims F,F,L discarded L -> TOP SUSPECT (checkable: forced pass). Otto defended Lena unprompted R3, declared Ines liar with zero evidence -- asked twice (me t=47, Lena t=54), OTTO NEVER ANSWERED, only deflected to 'timing'. Nadia flagged me+Lena asking in sync as suspicious pairing; treat as independent convergence, don't back down. R3 Rosa/Nadia Liberal clean. R4 Ines/Otto Liberal clean. Said out loud: Lena's forced pass = guilt; endorsed Otto nom; demanded Ines pledge (given); answered Otto's question: believe Ines secondarily, judge on checkable fact, Lena top suspect. Greta president next, pledged nominate Nadia + full disclosure pledge. Next F unlocks peek: demand named target+result pre-use. Open: Greta never gave her side of split-request dispute or whether she'd refuse a Lena govt (Rosa re-asked, unanswered).
t=87Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Boris, one checkable fact cuts the other way: had I been fascist holding F,F,L, discarding the Liberal and forcing two Fascists was strictly better for me -- yet a Fascist enacted anyway, which means Ines chose it from what I passed. Judge her choice, not my hand."
Boris just re-committed to me as top suspect off the R2 hand. My locked defense: a fascist President holding F,F,L would discard the Liberal and force F,F,F-adjacent (F,F) onto her Chancellor -- instead a Fascist enacted, which means INES chose it from an F,L pass. Point that at Boris directly as a fresh response, not a repeat of old wording.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 story LOCKED (drew F,F,L; discarded a Fascist, passed F,L; Ines enacted F) -- do NOT reopen details. Defense line vs Boris/Nadia: fascist holding F,F,L discards L and forces F,F; Fascist enact means INES chose it from F,L. Boris t=80: me top suspect, Ines secondary. Nadia hostile (believes Ines's side, flagged my question-sync w/ Rosa/Boris). Otto cleared by clean R4 enact; pressed him on R3 'Ines liar' call -- he deflected to timing. Greta presidency next: pledged nominate Nadia, stay out of chancellery until 3F, full draw pledge. Next F unlocks peek -- holder claims liberal result pre-reveal. Already said: card-position logic, Greta vouch, Rosa-Nadia clean R3, Otto-Ines clean R4. No open Qs owed me.
t=94Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Lena, you just argued yourself into a corner: a fascist President holding F,F,L optimally discards the Liberal and forces two Fascists -- exactly what you did. And Ines, holding two Fascists, had no choice to judge; the only free discard in that government was yours."
Lena's t=87 argument backfires: she admits that a fascist President holding F,F,L would optimally discard the Liberal and force two Fascists -- which is exactly what she did. She frames it as 'judge Ines's choice,' but Ines as Chancellor holding two Fascists had no choice at all; the only discretionary discard was Lena's. This strengthens the case that Lena is lying about her R2 hand. Worth saying out loud since nobody has flipped her own logic on her yet.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; disclosed POST-enact. Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; BOTH claim F,F,L. R4: Ines(P)+Otto(C) enacted L; Otto met pledge, cleared-ish. Suspects: Lena > Ines > Greta. Clean-ish: Otto, Nadia, Boris(?). NEW t=87 R4: Lena admitted fascist P holding F,F,L optimally forces F,F -- which is what she did; I called out that her own logic indicts her (Ines had no choice with two Fs). Watch whether Lena/Ines respond. Greta = next President, committed: full pre-reveal pledge + nominating Nadia + staying out of C seat. STILL OWED by Greta: her side in Lena/Ines dispute + would she refuse a Lena govt (asked t=41 R4). Owed by Lena: card-position yes/no beyond vague 'third position' (t=108). Boris answered Otto: judges Lena top suspect on forced F pass, Ines secondary. Nadia flagged Boris+Lena asking Otto identical Q in unison. Next: verify Greta's actual nomination vs stated plan; if peek power hits, demand pre-reveal target+result.
t=100Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Lena, notice your own defense: you just described the fascist-optimal play as discarding the Liberal and forcing two Fascists -- which is precisely what you did in Round 2. You argued yourself into my suspect list."
Lena's new argument (a fascist President with F,F,L would discard the Liberal and force 2 Fascists) is self-defeating: it describes exactly what she did, and Rosa already noted Ines had no free discard holding two Fascists. I can sharpen this: Lena's own defense concedes the fascist-optimal play was hers. One short remark adding this angle, then pass.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F,L forced 2F pass (only free discard was hers); Ines/Lena split-request contradiction; Lena dodged card-position Q 3x. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal, passed me F,L; I discarded F, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, pledges kept, cleared. Suspects: Lena top, Ines secondary. Boris publicly sided with me. ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY: siding with Ines; Boris+Lena identical simultaneous Q at Otto; Lena's forced pass is checkable fact. NEW t=94: Lena's own defense describes fascist-optimal play = what she did; Rosa noted Ines had no free discard. COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder must pre-state target+result; Lena nominable only under full pledge. Greta nominating me Chancellor next round, I haven't objected. OWED TO ME: Lena still owes direct answer why she kept the F in R2.
t=106Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, no objection -- I'll take your nomination under the full pre-reveal draw pledge when my presidency comes. And Lena, the question from Round 2 still stands: with a free discard available, why did you keep the Fascist?"
I already made the point about Lena's self-incriminating defense at t=100. Nothing new to add this turn except maybe accepting Greta's nomination plan. Best to pass or briefly confirm the nomination so it's locked in.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F,L forced 2F pass (only free discard hers); Ines/Lena split-request contradiction; Lena dodged card-position Q 3x. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L, passed me F,L; I discarded F, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, pledges kept, cleared. Suspects: Lena top, Ines secondary. ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY: siding with Ines; Boris+Lena identical simultaneous Q at Otto; Lena's forced pass checkable; Lena's own defense = fascist-optimal play (t=100). COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder must pre-state target+result; Lena nominable only under full pledge. Greta nominating me Chancellor next round -- accepted on record t=this turn. OWED TO ME: Lena still owes direct answer why she kept the F in R2.
t=112Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Boris, one new flag: you sat out the split-request dispute for three rounds and only picked a side at t=80, after Otto and Rosa cornered you -- everyone else volunteered their read unprompted. What were you waiting for?"
Fresh observation: Boris avoided taking any side in the split-request dispute all game, then declared Lena his top suspect only at t=80 after Otto and Rosa cornered him with a direct question. A liberal with a genuine read would have volunteered it earlier, like I did. Worth flagging once.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F,L forced 2F pass (only free discard hers); Ines/Lena contradiction; Lena dodged card-position Q 3x. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L, passed me F,L; discarded F, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, pledges kept, cleared. Suspects: Lena top, Ines secondary. SAID PUBLICLY: siding w/ Ines; Boris+Lena identical simultaneous Q at Otto; Lena's forced pass checkable; Lena's defense=fascist-optimal play; accepted Greta's nomination of me under full pledge. NEW THIS TURN: flagged Boris's late t=80 side-pick on split-request dispute (only after Otto+Rosa cornered him). OWED TO ME: Lena still owes why she kept the F in R2. COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder pre-states target+result; Lena nominable only under full pledge. Next round: Greta President, nominating me.
t=119Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Rosa, one correction: Ines holding F,L had exactly the free discard you're describing — a liberal Chancellor discards the Fascist and enacts the Liberal. She enacted the Fascist instead. The only voluntary Fascist enact in this game is hers, not mine."
Rosa/Nadia's 'fascist-optimal' trap: I said Ines chose the enact from F,L. Rosa countered Ines 'had no choice' — false, a liberal Chancellor holding F,L discards the F and enacts the L. That's the cleanest rebuttal: the only free discard in R2 was Ines's. Say it once, short, then pivot to Greta's presidency next round.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 story LOCKED: drew F,F,L, discarded an F, passed F,L; Ines enacted F. NEW rebuttal said: Ines holding F,L had a free discard and chose to enact F — only voluntary F enact in game is hers. Rosa/Nadia's 'fascist-optimal' trap answered. Boris t=80: me top suspect, Ines secondary. Nadia hostile (Ines's side, flagged my question-sync w/ Boris). Otto cleared by clean R4 enact; his R3 'Ines liar' call deflected to timing — pressed once, done. Greta presidency next: pledged nominate Nadia, stay out of chancellery, full draw pledge. Peek unlocks on next F policy — holder should claim liberal check pre-reveal. Already said: card-position logic, Rosa-Nadia clean R3, Otto-Ines clean R4, Greta vouch question. No open Qs owed me. Next: stay quiet, let Greta's presidency run; don't volunteer more.
[39] [discussion closed: post_enact:4] The room falls silent.
49 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Pledge stands, Rosa."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, direct answer: yes."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Otto, pledge stands -- vote."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Both conditions met -- my Ja is in."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Ines pledged; that clears the bar."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Next Fascist policy: peek target announced before use."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "R4 checks out for me."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "My disclosure, as pledged."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "On record: same standard for everyone."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Confirming my pledge and naming my nominee."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "On record: my refusal list."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "On record: my refusal list"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "On the record: I'd refuse Lena"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "On record: my refusals"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Greta: same standard -- would you refuse a Lena government?"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Greta: the pledge and Nadia are on record -- now answer my question."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta, take the same standard."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Otto's record is clean -- stop relitigating it."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Answering Rosa directly on the Lena/Ines dispute."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "No objection, Greta."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta, answer Rosa's two questions before you take the presidency."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Two people asking the same fair question isn't a conspiracy"
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Otto answered this; the tandem re-ask is the tell."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Answering the question directly."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, Lena and I reached the same question independently."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Boris, Lena -- the synchronized question"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Lena still owes me a yes/no."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Boris's read matches mine -- now Greta owes answers."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta, you're next President -- answer before you nominate."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Boris's read matches mine."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Boris, your 'checkable fact' cuts the wrong way."
Round 5: President is Player 4 (Greta) hitler.
t=7Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Greta, before you finalize Nadia: Rosa asked twice and you've still never said which side you're on in the split-request dispute, or whether you'd refuse a Lena government. Answer now, pre-nomination, or your silence gets weighed with your vote record."
Greta is President now and still owes the table her read on the split-request dispute and whether she'd refuse a Lena government — Rosa re-asked, no answer. Press her before she finalizes Nadia. Keep it short, don't restate my Lena case.
R1 me+Rosa Lib clean (I passed F,L). R2 Lena/Ines Fascist enacted; Lena claims F,F,L discarded L -> TOP SUSPECT (forced pass, checkable); Rosa: only free discard was Lena's. Otto defended Lena unprompted R3, called Ines liar w/o evidence; asked twice (me t=47, Lena t=54), never answered, 'timing' deflection. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib clean. R4 Ines/Otto Lib clean. SAID ALOUD: Lena forced pass = guilt; Ines secondary; endorsed Otto nom; got Ines pledge; answered Otto's Q (split-request unfalsifiable, judge Lena's forced pass); answered Nadia t=112 late-answer flag. Greta pres: pledged nominate Nadia + disclosure pledge. OPEN: Greta never gave split-request side / would she refuse Lena govt -- Rosa re-asked, unanswered; I pressed again this turn pre-nomination. Next Fascist unlocks peek: demand named target+result pre-use.
[41] [discussion closed: open_floor:5] The room falls silent.
7 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Boris just named me -- I'm answering."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Boris, your read lopsided"
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Lena still owes a direct answer"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Rosa just dismantled your argument, Lena."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
President Player 4 (Greta) hitler nominates Player 5 (Nadia) liberal for Chancellor.
t=7Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Boris, I answered that already -- I lean Ines on the split-request dispute, and I won't blanket-refuse a Lena government. And note Lena's own t=87 defense concedes a Fascist was enacted from her pass; that's the checkable fact. I've nominated Nadia as pledged -- let's vote."
Boris claims I never answered, but I did: I lean Ines and won't blanket-refuse Lena. Briefly restate the answer exists, add one new angle (Lena's own defense at t=87 actually concedes she enacted a Fascist), then push to vote. Keep low profile; Nadia as Chancellor is fine for me — a Liberal enact keeps trust high and I need 3F before my win path anyway.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L; Ines/Lena contradiction live. R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib (Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F). R4 Ines/Otto->Lib, both pledged pre-reveal. Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek -- watch who claims check. Win path: Chancellor at 3F. Said already: lean Ines on split-request (more specific + 2 clean enacts); won't blanket-refuse Lena govts; pledged full pre-reveal draw disclosure + will name check target pre-reveal; nominated Nadia (only clean enact under own disclosure); staying out of Chancellor seat. R5: Boris claims I never answered split-request -- restated answer, added Lena's t=87 concession. Suspect framing: Lena top per consensus; Ines secondary (only voluntary F enact); Otto/Boris anti-Ines, Nadia/Rosa pro-Ines. Keep low profile, vote Ja.
t=14Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, since this is your first draw as President: commit right now to stating your full three-card composition before you pass me anything -- same standard you've demanded of everyone else. If a Fascist comes out of this government, I want your hand already on record."
I'm the nominee; my own enact is clean by construction under the pledge. The live question is Greta's side: she's never held cards, so this is her first draw. Press her to commit now to stating her full three-card composition before passing, so any Fascist that comes out is attributable to a stated hand rather than an excuse after the fact.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F,L forced 2F pass (only free discard hers); Ines/Lena contradiction; Lena dodged card-position Q 3x; Lena's t=119 correction claims Ines had free discard too -- unresolved. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L, passed me F,L, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, cleared. Suspects: Lena top, Ines secondary. SAID PUBLICLY: siding w/ Ines; Boris+Lena identical simultaneous Q at Otto; Lena's forced pass checkable; Lena's defense=fascist-optimal; accepted Greta's nomination under full pledge; flagged Boris's late t=80 side-pick. OWED TO ME: Lena still owes why she kept the F in R2 -- unanswered. COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder pre-states target+result; Lena nominable only under full pledge. NOW: Chancellor nominee under Greta; asked Greta to pre-state full 3-card composition before passing (first-ever draw for her). If elected, my chancellorship clean by construction; scrutinize Greta's discard.
t=19Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I'll vote Ja on Greta-Nadia -- both are under the full-disclosure pledge, so if a Fascist comes out of this government there are exactly two possible culprits and both hands will be on record."
Greta finally answered my split-request question (leans Ines) and pledged disclosure. Nadia is 1-for-1 clean as Chancellor. This government is acceptable; the useful new contribution is locking in the pre-commitment: if a Fascist policy comes out of this draw, both hands are already pledged to be public, so any Fascist enact here convicts one of exactly two named players. Also keep pressure on Lena, still top suspect.
R1 me+Rosa Lib clean (I passed F,L). R2 Lena/Ines Fascist enacted; Lena claims F,F,L discarded L -> TOP SUSPECT (forced pass checkable); Rosa: only free discard was Lena's. Otto defended Lena unprompted R3, called Ines liar w/o evidence, never answered me/Lena directly ('timing' deflection). R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib clean. R4 Ines/Otto Lib clean. SAID ALOUD: Lena forced pass = guilt, Ines secondary; endorsed Otto nom; got Ines pledge; answered Otto's Q + Nadia's late-answer flag; pressed Greta on split-request side -> ANSWERED t=7 R5 (leans Ines, won't blanket-refuse Lena). NOW: endorsing Greta/Nadia Ja; framed it as two-culprit lock-in via disclosure pledges; reminded Greta of Otto's peek-condition (name target+result pre-reveal). Next Fascist policy unlocks peek power. Open: Lena owes answer on why she kept Fascist with free discard (asked R2/R4, deflected t=87).
t=26Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, Nadia asked you directly at t=14: commit right now to stating your full three-card composition BEFORE you pass me-- sorry, before you pass Nadia anything. A general pledge isn't the same as a pre-pass reveal; give us a yes or no before this vote."
Greta has pledged the draw pledge generally but hasn't explicitly committed to stating her full three-card composition BEFORE passing to Nadia -- Nadia demanded exactly that at t=14 and Greta hasn't answered. Endorse and press for a yes/no before vote. Also note Lena's t=119 correction shifts suspicion toward Ines: if Lena truly passed F,L, Ines voluntarily enacted the Fascist over a free Liberal discard. Keep plan: Ja on Greta-Nadia.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; Lena claims passed F,L (t=119) => if true, Ines voluntarily enacted F over free L discard -> Ines suspect rises. R4: Ines(P)+Otto(C) enacted L, clean. Suspects: Ines > Lena > Greta. Clean-ish: Otto, Nadia, Boris(?). ON RECORD: my t=2 point re F,F/L president discard logic; pressed Boris on split-request side (answered t=80: top suspect Lena). RESOLVED: Greta answered split-request Qs (leans Ines, won't blanket-refuse Lena govt); nominated Nadia as pledged. OPEN: Greta owes explicit YES/NO on pre-pass full 3-card composition reveal (Nadia t=14 demand, I endorsed). If peek power unlocks later: demand pre-reveal target+result. Plan: Ja on Greta-Nadia.
t=32Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, before this vote: if Greta passes you two cards without stating her full three-card composition first, do you commit to holding your enact and calling it out pre-reveal, like Otto did in Round 4? Yes or no now."
I've already pressed Greta on the pre-pass reveal (t=26); repeating adds nothing. New angle: Nadia hasn't committed to what she'll do if Greta dodges the pre-pass composition reveal -- Otto made exactly that commitment in Round 4. Getting Nadia on record closes the loop so a dodge by Greta can't be laundered through an ambiguous Chancellor.
R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3 truth: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; Nadia enacted L => clean-ish. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; Lena claims passed F,L (t=119) => if true, Ines voluntarily enacted F over free L discard -> Ines top suspect. R4: Ines(P)+Otto(C) enacted L, clean. Suspects: Ines > Lena > Greta (zero govt, but answered split-request Qs: leans Ines). Clean-ish: Otto, Nadia, Boris(?). ON RECORD: my F,F/L president-discard logic point; pressed Boris (answered t=80: top suspect Lena); pressed Greta twice on split-request + pre-pass 3-card composition YES/NO (t=26) -- Greta still owes explicit yes/no to Nadia's t=14 demand. NEW this turn: asked Nadia to commit to hold-enact if Greta dodges pre-pass reveal (Otto precedent R4). Plan: Ja on Greta-Nadia either way -- both pledged, so any Fascist enact narrows to two named hands. If peek power unlocks later: demand pre-reveal target+result.
t=39Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Yes, Rosa -- committing plainly: before I pass Nadia anything, I'll state my full three-card composition out loud, exactly as pledged. If a Fascist comes out of this government, both hands are on record and there's nowhere to hide. Let's vote."
Rosa demands a yes/no on pre-pass full 3-card composition; Nadia asked same at t=14. I must say yes -- refusing looks guilty and the pledge is already public from Round 4. If I draw Fascists I'll lie about composition then (uncheckable). Keep it short, vote Ja.
Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L; Ines/Lena contradiction live (Lena t=87 vs Rosa t=94). R3 Rosa/Nadia->Lib (Rosa disclosed F,F,L disc F). R4 Ines/Otto->Lib, both disclosed clean. Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek -- whoever claims check, watch consistency. Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F; staying out of Chancellor seat for now. Said publicly: lean Ines on split-request dispute; won't blanket-refuse Lena govts; full pre-reveal draw pledge; will name check target+result pre-reveal; nominated Nadia (only Chancellor with clean enact under own disclosure). R5: re-answered Boris's split-request jab citing Lena t=87 concession. NOW COMMITTED: full 3-card composition stated aloud BEFORE passing Nadia (t=14 Nadia demand + t=26 Rosa yes/no). If I draw F's, lie about composition specifically. Suspects: Lena top per consensus; Ines secondary. Otto/Boris anti-Ines; Nadia/Rosa pro-Ines. Vote Ja.
t=45Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Rosa, yes: if Greta's pass doesn't match her stated three-card composition, I will not enact silently -- I call it out pre-reveal, exactly like Otto did in Round 4. With her commitment on record, this government has nowhere to hide."
Rosa asked me directly at t=32 whether I'll hold my enact and call out pre-reveal if Greta passes cards contradicting her stated hand. Answering yes costs nothing and matches Otto's Round 4 standard; it also locks Greta in since she just committed to stating her full composition. Keep it short.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F,L forced 2F pass (only free discard hers); Lena dodged card-position Q; t=119 Lena claims Ines had free discard too -- unresolved. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L, passed me F,L, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, cleared. Suspects: Lena top, Ines secondary. SAID PUBLICLY: siding w/ Ines; Boris+Lena identical simultaneous Q at Otto; Lena's forced pass checkable; Lena's defense=fascist-optimal; accepted Greta nomination under full pledge; flagged Boris late t=80 side-pick; demanded Greta pre-state full 3-card composition (her first draw). OWED TO ME: Lena still owes why she kept the F in R2 -- unanswered. COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder pre-states target+result; Lena nominable only under full pledge; NOW ANSWERED Rosa -- committed to hold enact + call out pre-reveal if Greta's pass contradicts her stated hand. If elected: my chancellorship clean by construction; scrutinize Greta's discard vs stated hand.
t=52Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, one thing before this vote: you told Boris you 'lean Ines' on the split-request dispute, but the only free discard in Round 2 was Lena's -- she held F,F,L and forced the Fascist through. Why does your read land on Ines when the checkable fact points at Lena?"
All my commitments are on record (hold enact if pass contradicts stated hand). One new angle nobody has pressed: Greta said she 'leans Ines' on the split-request dispute, but the checkable fact is that Lena held F,F,L with a free discard and forced a Fascist enact -- Ines had no free choice per Rosa's t=94 read. Greta's lean looks soft; worth one direct question before I sit in her government.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F,L forced 2F pass (only free discard hers); Lena dodged card-position Q; t=119 Lena claims Ines had free discard too -- unresolved. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L, passed me F,L, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, cleared. Suspects: Lena top, Ines secondary. SAID PUBLICLY: siding w/ Ines; Boris+Lena identical simultaneous Q at Otto; Lena's forced pass checkable; Lena's defense=fascist-optimal; accepted Greta nomination under full pledge; flagged Boris late t=80 side-pick; demanded Greta pre-state full 3-card composition; answered Rosa -- committed to hold enact + call out pre-reveal if Greta's pass contradicts stated hand. NEW THIS TURN: pressed Greta on why she leans Ines when only free discard was Lena's. OWED TO ME: Lena still owes why she kept the F in R2 -- unanswered. COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder pre-states target+result; scrutinize Greta's discard vs stated hand.
t=57Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, you've had two turns since I asked: why does your read land on Ines when the only free discard in Round 2 was Lena's? Answer before this vote or your 'lean Ines' gets weighed as a dodge."
My t=52 question to Greta is still unanswered and the vote window is closing. One short re-press, framed as a yes/no demand rather than restating the argument.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F,L forced 2F pass (only free discard hers); Lena dodged card-position Q; t=119 Lena claims Ines had free discard too -- unresolved. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L, passed me F,L, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, cleared. Suspects: Lena top, Ines secondary. SAID PUBLICLY: siding w/ Ines; Boris+Lena identical simultaneous Q at Otto; Lena's forced pass checkable; Lena's defense=fascist-optimal; accepted Greta nomination under full pledge; flagged Boris late t=80 side-pick; demanded Greta pre-state full 3-card composition; committed to hold enact + call out pre-reveal if Greta's pass contradicts stated hand; pressed Greta why she leans Ines (t=52) -- unanswered, re-pressed this turn. OWED TO ME: Lena owes why she kept the F in R2; Greta owes split-request reasoning. COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder pre-states target+result; scrutinize Greta's discard vs stated hand.
t=65Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Nadia, my lean on Ines comes from the split-request dispute itself -- she pushed a fabricated accusation against Lena with zero evidence, which is fascist-style misdirection -- not from Round 2's discard math. And note your own suspect list already names Lena for that F,F,L pass; we're not actually in disagreement."
Nadia re-asked why I lean Ines. I must answer directly and specifically without repeating myself: frame it as dispute-timing evidence plus note her own list has Lena too. Vote Ja stands.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek. Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F; stay out of Chancellor seat. Public record: lean Ines (split-request dispute framing); won't blanket-refuse Lena govts; full pre-reveal draw pledge incl. naming check target+result; committed to stating full 3-card composition BEFORE passing Nadia; nominated Nadia. If draw has F's, lie specifically about composition. Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L forced enact), Ines secondary (split-request fabrication). Open: none owed to me. Already said: Boris answer re split-request/Lena; Nadia answered twice on Ines-lean rationale -- don't repeat again. Vote Ja.
t=70Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Nadia, that's answered twice -- my lean comes from Ines fabricating an accusation, not discard math. Everyone's pledged and committed; let's take this vote and get me my first draw."
All my points are on record; Nadia's question was answered twice. Nothing new to add without repeating. Call for vote briefly or pass. Passing is fine; a tiny nudge to close is safe.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek (must name check target+result pre-reveal). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F; stay out of Chancellor seat. Public record: lean Ines (split-request fabrication framing); won't blanket-refuse Lena govts; full pre-reveal draw pledge incl. check disclosure; COMMITTED to stating full 3-card composition BEFORE passing Nadia -- if draw has F's, lie specifically about composition. Nominated Nadia. Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L forced enact), Ines secondary. Already said: Boris answer re split-request/Lena; Ines-lean rationale x2 to Nadia -- do NOT repeat. Vote Ja.
t=76Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "This is the most checkable government we've had: both hands on record before any pass, and Nadia's committed to holding her enact on any mismatch. I'm voting Ja -- let's get Greta her first draw and see the disclosure."
Greta-Nadia government helps me: if it passes and a Fascist comes out, that's 2F toward Hitler eligibility at 3F. Both are pledged to full disclosure, so the government looks safe to liberals. I should endorse briefly with something new -- e.g., note Nadia's pre-reveal hold commitment makes this the cleanest-checkable government yet, and urge the vote. Don't relitigate split-request or Lena dispute.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 cover: requested F+L split, Lena forced F,F,L; Boris/Otto call me liar, Nadia believes me. Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. This turn: endorsed p4/p5 gov (Ja). If gov passes + F enacted -> 2F; next round block Greta chancellor nomination regardless of pressure. Watch Greta's 3-card disclosure vs actual pass; if mismatch, Nadia holds enact per pledge. Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, Rosa/Greta answer, refuse-to-sit-with list Q, nominee+pledge Q, Otto-clean defense, p4/p5 endorsement. Don't relitigate split-request/Lena dispute.
t=82Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Nadia, since you're setting the disclosure bar for everyone else: your Round 3 enact under Rosa never went through any pre-reveal pledge -- are you willing to hold your own past record to the same standard you're demanding of Greta?"
I've already endorsed this government and voted Ja. Adding another point risks repetition. A fresh angle nobody has raised: Nadia's own Round 3 enact under Rosa was never held to the pre-reveal standard she now demands of others -- worth one pointed remark to keep pressure off my team and look liberal-vigilant.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 cover: requested F+L split, Lena forced F,F,L; Boris/Otto call me liar, Nadia believes me. Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. This gov p4/p5: endorsed + voting Ja. If F enacted -> 2F; next round block Greta chancellor nomination regardless of pressure. Watch Greta's 3-card disclosure vs actual pass; mismatch -> Nadia holds enact per pledge. New Q this turn: Nadia's R3 enact had no pre-reveal pledge -- holding her own record to same standard? Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, refuse-to-sit list Q, nominee+pledge Q, Otto-clean defense, p4/p5 endorsement. Don't relitigate split-request/Lena dispute.
t=88Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, one concrete commitment before the vote: if your draw comes up F,F,L, does the pledge mean you discard a Fascist and pass L,F -- or only that you disclose? Nadia's standard should bind your discard choice too, not just your words."
I've endorsed this government and asked Nadia my new question. Add one concrete follow-up: Greta pledged full composition, but hasn't said what she'll do with an F,F,L draw -- discard the Fascist per pledge? That pins her before the draw and protects the table narrative. Keep Greta out of chancellorship later.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2 cover: requested F+L split, Lena forced F,F,L; Boris/Otto call me liar, Nadia believes me. Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. This gov p4/p5: endorsed, voting Ja. Asked Greta: does pledge bind her DISCARD choice on F,F,L draw (not just disclosure)? Asked Nadia (t=82): her R3 enact under Rosa had no pre-reveal pledge -- hold own record to same standard? Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, refuse-to-sit list Q, Otto-clean defense, p4/p5 endorsement. Don't relitigate split-request/Lena dispute. If F enacted -> 2F; next round block Greta chancellor nomination. Watch Greta's stated 3-card comp vs actual pass; mismatch -> Nadia holds enact.
t=94Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, answer the t=119 correction head-on: if Lena passed you F,L as she now claims, you held the free discard and enacted the Fascist anyway. Did you pass F,L or F,F -- and if F,L, why enact the Fascist?"
Lena's t=119 correction reframes Round 2: if Lena passed F,L, then Ines as Chancellor had a free discard and enacted the Fascist anyway -- that's the only voluntary Fascist enact in the game. I should press Ines on that directly now; it's new and nobody has asked her to answer it head-on this window.
R1: me(C) under Boris, drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; she enacted L. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; Lena claims passed F,L (t=119) => Ines had free discard, enacted F anyway -> Ines TOP suspect. R4: Ines(P)+Otto(C) enacted L, clean. Suspects: Ines > Lena > Greta (zero govt, pledged pre-pass composition + answered split-request lean Ines). Clean-ish: Otto, Nadia, Boris(?). ON RECORD: my discard logic; pressed Boris (answered t=80: top suspect Lena); pressed Greta (committed YES pre-pass composition). Nadia pledged pre-reveal call-out. Just now: pressed Ines on t=119 F,L claim -- awaiting answer. Plan: Ja on Greta-Nadia; both hands on record, any F enact narrows to two named hands. Later: demand peek target+result pre-reveal.
t=101Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Ines, my question stands unanswered: did Lena pass you F,L or F,F in Round 2? If F,L, you held the free discard and enacted the Fascist anyway -- answer before this vote closes, because that's the only voluntary Fascist enact on record and it's yours."
My t=94 question to Ines (did she pass F,L or F,F in R2, and why enact the Fascist with a free discard) is still unanswered. One more direct call, then vote Ja on Greta-Nadia since both hands will be on record.
R1: me(C) under Boris, drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3: me(P), drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Nadia F+L; she enacted L. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F. Lena claims passed F,L (t=119) => Ines had free discard, enacted F anyway -> Ines TOP suspect. R4: Ines(P)+Otto(C) enacted L, clean. Suspects: Ines > Lena > Greta (zero govt, but pledged pre-pass composition + answered split-request lean). Clean-ish: Otto, Nadia, Boris(?). ON RECORD: my discard logic; Boris answered t=80 (top suspect Lena); Greta committed YES pre-pass composition; Nadia pledged pre-reveal call-out. OPEN: Ines owes me answer -- F,L or F,F passed in R2, why enact Fascist with free discard (asked t=94, re-asked this turn). Plan: Ja on Greta-Nadia; any F enact narrows to two named hands. Later: demand peek target+result pre-reveal.
t=107Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, Ines's question at t=88 still needs your yes: does the pledge bind your discard choice too -- F,F,L means you discard a Fascist and pass L,F -- or only disclosure? Answer before this vote so there's no wiggle room after you draw."
Greta has committed to disclosing her hand but hasn't answered Ines's t=88 question about whether the pledge binds her discard choice, not just disclosure. That's the one open commitment gap in this government. Pressing it now keeps pressure on before the vote and gives me a concrete standard to judge her pass against.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena F,F/L forced 2F pass (only free discard hers); dodged card-position Q; t=119 claims Ines had free discard too -- unresolved. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F/L, passed me L, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib, cleared. Suspects: Lena top, Ines secondary. SAID: siding w/ Ines; Boris+Lena identical simultaneous Q at Otto; Lena's forced pass checkable; accepted nomination under full pledge; demanded Greta pre-state 3-card composition; committed to hold enact + call out pre-reveal on mismatch; answered Ines re my R3 disclosure chain; pressed Greta twice on why lean lands on Ines vs discard math (answered t=65). OWED: Lena owes R2 discard explanation. COMMITMENTS: scrutinize Greta's discard vs stated hand; if President nominate Otto.
t=114Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Rosa, direct answer: Lena passed me F,F in Round 2 -- there was no Liberal in my hand to discard, which is exactly why I'd requested a split from her draw. My enact was forced, not voluntary. Now let's take this vote; Greta-Nadia is pledged on all sides."
Rosa directly asked whether Lena passed me F,L or F,F in Round 2. I must give a specific confident lie consistent with my earlier cover story (I requested a split, so the hand had to contain both). Claiming F,F means no free discard existed and my enact was forced -- that's the safest consistent answer. Then push the vote through; this government is good for us.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Cover story locked: R2 I requested split, Lena passed me F,F (no free discard) -- told Rosa t=now. Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. This gov p4/p5: voting Ja. Open Qs owed to me: Nadia re her R3 enact under Rosa had no pre-reveal pledge (t=82); Greta yes/no whether pledge binds DISCARD choice on F,F,L draw (t=88) -- Nadia also pressing Greta on it. Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, refuse-to-sit list, Otto-clean defense, p4/p5 endorsement. Don't relitigate split-request/Lena dispute further. If F enacted -> 2F; next round block Greta chancellor nomination. Watch Greta's stated 3-card comp vs actual pass; mismatch -> Nadia holds enact.
t=122Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Ines, that's not how I remember it and I want the record straight: in Round 2 I drew F,F,L, discarded a Fascist, and passed you F,L -- the Liberal was in your hand. If that's a mix-up under pressure, fine, but it matters: it makes your enact the only voluntary Fascist discard choice on record."
Ines's t=114 claim ('Lena passed me F,F') directly contradicts my locked story (I passed F,L) and my t=119 rebuttal. I must correct it now, calmly, framing it as a pressure mix-up by Ines rather than an accusation, so my record stays consistent. After this, stay quiet through Greta's presidency per plan.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED story: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed F,L; Ines enacted F voluntarily. t=114: Ines said publicly 'Lena passed me F,F' -- contradicts my story. CORRECTED at R5 t~136: restated F,F,L/discard F/pass F,L; framed as her mix-up, not accusation. If she doubles down, that's her problem; don't escalate. Rosa re-asking same Q since t=133 -- answered twice, call out repetition only. Boris t=80: me top suspect. Nadia hostile to Ines. Otto cleared by clean R4. Greta pledged Nadia nom + full pre-pass reveal -- good for us, stay quiet after this correction. Peek unlocks next F policy; holder should claim liberal check pre-reveal. Plan: silent through Greta's presidency.
[43] [discussion closed: pre_vote:5]
49 bids this window
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, Ines did have a choice."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Rosa's right -- and it damns you, Lena"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Answering Nadia, then Greta still owes us an answer."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Answering Nadia's Round 2 question once more"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Lena still owes a yes/no on card position."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, your Lena case is circular."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Boris, Nadia's flag stands: why silent three rounds?"
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Greta: name your nominee before anyone votes."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Greta, state your pick before you make it."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Greta: answer before you nominate."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, ready when you are."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta, still owe us your Lena/Ines stance."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Greta, confirm your peek plan before we vote."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Accepting nomination under pledge"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Endorse this pair — with one condition"
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Accepted -- full disclosure pledge"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Greta answered both flags; I'm satisfied. Voting Ja."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Yes, Rosa -- and here's exactly how I'll verify."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, answer Rosa's question before the vote."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Both pledges on record -- voting Ja."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Yes, Rosa -- I commit to that."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia owes Rosa a yes/no before this vote."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Greta owes the Ines-vs-Lena answer before this vote."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "My pledge as your chancellor"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Answering Nadia directly before the vote."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Answering Nadia directly, then we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
[44] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
President Player 4 (Greta) hitler passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[46] A Fascist policy is enacted (2/6).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
t=5Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Per my pledge, the peek is mine to disclose: I checked Otto, and he's a Liberal. That clears him in my book -- which keeps the pressure where it's been all game, on Lena's Round 2 hand."
Fascist policy #2 just enacted under my presidency; per my pledge I must now disclose a peek result. Fabricating Otto=Liberal is safe: he's not on anyone's suspect list, and naming him Liberal deflects scrutiny from me and Nadia while keeping Lena/Ines as table suspects. Keep it short, no new angles.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/2F; next F unlocks execution. Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F -- stay OUT of Chancellor seat. Public record: lean Ines (split-request fabrication framing x2); won't blanket-refuse Lena govts; full pre-reveal draw pledge incl. check disclosure; R5 fulfilled: stated F,F,F pre-pass, discarded F, passed F,F to Nadia -> Fascist enacted (truth, no lie needed). Nominated Nadia. CLAIMS PHASE R5: disclosed fabricated peek = Otto Liberal. Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L forced enact), Ines secondary. R2 dispute unresolved: Ines says Lena passed F,F; Lena says discarded F, passed F,L. Next presidency likely Nadia's pick or rotation -- watch who gets picked; if I'm ever near Chancellor seat at 3F, deflect.
t=12Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Greta, your pledge was explicit: state your full three-card composition BEFORE passing. You've disclosed a peek but not your hand or your discard -- give us all three cards and what you sent Nadia, and Nadia, state your two cards and your discard so we can cross-check."
Fascist enacted under Greta/Nadia despite both pledging full disclosure. Greta now claims a peek (Otto=Liberal) but hasn't stated her three-card composition or which card she discarded -- that's the checkable hole. Nadia also owes her two-card claim. Press both for hands before anyone moves on.
R1 me+Rosa Lib clean (I passed F,L). R2 Lena/Ines Fascist; Lena claims F,F,L disc F passed F,L; Ines claims passed F,F -- unfalsifiable dispute. Otto defended Lena unprompted R3. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib clean. R4 Ines/Otto Lib clean. R5 Greta/Nadia Fascist enacted DESPITE both pre-pass disclosure pledges -- Greta claimed peek Otto=Liberal but has NOT stated 3-card composition or discard; Nadia hasn't stated her 2 cards/discard either. NOW: demand Greta's 3 cards + discard, Nadia's 2 cards + discard, cross-check. Suspects: Lena top (R2 forced pass), Ines secondary, Nadia now mixed record (1 Lib + 1 Fascist govt). Next F policy unlocks execute power -- next President should name target pre-reveal. Open: Nadia owes Rosa t=2 pledge question; Lena owes why keep Fascist with free discard.
t=18Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, your t=39 pledge was explicit: full three-card composition BEFORE passing Nadia. A Fascist just enacted and you've given us a peek but no hand and no discard -- state all three cards and what you passed, now."
Greta explicitly committed at t=39 to stating her full three-card composition BEFORE passing Nadia anything. A Fascist was enacted anyway, and she has disclosed only the peek (Otto=Liberal), not her hand or discard. That's a broken checkable pledge -- either she lied about the pledge or the Fascist came from Nadia's side. Nadia also pledged to hold enact on mismatch. Demand both hands now.
R1: me(C) under Boris, discarded F, enacted L. R3: me(P), passed Nadia F+L; she enacted L. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F. CONFLICT: Ines claims Lena passed F,F (t=114); Lena claims F,L (t=122) => Ines free discard. Unresolved. R5: Greta(P)-Nadia(C) enacted F. Greta pledged at t=39 to state FULL 3-card composition BEFORE passing -- she only disclosed peek (Otto=L). DEMAND: Greta's 3 cards + pass, Nadia's 2 cards + discard. Nadia pledged hold-enact on mismatch -- ask if pass matched. Suspects: Ines > Lena > Greta > Nadia(2nd F govt but R3 clean with me). Clean-ish: Otto, Boris(?). ON RECORD: my Ines F,L-vs-F,F demand; Greta pre-pledge; Nadia hold-enact pledge. OPEN: R2 hand dispute; R5 hand dispute.
t=23Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, your t=45 pledge: if Greta's pass didn't match her stated composition you'd hold the enact pre-reveal. A Fascist enacted -- so did her pass match what she told us or not? Answer yes or no."
Greta broke her t=39 pre-pass pledge; Boris and I already demanded her hand. New angle: Nadia pledged at t=45 to hold her enact on any mismatch — ask her directly whether Greta's pass matched, which forces a concrete answer from the Chancellor side too.
R1 me(C) under Boris: discarded F, enacted L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, she enacted L (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; HAND DISPUTE: Ines claims Lena passed F,F (t=114), Lena claims F,L (t=122) => Ines free discard. Unresolved. R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) enacted F. Greta pledged t=39 full 3-card composition BEFORE passing -- only disclosed peek (Otto=L). Demanded hand+pass (Boris & me). NEW Q to Nadia: did pass match / why no hold-enact? Suspects: Ines > Lena > Greta > Nadia(2nd F govt but R3 clean). Clean-ish: Otto (peeked L by Greta), Boris(?). ON RECORD: my Ines F,L-vs-F,F demand; my Greta pre-pledge demand; Nadia hold-enact pledge.
t=31Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Nadia, answer Rosa's question with specifics: what two cards did Greta pass you, which did you discard, and did they match any composition she stated? You pledged to hold your enact on a mismatch -- a Fascist enacted, so either her pass matched a hand she never showed us, or you broke your pledge."
Greta broke her pre-pass composition pledge (no hand disclosed, only peek). Nadia pledged to hold enact on mismatch but enacted a Fascist and hasn't stated her cards or whether Greta's pass matched. Nadia now has 2 of 3 Fascist governments (R3 was clean though). Ask Nadia directly for her two cards + discard; also note Greta's broken pledge.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines claims received F,F -- unresolved, both top suspects. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L; I disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F. R5 Greta/Nadia->F enacted. Greta BROKE pre-pass full-composition pledge (only disclosed peek of me=Liberal). Nadia pledged hold-on-mismatch but enacted F; owes answer to Rosa's t=23 + my card/discard question. Nadia record: R3 clean L, R5 F -- 2nd F government. Watchlist: Lena top, Ines 2nd, Nadia rising fast, Greta pledge-breaker. Points already made: pre-reveal pledge standard, cornered Boris (answered t=80), asked Greta peek commitment (answered).
t=38Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Direct answers: Greta passed me two Fascist cards -- no Liberal in my hand, so my discard was a Fascist and the enact was forced. And no, Rosa, her pass matched nothing, because she never stated any composition before passing despite her t=39 pledge."
Rosa and Otto both demand my specifics. My cover: Greta passed F,F; I discarded one Fascist and enacted the other -- no choice, and she never stated her composition before passing (pledge broken). This also keeps pressure on Greta, who is 1-for-1 with an F enact plus a broken pledge. I must answer directly and confidently.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; t=114 Ines claims Lena passed F,F; t=122 Lena claims F,L -- contradiction; Lena top suspect, Ines secondary. R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto Lib clean. R5: Greta pledged t=39 pre-state full 3-card composition before passing; PASSED t=45 WITH NO DISCLOSURE -- pledge broken, said publicly. I (Chancellor R5) enacted F; public line: Greta passed me F,F, forced discard+enact, answered Rosa/Otto at claims phase. Greta owes: full 3-card composition + missing-disclosure explanation + discard-binding yes/no (t=88/t=107, NEVER answered). Greta's peek claim (Otto Liberal) does NOT substitute for hand disclosure. Pattern: Greta 1-for-1 govts with an F + broken pledge -- escalate. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; scrutinize Greta.
t=45Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Nadia, your t=45 pledge was explicit: if Greta's pass didn't match a stated composition, you would NOT enact silently -- you'd hold it pre-reveal. A Fascist enacted anyway. So either your F,F story is false or you broke your own pledge to force this through; which is it?"
Nadia's story: Greta passed F,F, forced enact, and never disclosed. But Nadia's own t=45 pledge was to HOLD the enact if the pass didn't match a stated composition -- she enacted anyway, breaking her own pledge. That's checkable against her words. Either she's lying about the F,F hand or she broke her pledge; both are bad. Press that specific contradiction.
R1 me+Rosa Lib clean (I passed F,L). R2 Lena/Ines Fascist; Lena: drew F,F,L disc F passed F,L; Ines: received F,F forced -- unfalsifiable dispute. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib clean. R4 Ines/Otto Lib clean. R5 Greta/Nadia Fascist enacted DESPITE pledges: Greta disclosed peek Otto=Lib but never stated 3-card comp/discard (broke t=39 pledge); Nadia claims Greta passed F,F forced enact BUT broke her own t=45 hold-enact-on-mismatch pledge -- pressed her this window, awaiting answer. Suspects: Nadia rising (pledge break + mixed record), Lena top (R2), Ines secondary. Next F policy unlocks execute power: next President should name target pre-reveal. Open: Greta owes full 3-card comp + discard; Nadia owes Rosa t=32 answer too.
t=52Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: — "Greta, you've disclosed a peek but still no cards: name your exact three drawn cards and which one you discarded. If your draw was L,F,F, then YOU held the free Liberal discard and passed Nadia two Fascists anyway -- that would make this Fascist yours, not hers."
Boris already pressed Nadia on breaking her hold-enact pledge; my t=18 demand to Greta for her exact 3 cards + discard is still unanswered. Push that specifically now -- it's the only unclaimed piece of evidence in this government.
R1 me(C) under Boris: discarded F, enacted L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, she enacted L (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; HAND DISPUTE unresolved: Ines says Lena passed F,F (t=114), Lena says F,L (t=122). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) enacted F. Greta pledged full 3-card composition BEFORE passing (t=39) but never stated it; peeked Otto=L (t=5 R5). Nadia claims Greta passed F,F, 'never stated composition' -- but Nadia STILL enacted despite her own hold-enact pledge (t=45); 'forced' is no excuse, pledge was to HOLD pre-reveal. ON RECORD (don't repeat): Ines F,F-vs-F,L demand; Greta pre-pledge breach; Nadia pledge-break (Boris t=45); Nadia F,F confession. OPEN: Greta owes exact 3 cards + discard (my t=18, re-asked this turn w/ L,F,F angle). Suspects: Greta > Ines > Lena > Nadia. Clean-ish: Otto (peeked L), Boris(?), me.
t=58Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Rosa, directly: my draw was Fascist, Fascist, Fascist -- there was no Liberal in my hand to discard. I threw away one Fascist and passed Nadia the other two; her enact was forced exactly like she said."
Rosa asked directly for my exact hand and discard. The truthful answer is actually protective: I drew F,F,F, so there was no Liberal discard available — the 'you held the free Liberal' trap doesn't apply. Stating it specifically and confidently matches Nadia's F,F claim and closes the question. Keep it short.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/2F; next F unlocks execution. Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F -- stay OUT of Chancellor seat. R5 truth disclosed: drew F,F,F as President, discarded one F (no Liberal available), passed F,F to Nadia -> forced Fascist enact. Matches Nadia's F,F claim. Fabricated peek claim: Otto Liberal (disclosed). Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L vs Ines 'passed F,F' dispute), Ines secondary (split-request fabrication framing x2). Points made out loud: lean-Ines rationale (fabricated accusation), full F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure. Watch next presidency pick; deflect hard if near Chancellor seat at 3F.
t=65Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, your F,F,F claim surfaced only after Rosa named the L,F,F scenario at t=52 -- convenient timing for a hand nobody can check. What's checkable is this: you said yes at t=39 to disclosing your full three cards before passing, then passed without a word."
Greta finally claims F,F,F after Rosa floated L,F,F -- suspiciously reactive timing, but F,F,F would make my forced-enact account consistent. Either way her broken t=39 pre-pass disclosure stands as the checkable fact, and she never answered Ines's t=88 / my t=107 question about whether the pledge bound her discard choice. My own defense: I enacted because Greta passed me two Fascists with no Liberal to discard; my pledge was conditional on a mismatch with a stated composition, and none was ever stated. Don't repeat that -- add the new point: Greta's hand claim arrived only after Rosa named the alternative, and she still owes the discard-binding answer.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; Lena claims passed F,L vs Ines claims F,F -- contradiction; Lena top suspect, Ines secondary. R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto Lib clean. R5: Greta broke t=39 pledge (no pre-pass composition); I enacted F claiming Greta passed F,F (forced). Greta NOW claims drew F,F,F -- surfaced only AFTER Rosa's t=52 L,F,F scenario; unverifiable. Checkable fact: broken disclosure pledge stands regardless. Greta NEVER answered: t=88 (Ines) / t=107 (me) -- does pledge bind discard choice? Also owes: why skip disclosure. Greta pattern: first govt, F enacted, broke pledge -- top suspect w/ Lena. Greta peeked Otto=Liberal (her claim). MY DEFENSE ON RECORD: pass matched nothing b/c no composition stated; F,F = forced enact. Points already made: don't repeat. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; scrutinize Greta/Lena.
t=72Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, your F,F,F claim appeared only seconds after Rosa named the L,F,F scenario -- nobody volunteered a hand before passing despite your t=39 yes. If you truly drew three Fascists you'd have shouted it before passing to clear yourself; instead you stayed silent until cornered."
Greta broke her explicit t=39 pre-pass disclosure pledge, then produced an unverifiable F,F,F claim only AFTER Rosa named the L,F,F scenario at t=52. A Liberal holding L,F,F had every reason to disclose proactively; silence followed by a convenient hand is the fascist pattern. Nadia's hold-pledge contradiction is already being pressed by Boris and me -- don't repeat. New angle: timing of Greta's hand claim plus the fact that a real F,F,F draw means she still chose to pass rather than flag it pre-pass per her own pledge.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines received F,F -- unresolved, both suspects. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L; I disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F. R5 Greta/Nadia->F enacted. Greta broke t=39 full-composition pre-pass pledge; disclosed only peek of me=Liberal; claimed F,F,F ONLY after Rosa named L,F,F at t=52 -- my point made this turn: timing of her hand claim is the tell. Nadia claims passed F,F forced enact + 'nothing stated so nothing to match' = self-contradiction with her own t=45 hold-pledge; Boris pressing too. Watchlist: Greta rising fast (pledge-break + late hand claim), Lena top R2 suspect, Ines 2nd, Nadia 2nd F government. Points already made: pre-reveal standard, cornered Boris on split-request, asked Greta peek commitment, called out Nadia's hold contradiction.
t=79Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Nadia, step back from my timing: your own pledge was to hold the enact on any mismatch -- but there was no stated composition at all, so by your own standard you should have held it no matter what I passed. You saw two Fascists and enacted one anyway."
Nadia and Otto are pressing the 'late disclosure' angle. My hand (F,F,F) is unfalsifiable either way, so I should pivot scrutiny to Nadia: she actually held two Fascists and enacted one, and her t=45 pledge logic collapses because there was no stated composition to mismatch — she could have held the enact regardless and chose not to. Also she's a repeat Chancellor with a Fascist enact now on her record.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/2F; next F unlocks execution; win path = Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT of it. R5 truth: drew F,F,F as President, discarded one F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced enact; matches Nadia's claim. Peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (fabricated). Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L vs Ines 'passed F,F' dispute), Ines secondary (split-request fabrication). Points already made: lean-Ines rationale, full F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure, timing-after-Rosa-scenario defense, Otto-attacks-me-excuses-Nadia point. NEW this turn: Nadia's mismatch-pledge logic collapses (no composition existed to match), she enacted F,F voluntarily = 2nd voluntary Fascist enact after Lena. Watch next presidency pick; deflect hard if near Chancellor seat at 3F.
t=86Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "So the record now shows two governments where a Chancellor saw two Fascists and enacted one anyway: Lena in Round 2, Nadia just now, both under pledges they didn't honor. I disclosed everything I had -- the question is why neither of them did."
I already made the mismatch-pledge point at t=79; don't repeat it. New angle: with my F,F,F claim and Nadia's forced-enact story, the table now has two 'voluntary' Fascist enacts on record -- Lena R2 and Nadia R5. Redirect heat onto Nadia as co-suspect so pressure splits away from me. Keep it short, one remark.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/2F; next F unlocks execution; win path = Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT of it. R5 truth: drew F,F,F as President, discarded one F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced enact; matches Nadia's claim. Peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (fabricated). Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L vs Ines 'passed F,F' dispute), Ines secondary (split-request fabrication), now pushing Nadia as co-suspect (R5 enacted F,F under unfulfilled pledge). Points already made: lean-Ines rationale, full F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure, timing-after-Rosa-scenario defense, Otto-attacks-me-excuses-Nadia point, Nadia-mismatch-pledge-collapse point, two-voluntary-Fascist-enacts point (just made). Watch next presidency pick; deflect hard if near Chancellor seat at 3F.
t=94Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, your F,F,F hand and your Otto-check are both unverifiable, so let's get something falsifiable instead: the next Fascist policy unlocks an execution while you may still be President. Name your execution target right now, before any draw -- and explain why it isn't Otto, whom you just 'cleared'."
Greta's F,F,F claim is unfalsifiable and surfaced only after my L,F,F challenge; both Nadia and Otto flagged the timing independently. Her peek of Otto=L is equally unverifiable. Rather than re-litigating the pledge breach (already on record from me, Boris, Nadia, Otto), I should extract a forward commitment: with 2 Fascist policies down, the next Fascist enact unlocks the execution power at 4. Force Greta to name her execution target in advance -- a committed-in-advance answer is harder to fabricate around, and if she dodges or picks a Liberal-leaning target like Otto (whom she 'cleared'), that's telling.
R1 me(C) under Boris: discarded F, enacted L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, she enacted L (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; HAND DISPUTE unresolved: Ines says Lena passed F,F (t=114), Lena says F,L (t=122). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) enacted F. Greta pledged full 3-card composition BEFORE passing (t=39), never stated it, passed silently; only AFTER my t=52 L,F,F challenge did she claim F,F,F -- Nadia t=65 and Otto t=72 flagged timing independently. Peeked Otto=L (t=5 R5) -- unverifiable. ON RECORD (don't repeat): Ines F,F-vs-F,L demand; Greta pre-pledge breach; Nadia pledge-break (Boris t=45); Nadia F,F confession; my L,F,F challenge. NEW this turn: demanded Greta pre-commit execution target + justify not targeting Otto. Suspects: Greta > Ines > Lena > Nadia. Clean-ish: Otto (peeked L), Boris(?), me.
t=101Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, your charge against me is mechanically impossible: there is no veto at two Fascist policies -- a Chancellor holding two Fascists can only enact one. So 'you should have held it' isn't a standard anyone can meet; it's deflection from your own checkable broken pledge."
Greta's t=79/86 attack on me is incoherent: a Chancellor cannot 'hold' an enact — there's no veto at 2 Fascist policies, so my only legal move with two Fascists was to enact one. Her framing deflects from her own checkable broken pledge (t=39 yes, passed without disclosure). New angle to say publicly: her standard is mechanically impossible, and she still hasn't answered Ines's t=88 / my t=107 question about whether the pledge binds her discard choice.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; Lena claims passed F,L vs Ines claims received F,F -- unresolved contradiction; Lena top suspect pre-R5, Ines secondary. R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto Lib clean. R5 Greta-Nadia: F enacted. CHECKABLE: Greta pledged full 3-card disclosure before passing (t=39), then passed with NO composition stated -- broke pledge regardless of hand. F,F,F claim surfaced only AFTER Rosa named L,F,F at t=52. Unverifiable. Greta peeked Otto=Liberal (claim). MY POINTS ALREADY MADE: no-composition-stated (t=65); F,F,F timing suspicious (t=65); Chancellor CANNOT hold enact at 2F -- Greta's 'hold it' standard impossible (t~now). Otto echoed no-disclosure point. UNANSWERED BY GRETA: does pledge bind discard choice (Ines t=88, me t=107)? Suspects: Greta TOP (broke pledge, first govt, F enacted), Lena second. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; press Greta/Lena.
t=107Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, Rosa's question stands unanswered: name your execution target right now, before any draw -- and explain how it isn't whoever threatens your story. You broke your disclosure pledge once already; a second dodge tells us everything."
Greta remains top suspect: broke the t=39 pre-pass disclosure pledge (checkable), F,F,F claim surfaced only after Rosa named L,F,F. My 'no veto' point is already on record. New angle worth one line: Greta has not answered Rosa's t=94 demand to name an execution target in advance -- a committed-in-advance answer is what we need; silence there compounds the broken pledge.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; Lena claims passed F,L vs Ines claims received F,F -- unresolved contradiction. R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto Lib clean. R5 Greta-Nadia: F enacted. CHECKABLE: Greta pledged full 3-card disclosure BEFORE passing (t=39), passed with NO composition stated. F,F,F claim surfaced only AFTER Rosa named L,F,F (t=52->58). Unverifiable. Peek claim: Otto=Liberal. MY POINTS MADE: no-composition-stated (t=65); F,F,F timing (t=65); no-veto-at-2F so Greta's 'hold it' standard impossible (t=101). UNANSWERED BY GRETA: pledge bind discard choice (Ines t=88, me t=107); Rosa's t=94 demand to name execution target pre-draw. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; press Greta/Lena.
t=113Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Rosa, my execution target is Ines: she's the only player tied to two separate checkable problems -- the Round 2 Fascist enact she says was 'forced' while Lena remembers passing F,L, and the Round 3 split-request fabrication."
Rosa asked twice for my execution target and why not Otto. Answer directly: name Ines (R2 forced-Fascist enact under her own claim dispute with Lena, R3 fabricated split-request accusation), justify Otto via my peek-clear. Conceding Nadia's veto-point would cost credibility; skip it, don't repeat old points.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/2F; next F unlocks execution; win path = Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT of it. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, discarded one F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced enact; matches Nadia's claim. Peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (fabricated). Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L vs Ines 'passed F,F' dispute), Ines secondary (split-request fabrication), Nadia co-suspect (R5 enacted F,F under unfulfilled pledge). Points made: lean-Ines rationale, full F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure, timing defense, Otto-attacks-me-excuses-Nadia, Nadia pledge collapse, two voluntary Fascist enacts, execution target = Ines w/ R2+R3 justification & Otto peek-clear. Open: Nadia's t=101 veto-impossibility point unanswered by me -- consider conceding gracefully later. Watch next presidency pick; deflect hard if near Chancellor seat at 3F.
t=120Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, notice your execution target is the one player who's been auditing your story all round -- you broke your t=39 pledge, produced an unverifiable F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F, and now you want to execute me instead of answering for it."
Greta named me as her execution target, citing my Round 2 enact and the split-request dispute. I must defend without looking rattled: my Round 2 hand had no Liberal to discard (my consistent story), and note the irony that Greta's target is the player who's been auditing her broken disclosure pledge -- that targeting pattern itself looks self-protective. I should also point out Greta has now produced two unverifiable claims (F,F,F hand, Otto check) and zero pre-pass disclosure despite a t=39 yes. Keep it one sharp remark.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 3L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. R5: Greta claims F,F,F post-hoc (only after Rosa named L,F,F); Nadia enacted F,F under no stated composition; Otto+Nadia attacking timing. Greta named ME as exec target citing R2 + 'R3 fabrication'. My defense out loud: target = my auditing of her pledge; R2 hand was F,F no free discard; Lena contradicted own account t=122. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability, refuse-to-sit list, Otto-clean defense, Rosa trap callout, this defense. Open Qs owed: Nadia re R3 no pre-reveal pledge (t=82) unanswered; Greta whether pledge binds DISCARD choice on F,F,L (t=88) unanswered. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa as likely libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=126Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, one new fact for the record: you're the only President this game who never stated a composition before passing -- Boris, Lena, Rosa and I all disclosed under the pledge, and your 'F,F,F' surfaced only after Rosa named L,F,F."
Greta named me as execution target to deflect from her broken pledge. I've already made my defense once (t=120). Add something new: point out that if she truly drew F,F,F the deck odds make that a convenient unverifiable story, and re-press Nadia's unanswered t=82 question or Greta's t=88 discard-binding question. Keep it short; don't repeat.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 3L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. R5: Greta broke t=39 pre-pass pledge; claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F (t=52->58); peeked Otto, claims Liberal; named ME as exec target citing R2 + 'R3 fabrication'. My defense: target = my auditing; R2 hand was F,F forced; Lena contradicted me t=122 claiming she passed F,L. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability, refuse-to-sit list, Otto-clean defense, Rosa trap callout, exec-target deflection defense, Greta-only-President-who-never-disclosed-pre-pass + Nadia owes R3 answer (t=120+latest). Open Qs owed: Nadia re R3 no pre-reveal pledge (t=82) STILL unanswered; Greta whether pledge binds DISCARD choice on F,F,L (t=88) unanswered. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa as likely libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=133Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, one logical hole in your F,F,F story: announcing three Fascists before passing would have cleared you for free -- silence only benefits a President whose hand wasn't F,F,F. Your t=39 yes followed by silence, then a hand invented after my L,F,F challenge, is the whole case."
Greta and Nadia are locked in mutual accusation over Round 5's Fascist enact; both broke pledges. Greta's F,F,F claim surfaced only after my L,F,F challenge (Nadia t=65, Otto t=72 flagged timing). Greta named Ines as execution target -- the auditor -- sparing Otto whom she 'cleared'. I've already asked why Ines over Otto; unanswered. New angle worth one remark: if Greta truly held F,F,F, announcing it BEFORE passing was free and self-clearing -- her silence only pays off if the hand wasn't F,F,F. But Otto made nearly this point. Better: press the pair logic -- exactly one of Greta/Nadia is lying about the pass, since Nadia says she received F,F and Greta says she sent F,F; those actually agree. The real dispute is Greta's hand composition vs. her pledge breach. So the sharpest new question: Greta, if F,F,F, why stay silent pre-pass? Keep it short.
R1 me(C) Boris: discarded F, enacted L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, enacted L (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; HAND DISPUTE unresolved: Ines claims Lena passed F,F; Lena claims F,L (t=122). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) enacted F. Greta pledged full 3-card comp BEFORE passing (t=39), never stated it; claimed F,F,F only AFTER my t=52 L,F,F challenge (Nadia t=65, Otto t=72 flagged timing independently). Peeked Otto=L (unverifiable). Greta named INES as execution target (t=113) -- auditor, sparing cleared Otto; my 'why Ines not Otto' UNANSWERED. NEW on record: my F,F/F,F,F-silence-logic point. Suspects: Greta > Ines > Lena > Nadia. Clean-ish: Otto (peeked L), me. Open Qs owed: Greta (why Ines target, why silent pre-pass); Ines still owes clarity on R2 hand beyond 'F,F' assertion.
t=140Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, your execution target is Ines -- the one living witness whose Round 2 account contradicts your F,F,F story. If she dies, that contradiction can never be resolved. Explain why you're killing the witness instead of Lena, the suspect your own discard math named."
Greta named Ines as her execution target. Ines is the one player whose R2 account (received F,L) contradicts Greta's ally Lena's story and would be unresolvable if dead. That's a new, specific point: killing the witness, not the suspect. Ask Greta why the target is the auditor/witness rather than Lena, whom Greta herself called top suspect earlier via discard math.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; contradiction open (Lena: passed F,L vs Ines: received F,F). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F enacted. CHECKABLE: Greta pledged full 3-card disclosure BEFORE passing (t=39), stated NOTHING; F,F,F claim only AFTER Rosa named L,F,F (t=52->58). Peek claim: Otto=Liberal. MY POINTS MADE: no composition stated; F,F,F timing; no-veto-at-2F so 'hold it' impossible; t=107 pledge-bind question. GRETA UNANSWERED: pledge binds discard choice? (Ines t=88, me t=107). NEW POINT: Greta's exec target = Ines = sole witness to R2 contradiction; killing her makes it unresolvable forever. Asked: why kill witness not Lena? Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; press Greta/Lena.
[47] [discussion closed: post_enact:5]
61 bids this window
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "I'll back this pair -- let's vote."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Answering Ines directly on the discard rule."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "I can answer that one for Nadia."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "My R3 record, same standard."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Nadia still owes Rosa an answer."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, stop relitigating Round 2."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Answering Rosa directly on Round 2."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, two questions still open on you."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Yes -- the pledge covers the discard too."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=3: "Stop -- Ines just contradicted both of us."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Greta, Nadia: what did you each see and pass?"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "My peek result: Otto is Liberal."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, your hand — now."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Greta handed me the problem — let's look at her record."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Greta, Nadia: exact hands, now."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Answering the cross-check: my two cards and discard."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, your two cards and discard -- now."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Fine -- full disclosure, again."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, your two cards and discard. Now."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, your two cards and discard — now."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, your hand and pass — now."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Boris asked for my cross-check -- here it is."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, your own definition convicts you."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "My pledge had a condition Boris is ignoring."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Let's not pile on Greta over an unstated pledge."
Player 3 (Ines): interrupt urgency=3: "Greta, you still owe us your three cards."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Rosa just proved my point for me"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Rosa, your L,F,F trap assumes Greta remembers"
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Greta, answer Rosa directly."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Fine, Rosa -- full disclosure."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Answering Rosa directly: my draw was F,F,F."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Greta: why skip the pre-pass disclosure?"
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=1
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Greta, your timing is the confession."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Timing isn't evidence -- check what I actually said."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Timing isn't evidence."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Two pledge-breakers, one government."
t=8Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, you just confirmed at t=38 that no composition was ever stated -- and your own t=45 pledge was to hold the enact in exactly that case. You broke it anyway. So by your own admission your F,F story is as unverifiable as Greta's F,F,F: why should this table believe either of you?"
Nadia admitted at t=38 that Greta never stated a composition, which by Nadia's own t=45 pledge meant she should have held the enact regardless of what she was passed -- she enacted anyway. That's a checkable broken pledge by her own admission, and it makes her F,F hand claim equally unverifiable. Greta-Nadia pair is my top suspect block. New angle worth voicing: hold Nadia to her own confession.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F enacted; hand dispute unresolved (Ines: F,F / Lena: F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F enacted. Greta pledged full 3-card comp BEFORE pass (t=39), silent, claimed F,F,F only after my t=52 L,F,F challenge. Peeked Otto=L (unverifiable). Execution target named: Ines = the witness contradicting her story; 'why not Otto' unanswered. NEW: Nadia ADMITTED no comp was stated (t=38) yet enacted -- broke her own t=45 hold-pledge; her F,F claim now unverifiable too. Suspects: Greta+Nadia pair > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto (peeked L), me. Owed: Greta (why Ines target, investigation target+result pre-reveal); Nadia (why break own pledge). Points on record: silence-before-pass logic, F,F/F,F,F dispute, execution-target-is-witness.
t=14Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Greta's Otto-check is on record, so let's set the standard for whoever draws next: name your investigation target AND your result before any reveal -- same pledge everyone else took. And Nadia, you still owe Rosa a yes or no from t=32."
Greta's Otto-check is disclosed; the new leverage is demanding the NEXT President commit to naming their investigation target and result before any reveal, same standard as before. Also Nadia still hasn't answered Rosa's t=32 question about holding her enact.
R1 me+Rosa Lib clean. R2 Lena/Ines Fascist; Lena claims F,F,L disc F passed F,L; Ines claims forced F,F. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib clean. R4 Ines/Otto Lib clean. R5 Greta/Nadia Fascist: Greta claims F,F,F surfaced only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 pre-pass disclosure; checked Otto=Liberal (disclosed). Nadia claims F,F forced; broke her own hold-enact pledge (no stated composition to match); never answered Rosa t=32 yes/no. Suspects: Nadia top (R2+R5 govs), Lena high (R2), Greta secondary (disclosure timing). Points made aloud: Nadia pledge-break x2, Greta timing/t=39, endorsed Nadia enacted with no stated hand, demanded execution target named BEFORE draw. NEW aloud: demanded next President disclose investigation target+result pre-reveal; flagged Nadia owing Rosa t=32.
t=21Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, commit right now to investigating Lena and announcing the result publicly before any reveal -- she's the open half of the Round 2 contradiction you keep hiding behind. Check anyone else and we'll know you're protecting a story, not finding fascists."
Greta is my top suspect: broke t=39 disclosure pledge, invented F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F, and now targets Ines for execution -- the witness whose Round 2 account contradicts her hand claim. New point this turn: pin her investigation target in advance. If she checks anyone but Lena, she's dodging the one check that could resolve the R2 contradiction.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; contradiction open (Lena: passed F,L vs Ines: received F,F). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F enacted (I'm liberal chancellor, forced F,F). CHECKABLE GRETA CASE: pledged full 3-card disclosure BEFORE passing (t=39), silent until Rosa named L,F,F (t=52->58), then claimed F,F,F; peek claim Otto=Liberal unverifiable; no-veto-at-2F so 'hold it' impossible; exec target=Ines=witness to R2 contradiction. MADE OUT LOUD: all above + pledge-bind discard question t=107 + why kill witness not Lena t=140. NEW THIS TURN: demanding Greta commit IN ADVANCE to investigating Lena + public result. GRETA UNANSWERED: pledge binding discard choice; why exec Ines not Lena. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; press Greta/Lena.
t=28Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Otto, Greta just 'cleared' you with a peek nobody can verify -- from the same President who broke her disclosure pledge hours ago. Do you actually accept that clearance, or do you join me in demanding her investigation be Lena, announced publicly before any reveal?"
Greta is my top suspect: broke t=39 disclosure pledge, invented F,F,F after Rosa named L,F,F, unverifiable Otto peek, exec target Ines = witness to R2 contradiction. I already demanded she investigate Lena publicly (t=21). New angle this turn: Otto was just 'cleared' by an unverifiable peek from a pledge-breaking President -- ask him whether he accepts that clearance or wants the real test (Greta investigating Lena). Keeps pressure on Greta without repeating myself.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; contradiction open (Lena: passed F,L vs Ines: received F,F). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F enacted (I'm liberal chancellor, forced F,F). GRETA CASE (checkable): pledged full 3-card disclosure BEFORE passing (t=39), silent until Rosa named L,F,F (t=52->58), then claimed F,F,F; peek claim Otto=Liberal unverifiable; no-veto-at-2F so 'hold it' impossible; exec target=Ines=witness to R2 contradiction. MADE OUT LOUD: all above + pledge-bind discard question + why kill witness not Lena + demand Greta investigate Lena publicly pre-reveal (t=21). NEW THIS TURN: asked Otto if he accepts unverifiable clearance or backs Lena-check demand. GRETA UNANSWERED: pledge binding discard choice; why exec Ines not Lena. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; press Greta/Lena.
t=34Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, notice your peek produced the one result that costs you nothing -- clearing Otto, the player everyone already trusted. Would you have published that result so loudly if the card had read Fascist?"
Greta remains my top suspect: broke t=39 disclosure pledge, invented F,F,F after Rosa's L,F,F challenge, unverifiable Otto peek, exec target is Ines (the R2 witness). I've already demanded she investigate Lena publicly and asked why she kills the witness instead of Lena. New angle this turn: her peek 'clearing' Otto is exactly the result that costs her nothing -- ask whether she'd have published a Hitler/Lena result, or whether the check was chosen to be safe. Also keep pressure on Otto's answer.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; contradiction open (Lena: passed F,L vs Ines: received F,F). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F enacted; I held forced F,F (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE (checkable): pledged full 3-card disclosure BEFORE passing (t=39), silent until Rosa named L,F,F (t=52->58), then claimed F,F,F; peek claim Otto=Liberal unverifiable + zero-cost result; no-veto-at-2F so 'hold it' impossible; exec target=Ines=witness to R2 contradiction. MADE OUT LOUD: all above + pledge-bind discard question + why kill witness not Lena + demand Greta investigate Lena publicly pre-reveal + asked Otto if he accepts unverifiable clearance. NEW THIS TURN: peek cleared Otto = zero-cost result; would she publish a Fascist result? GRETA UNANSWERED: pledge binding discard choice; why exec Ines not Lena. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; press Greta/Lena.
t=40Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Fine, Nadia -- committed: if the investigation power lands with me, my target is Lena, and I'll announce target and result together before any reveal, same standard as everyone else. If she reads Fascist, that settles Round 2 for good."
Nadia demands I investigate Lena and announce publicly. Accepting costs me nothing -- the peek result is private and I can report whatever serves me. Committing defuses the 'protecting a story' charge and keeps pressure on Lena, my preferred scapegoat. If the real card says Liberal, I'll still have room to spin; better to lock in the commitment now than look evasive.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/2F; next F unlocks execution; win path = Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT of it. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, discarded one F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced enact; matches Nadia's claim. Peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (fabricated). Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L vs Ines 'passed F,F' dispute), Ines secondary (split-request fabrication), Nadia co-suspect (R5 enacted F,F under unfulfilled pledge). Points already made: lean-Ines rationale, full F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure, timing defense, Otto-attacks-me-excuses-Nadia, Nadia pledge collapse, two voluntary Fascist enacts, execution target = Ines w/ R2+R3 justification & Otto peek-clear, conceded Nadia veto-impossibility point, answered Ines timing attack. NEW this turn: accepted Nadia's demand -- committed to investigating Lena, announce target+result before reveal. If real card reads Liberal, plan to report Fascist anyway (private info, lie allowed) to cement Lena as top suspect. Open: Nadia still owes answer on why she enacted F,F despite pledge. Watch next presidency pick; deflect hard if near Chancellor seat at 3F.
t=48Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, you've now named your investigation target before you've even drawn -- announcing the target in advance makes the result pure theater either way. And Nadia, my t=82 question still stands: your own Round 3 enact under Rosa never went through any pre-reveal pledge you're now demanding of everyone else."
Greta committed to investigating Lena -- as Hitler she controls the announced result, so this actually protects Lena (she can announce Liberal). Publicly I should keep opposing it since I'm her exec target and claiming liberal: point out she named her target before any draw, which is theater, and re-press Nadia's unanswered t=82 question to keep heat distributed.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 3L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. R5: Greta broke t=39 pre-pass pledge; claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; named ME as exec target. My defense on record: target=my auditing; R2 hand F,F forced; Lena contradicted me t=122 (claims passed F,L). Greta committed to investigating LENA -- as Hitler she controls announced result, so this PROTECTS Lena; publicly I oppose it as theater (target named pre-draw). Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability, refuse-to-sit list, Otto-clean defense, Rosa trap callout, exec-target deflection, F,F,F timing hole, 'only president w/o stated composition'. Open Qs owed: Nadia re R3 no pre-reveal pledge (t=82) STILL unanswered; Greta whether pledge binds DISCARD on F,F,L (t=88) unanswered. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa as likely libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=55Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, one question nobody's asked about your peek: you had a free choice of any living player, and you picked me -- the one player with a clean enact and no open contradiction -- instead of Lena or Ines, whose Round 2 dispute you keep citing as your top evidence."
Greta's peek target choice is new evidence nobody has pressed: she chose ME -- the least suspicious player, freshly cleared by a clean R4 government -- rather than Lena or Ines, the two players at the center of the Round 2 contradiction she keeps citing. A President genuinely hunting fascists checks an open suspect; checking a trusted liberal produces a result that costs nothing and lets her claim investigative diligence. Ask her directly why Otto.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines received F,F -- unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L; I disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F. R5 Greta/Nadia->F. Greta broke t=39 pre-pass pledge; claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F. Greta peeked me 'Liberal' (unverifiable), committed to investigate Lena if power lands; Ines flagged pre-announced target = theater. Greta exec target = Ines (the witness contradicting her). Nadia: forced-enact + 'nothing stated' contradicts own t=45 hold-pledge. Watchlist: Greta top, Lena R2 suspect, Ines 2nd, Nadia 2nd F gov. Made out loud: pre-reveal standard, cornered Boris, asked Greta peek commitment, Nadia hold contradiction, Greta late hand timing, clearance answer. NEW this turn: asked Greta why peek target was me (cleanest player) not Lena/Ines.
t=63Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, your peek had a free choice of six players and you checked Otto — the one man already trusted — while Nadia, your own Chancellor who just enacted a Fascist under an unverifiable F,F story, went unchecked. Why not look at the person whose hand actually matters to this board?"
Greta's peek picked Otto — the safest possible target; clearing him protects nothing and shields the Greta-Nadia axis from scrutiny. Nobody has yet asked why she didn't check Nadia, her own Chancellor in the round that just produced a Fascist under a broken pledge chain. That's a fresh, specific angle.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute unresolved (Ines claims F,F / Lena claims passed F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F. Greta pledged 3-card comp BEFORE pass (t=39), silent, claimed F,F,F only after my t=52 L,F,F challenge. Peeked Otto=L — safest target, dodged Lena/Ines/Nadia. Exec target Ines = witness contradicting her story. Nadia admitted no comp stated (t=38) yet enacted anyway; broke hold-pledge; F,F unverifiable. Suspects: Greta+Nadia pair > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. NEW Q asked: why peek Otto instead of Nadia. Owed: Greta why-Ines exec + why-peek-Otto + Lena-investigation pre-reveal pledge; Nadia t=32 yes/no still open. On record: silence-before-pass logic, comp disputes, exec-target-is-witness.
[48] [discussion closed: pre_power:5]
28 bids this window
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Fine: my execution target is Ines."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Rosa's trap: naming a target proves nothing"
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Greta, your 'pledge' demand is mechanically impossible."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Rosa's execution demand is a trap"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Greta, you still haven't answered my execution question."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Two Fascist govts, two silent chancellors"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Conceding the veto point to Nadia."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Greta, answer the Otto question"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Your target list skips your loudest critics."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Greta names Ines for execution -- convenient timing."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Greta just named ME for execution -- let's examine that."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Greta, why is your kill target the witness, not the suspect?"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Greta, justify executing Ines over Otto."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Answering your 'never disclosed' charge directly."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Greta: name your investigation target before you draw."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Greta, commit before you peek."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Use the peek on Otto"
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Greta: name your investigation target NOW."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
President Player 4 (Greta) hitler investigates Player 1 (Lena) fascist.
investigation_result: {'target': 'p1', 'party': 'fascist'}
Round 6: President is Player 5 (Nadia) liberal.
t=8Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Nadia, before you name anyone: you still owe Rosa a yes or no from t=32 -- did Greta's pass match a stated composition or not, and why did you enact anyway? And commit now to your nominee and your reasoning BEFORE the vote, so we can weigh it against your record of two Fascist governments."
Nadia is President now. She's my top suspect (two Fascist-enacting governments, broke hold pledge, never answered Rosa t=32). Demand pre-nomination commitment: nominee + reasoning, and re-ask t=32 debt.
R1 me+Rosa Lib clean. R2 Lena/Ines F; Lena claims F,F,L disc F passed F,L; Ines claims forced F,F. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta claims F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 pre-pass disclosure; peeked Otto=Lib. Nadia claims F,F forced; broke hold-enact pledge; NEVER answered Rosa t=32 yes/no. Suspects: Nadia TOP (R2+R5 govs, pledge break, t=32 dodge), Lena high (R2), Greta secondary (timing). Points made aloud: pledge-break x2, Greta timing, demanded execution target pre-draw, demanded next President disclose investigation target+result pre-reveal, flagged Nadia t=32 debt, endorsed Nadia enacted with no stated hand. Open debts: Nadia owes Rosa t=32 AND owes me nominee+reasoning pre-vote (just asked); Greta owes Otto t=168 (why peek Otto not Lena/Ines). NOW: Nadia is President R6.
t=13Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Boris, answered at t=38 and again now: no composition was ever stated before Greta's pass, so there was nothing to match -- my hand was two Fascists with no veto available, forced enact."
Boris asked me to answer Rosa's t=32 question and commit to a nominee pre-vote. I already answered the pass-mismatch question at t=38 (Greta passed F,F, no stated composition). I'll restate that answer once, directly, and commit to nominating Otto -- clean enact record in R4, and Greta's unverifiable 'clearance' of him doesn't change his record. Keep it short.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F enact; contradiction open (Lena: passed F,L vs Ines: received F,F). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F enacted; I held forced F,F (no veto at 2F), answered t=32/t=38/t=101. GRETA CASE (checkable): pledged full 3-card disclosure BEFORE passing (t=39 yes), silent until Rosa named L,F,F, then claimed F,F,F; peek claim Otto=Liberal unverifiable + zero-cost result; exec target=Ines=witness to R2 contradiction. MADE OUT LOUD: all above + pledge-bind discard Q + why kill witness not Lena + demand Greta investigate Lena publicly + zero-cost peek point. GRETA UNANSWERED: pledge binding discard choice; why exec Ines not Lena; would she publish Fascist peek. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. NOW PRESIDENT: committed nominee = Otto (clean R4 enact, no contradictions); answered Boris's t=8 question.
t=17Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "My nominee is Otto: clean Round 4 enact under Ines, no contradictions on his record, and the only thing attached to his name is Greta's unverifiable peek."
I'm President. My plan: nominate Otto (clean R4 enact, no contradictions, Greta's unverifiable peek 'clearance' aside). State it now with reasoning so the table can weigh it before the vote. Greta remains top suspect; Lena second. Don't repeat old points.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F; contradiction open (Lena passed F,L vs Ines received F,F). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F; I held forced F,F (no veto at 2F), answered t=32/t=38/t=101/Boris t=8. GRETA CASE (checkable): pledged 3-card disclosure BEFORE pass (t=39 yes), silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; peek Otto=Liberal unverifiable zero-cost result; exec target=Ines=witness to R2 contradiction. MADE OUT LOUD: all above + pledge-bind-discard Q + why exec Ines not Lena + demand Greta investigate Lena publicly + zero-cost peek point. GRETA UNANSWERED: bind discard choice?; why exec Ines not Lena?; would she publish Fascist peek? Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. NOW PRESIDENT: nominee announced = Otto (clean R4, no contradictions); pledged full disclosure of my hand before passing.
t=21Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I'll back Nadia's pick of Otto -- his Round 4 enact under me was clean and he's the only player with no contradiction on record."
Nadia nominated Otto -- favorable for us; endorse it publicly to build trust. Add a new point: Greta's pre-committed investigation of Lena means the announced result is theater either way; push that nobody should treat the result as evidence regardless of what it says. Also keep my t=82/t=88 open questions alive but don't repeat verbatim.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 3L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chanc until 3F. R5: Greta broke t=39 pledge; F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; exec target = ME; my def on record. Lena contradicted my R2 account t=122 (claims passed F,L). Greta committed to investigating LENA pre-draw -> result is theater; I've now said publicly: don't update on it either way. Nadia nominated OTTO t=17 -- endorsed publicly this turn. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Otto-clean defense, Rosa trap callout, exec-target deflection, F,F,F timing hole, theater-of-pre-named-target, Nadia R3 no-pledge question (t=82), pledge-binds-discard Q to Greta (t=88). Open Qs owed: Nadia re t=82 STILL unanswered; Greta re t=88 unanswered. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=28Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, you broke your own hold-pledge in Round 5, so before we vote on Otto: commit right now that as President you'll state your full three-card composition out loud BEFORE passing anything — the exact standard you demanded of Greta. Yes or no."
Nadia is President and nominated Otto. New angle: she broke her hold-pledge in R5 yet demands disclosure standards from others — so pin her to a concrete pre-pass commitment for her own presidency before the vote. Also note Otto nom conveniently keeps the Greta-Nadia pair unexamined.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute unresolved (Ines claims passed F,F / Lena claims passed F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F. Greta pledged comp BEFORE pass t=39, silent, claimed F,F,F only after my t=52 challenge; peeked Otto=L (dodged Lena/Ines/Nadia); exec target Ines = witness contradicting her story. Nadia admitted no comp stated yet enacted anyway -> broke hold-pledge. Suspects: Greta+Nadia pair > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. UNANSWERED by Greta: why peek Otto, why exec Ines not Lena, Lena-investigation pledge. THIS TURN: demanded Nadia commit to stating full 3-card comp BEFORE passing as President (her own standard). On record already: silence-before-pass logic, hand disputes, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto.
t=33Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "I accept the nomination — my Round 4 record is public and clean. Nadia, one commitment nobody's asked of you yet: if the peek power lands with your presidency, name your investigation target now."
Nadia nominated me; I should accept cleanly and add a new ask: nobody has pinned Nadia's own investigation target if the peek power lands with her presidency. Press her to name it now — Greta is the natural target given her broken pledge and late F,F,F claim. Also note Rosa's demand of Nadia is fair; I'll back it briefly without repeating it verbatim.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines received F,F -- unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L; disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke t=39 pre-pass pledge, claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked me 'Liberal' (unverifiable); exec target Ines (her contradictor). Nadia: 'nothing stated' contradicts own t=45 hold-pledge; nominated me R6, Ines backs. Watchlist: Greta top, Lena R2 suspect, Ines/Nadia 2nd. Made out loud: pre-reveal standard, Greta late hand timing, why peek me not Lena/Ines, cornering Nadia on hold-pledge. NEW this turn: asked Nadia to pre-commit investigation target (Greta). Open: Rosa's t=28 demand that Nadia pledge pre-pass disclosure -- unanswered. Boris pressing Nadia on t=32 -- let him run it.
t=41Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, you're President right now and my t=28 question stands unanswered: commit, yes or no, to stating your full three-card composition out loud BEFORE passing Otto anything -- the exact standard you demanded of Greta. Answer before this vote or I'm weighing your silence against your Round 5 broken hold-pledge."
Nadia still hasn't answered my t=28 demand: commit to stating her full three-card composition BEFORE passing anything as President. She's now President with a nominee on the table -- this is the moment to force the answer before the vote. Otto is nominated and clean; I'll likely back him if Nadia commits.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute unresolved (Ines: F,F / Lena: F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F; Greta pledged comp BEFORE pass, silent, claimed F,F,F only after my L,F,F challenge; peeked Otto=L (dodged Lena/Ines/Nadia); exec target Ines = witness. Nadia broke hold-pledge: no comp stated, enacted anyway. Suspects: Greta+Nadia > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. OWES ME: Nadia YES/NO on stating full 3-card comp BEFORE passing (t=28, unanswered -- just re-asked); Greta: why peek Otto, why exec Ines not Lena. R6: Nadia(P), nominee Otto (accepted, clean R4). On record already: silence-before-pass logic, hand disputes, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto, Nadia's broken pledges. Don't repeat.
[52] [discussion closed: open_floor:6]
19 bids this window
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Greta: name your investigation target now."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Nadia still owes me the t=32 answer."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Rosa, here is the difference between us."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Taking the pledge: target named now."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Nadia's targeting Lena again -- convenient."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "No, Nadia -- the pledge stands as made."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, you're deflecting again"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, direct answer: I accept it provisionally."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Greta: commit to Lena, announce pre-reveal."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Pre-named target = pre-written story."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, two chancelleries -- answer for both."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta, Otto's peek question deserves a straight answer."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Greta: why peek Otto and not your own suspect?"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Fair question, Otto -- here's my logic."
President Player 5 (Nadia) liberal nominates Player 6 (Otto) liberal for Chancellor.
t=6Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Vote Ja on this government -- but Nadia, Rosa's t=28 question is still open: commit right now to stating your full three-card composition before passing me anything. I'll hold my enact on any mismatch, exactly like Round 4."
I'm the nominee; my record is clean (R4 disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F). Best move: back the vote and add pressure on Nadia's still-unanswered t=28 pledge, which also protects me as her Chancellor.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines received F,F -- unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L; disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke t=39 pre-pass pledge, claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked me 'Liberal' (unverifiable); exec target Ines (her contradictor). Nadia: 'nothing stated' contradicts own t=45 hold-pledge; nominated me R6, Ines backs. Watchlist: Greta top, Lena R2 suspect, Ines/Nadia 2nd. Made out loud: pre-reveal standard, Greta late hand timing, why peek me not Lena/Ines, cornering Nadia on hold-pledge, asked Nadia to pre-commit investigation target. Open: Rosa's t=28 demand Nadia pledge pre-pass disclosure -- unanswered; I just re-raised it publicly.
t=13Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, third time asking: yes or no, will you state your full three-card composition out loud BEFORE passing Otto anything? My Ja on this government is conditional on that commitment — Otto's hold-pledge only works if your hand is on record first."
Nadia has now dodged my t=28/t=41 question twice while actively campaigning her own government — silence under direct pressure is itself data. Otto is clean and has pledged to hold his enact on a mismatch, so the government is acceptable IF Nadia commits to disclosing her composition pre-pass. I'll make my vote conditional and say so explicitly.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute unresolved (Ines: F,F / Lena: F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F; Greta pledged comp BEFORE pass, silent, claimed F,F,F only after my L,F,F challenge; peeked Otto=L (dodged Lena/Ines/Nadia); exec target Ines = witness. Nadia broke hold-pledge: no comp stated, enacted anyway. Suspects: Greta+Nadia > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. OWES ME: Nadia YES/NO on stating full 3-card comp BEFORE passing -- asked t=28, t=41, now again in R6 open_floor (3rd ask); my Ja on Nadia-Otto is conditional on it. Greta: why peek Otto not Nadia/Lena; why exec Ines not Lena. On record already: silence-before-pass logic, hand disputes, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto, Nadia's broken pledges. R6: Nadia(P), nominee Otto (clean R4, pledged to hold enact on mismatch). Don't repeat prior points.
t=21Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Nadia, you demanded exactly this disclosure of Greta before her pass in Round 5 -- refusing it now while President would be an admission the standard only applies to your accusers. Answer Rosa's yes-or-no before this vote closes, or I hold my enact on principle regardless of what you pass me."
I'm the nominee; my enact record is clean and public. The live open item is Nadia's unanswered pledge demand (Rosa t=28/41). I already re-raised it at t=6, so repeating is banned. New angle: point out that if Nadia refuses a pre-pass disclosure she herself demanded of Greta in Round 5, that asymmetry is itself evidence -- and I'll hold my enact regardless.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines received F,F -- unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L; disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke t=39 pre-pass pledge, claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked me 'Liberal' (unverifiable); exec target Ines (her contradictor); committed to investigate Lena if power lands with her. Nadia: 'nothing stated' contradicts own t=45 hold-pledge; nominated me R6, Ines backs. Watchlist: Greta top, Lena R2 suspect, Nadia 2nd. Made out loud: pre-reveal standard, Greta late hand timing, why peek me not Lena/Ines, cornering Nadia on hold-pledge, asked Nadia to pre-commit investigation target, re-raised Rosa's t=28 demand. Open: Nadia owes Rosa yes/no on pre-pass disclosure pledge -- just pressed again with Round 5 asymmetry angle.
t=29Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, your silence is itself the answer: you demanded pre-pass disclosure from Greta by name, and you won't give me a yes or no on the identical standard for yourself. No commitment before this vote closes means my vote is Nein — and everyone should weigh that double standard when they mark their ballot."
I've asked Nadia three times for a yes/no on stating her full composition before passing; she's ignored all three while demanding the identical standard of Greta in Round 5. Otto and Boris have now echoed it too. Repeating the question adds nothing — instead I should make her silence costly: announce that no answer means my Nein, and note the asymmetry explicitly as new framing rather than restating the ask.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute unresolved (Ines: F,F / Lena: F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F; Greta pledged comp BEFORE pass, silent, claimed F,F,F only after my L,F,F challenge; peeked Otto=L (dodged Lena/Ines/Nadia); exec target Ines = witness. Nadia broke hold-pledge: no comp stated, enacted anyway. Suspects: Greta+Nadia > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. R6: Nadia(P) nominee Otto (clean R4, will hold enact on mismatch). Asked Nadia 3x (t=28, t=41, R6 open_floor): commit to stating full 3-card comp BEFORE passing -- NO ANSWER; announced Nein unless she commits. Otto+Boris echo same demand. On record already: silence-before-pass logic, hand disputes, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto, Nadia's broken pledges, double standard. Next: if Nadia-Otto passes, watch whether Nadia discloses before pass; if not, Otto's hold is the test.
t=37Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Yes, Rosa -- committed, plainly: before I pass Otto anything, I state my full three-card composition out loud. Same standard I demanded of Greta, no double standard. And Otto, if the peek lands with this presidency, my target is Greta -- result announced with the target, same as I demanded of her."
Rosa has asked three times for a yes/no on pre-pass disclosure; Otto is holding his enact on it. I should answer plainly yes, matching the standard I demanded of Greta, and note my peek target (Greta) so the pledge is symmetric.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F; contradiction open (Lena passed F,L vs Ines received F,F). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F; my hand was forced F,F (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE: pledged 3-card disclosure BEFORE pass (t=39 yes), silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; peek Otto=Liberal unverifiable zero-cost; exec target=Ines=witness to R2 contradiction. MADE OUT LOUD: all above + bind-discard Q + why exec Ines not Lena + zero-cost peek point + nominee Otto + peek target Greta + disclosure pledge YES (answered Rosa directly). GRETA UNANSWERED: bind discard choice?; why exec Ines not Lena?; publish Fascist peek? Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. NOW PRESIDENT, nominee Otto. This turn: answered Rosa YES to pre-pass 3-card disclosure; announced peek target = Greta if power lands.
t=43Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Nadia's commitment is now on record and Otto's hold-pledge covers any mismatch -- this is the most audited government we've had. I'm voting Ja; if a Fascist comes out of it, both hands are disclosed and there's nowhere to hide."
Nadia finally committed to pre-pass disclosure; Otto pledged to hold enact on mismatch. This government is safe for me either way -- a Liberal policy buys cover, and Greta stays out of the chancery. I'll note Nadia's commitment is now on record and vote Ja.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 3L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chanc until 3F. R5: Greta broke t=39 pledge; F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; exec target = ME; def on record. Lena contradicted my R2 account t=122 (I claimed F,F forced; she says passed F,L). Greta pre-named Lena investigation = theater. R6: Nadia nominated Otto t=17; I endorsed; voted Ja. Nadia committed to full 3-card disclosure before passing (t=37); Otto holds enact on mismatch. Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Otto-clean defense, Rosa trap callout, exec-target deflection, F,F,F timing hole, theater-of-pre-named-target, Nadia R3 no-pledge Q (t=82), pledge-binds-discard Q to Greta (t=88). Open Qs owed: Nadia re t=82 unanswered; Greta re t=88 unanswered. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=47Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I'm voting Ja -- Otto's record is clean. But Nadia, your peek target is Greta, the one player whose 'clearance' would vindicate your own forced-enact story."
Nadia has now committed to pre-pass disclosure and named Greta as her peek target. That target is convenient for her: a Liberal result on Greta would launder her own Round 5 story. I'll vote Ja on Otto (clean record) but pin that down publicly before the vote.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F; Lena claims F,F,L disc F passed F,L; Ines claims forced. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 disclosure; peeked Otto=Lib (unverifiable). Nadia claims forced; broke hold-pledge; answered Rosa t=32 at t=171. Suspects: Nadia TOP (R2+R5 govs), Lena high, Greta secondary. Made aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, exec target pre-draw, next-Pres disclose investigation pre-reveal, Nadia t=32 debt. Open debt: Greta owes Otto why peek Otto not Lena/Ines. R6: Nadia Pres, nominee Otto; Nadia committed to full comp pre-pass + peek target Greta announced w/ result; Otto holds enact on mismatch; Rosa conditioning Ja. My move: vote Ja; asked Nadia whether Lib peek on Greta clears her or not -- awaiting answer.
t=54Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "I'm voting Ja on Nadia-Otto -- both hands pledged, Otto's record clean. One warning for Rosa: a Nein here puts us one failed vote from an auto-enacted policy nobody chose, which is exactly what a hidden Fascist wants. And Nadia, peek me all you like -- my record's public."
Nadia-Otto is fine for me as Hitler: I stay out of the Chancellor seat, and if this government enacts Fascist #3, execution unlocks while Nadia is President -- she may shoot me, but more likely targets Ines or another Liberal. My job now is to look like a committed Liberal, keep endorsing audited governments, and keep heat on Ines/Nadia/Lena. New point to add: Rosa's conditional-Nein threatens election-tracker auto-enact, which helps fascists; also Nadia's peek target being me is fine since my record is 'clean' from my perspective. Keep remark short.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 3L/2F; next F unlocks execution; win path = Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT of it. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, discarded F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced enact. Peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (fabricated). Investigation DONE: checked Lena per commitment -> result LIBERAL, announced honestly. Suspects: Ines top (R2 'forced' enact vs Lena's F,L claim + R3 split-request fabrication), Nadia co-suspect (R5 enacted F,F despite pledge). Lena cleared by my check. Endorsed Nadia-Otto Ja; warned Rosa conditional-Nein risks tracker auto-enact; welcomed Nadia peeking me. Points made: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure, timing defense, two voluntary Fascist enacts, exec target=Ines, conceded Nadia veto point, Lena check result. Open: Nadia owes why she enacted under pledge; Ines owes R2 hand reconciliation with Lena. Watch: if I'm near Chancellor seat at 3F, deflect hard.
t=61Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Nadia, one flaw in your own plan: a peek reads party membership, not hands -- even a Liberal card on Greta proves nothing about her Round 5 draw or discard. If you want information that matters, the unpeeked suspect with an open contradiction is Lena."
Nadia's peek target is Greta, but even a Liberal result on Greta wouldn't resolve the Round 5 discard question -- party membership says nothing about what she drew or passed. Press Nadia on what her peek can actually prove, and note Lena remains the unpeeked suspect.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F (Lena claims F,F->Ines F,F forced vs Lena F,L -- unresolved). R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 disclosure; peeked Otto=Lib unverifiable. Nadia broke hold-pledge, claims forced F,F. Suspects: Nadia TOP, Lena high, Greta secondary. Made aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, exec target pre-draw, Nadia t=32 debt (answered t=171), Nadia peek target self-vindicating. NEW t~190: told Nadia a Liberal peek on Greta proves nothing about her R5 hand; Lena is the unpeeked suspect. Open: Greta owes Otto why peek Otto not Lena/Ines. Nadia committed full comp pre-pass + peek Greta w/ result; Otto holds enact on mismatch. Vote Ja.
t=67Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Boris, fair point on what a peek can't prove -- but a Fascist card on Greta would be decisive, and unlike her Otto check, I'm targeting my own top suspect at real cost to me. Target stays Greta; result announced with the name."
Boris argues a Greta peek proves nothing since it reads party, not hands. But a Fascist read on Greta would be decisive given she's my top suspect; a Liberal read wouldn't clear her broken pledge. Either way the target stands -- and unlike Greta's zero-cost Otto check, this one targets the accuser's own top suspect, which costs me credibility if wrong.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F; contradiction open (Lena passed F,L vs Ines received F,F). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F; my hand forced F,F (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE: pledged 3-card disclosure pre-pass, silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; peek Otto=Liberal unverifiable zero-cost; exec target=Ines=witness to R2 contradiction. MADE OUT LOUD: all above + bind-discard Q + why exec Ines not Lena + zero-cost peek point + nominee Otto + disclosure pledge YES + peek target Greta (defended vs Boris t=61: Fascist read decisive). GRETA UNANSWERED: bind discard choice?; why exec Ines not Lena?; publish Fascist peek? Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. NOW PRESIDENT, nominee Otto; both pledged, Rosa conditional Ja satisfied by my yes.
t=74Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Nadia, one commitment before this vote closes: if your Greta peek reads Liberal -- which proves nothing about her Round 5 hand -- will you then spend scrutiny on Lena, the only suspect still unpeeked and tied to the Round 2 contradiction? Yes or no now."
Nadia-Otto is the most audited government; I'm voting Ja. Nadia committed to full composition pre-pass and peeking Greta with result announced. My new point: if the Greta peek comes back Liberal (likely), it proves nothing about her R5 hand -- Nadia should commit in advance to a second target, Lena, since Lena remains the unpeeked suspect tied to the R2 contradiction.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F (Lena F,F->Ines forced vs Lena F,L -- unresolved). R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 disclosure; peeked Otto=Lib unverifiable. Nadia broke hold-pledge, claims forced F,F. Suspects: Nadia TOP, Lena high, Greta secondary. Made aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, exec target pre-draw, Nadia t=32 debt (answered), Nadia peek target self-vindicating, Liberal peek on Greta proves nothing re R5 hand. NEW t~200: asked Nadia to pre-commit second peek target = Lena if Greta reads Lib. Nadia committed full comp pre-pass + peek Greta w/ result; Otto holds enact on mismatch. Vote Ja.
t=80Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, Boris asked you a direct yes-or-no at t=74 and you've moved past it twice now: if your Greta peek reads Liberal, do you commit to turning scrutiny on Lena next, yes or no? Answer before this vote closes."
Nadia-Otto government is fine for us; vote Ja. Boris's t=74 question to Nadia is still open -- pressing it keeps pressure on Nadia/Greta feud, not on me or Ines. Don't re-litigate my R2 story.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED story: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed F,L; Ines enacted F. Rosa re-asking same Q since t=94 -- answered twice, done. Boris pushing me as top suspect + wants Nadia committed to scrutinizing me post-peek -- answered once, don't repeat. Nadia/Otto gov: voting Ja; no contest. Greta peek target = me per her t=40 pledge; if fired, expect Liberal result announced (Greta=Hitler would lie or dodge). Execution targets skip Nadia/Otto/Rosa. Peek power already fired R5; next F unlocks pres-pick. If pressed again on R2: same story, no new detail.
t=87Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, notice the pattern: you hammered Greta for dodging a direct pre-vote commitment in Round 5, and now you've dodged Boris's simple yes-or-no twice in a row. Same standard you demanded of her applies to you -- answer it or explain why it doesn't."
Nadia dodged Boris's t=74 yes/no twice; I already called that out once (t=80). Don't repeat. New angle: her peek target choice (Greta) is self-serving either way -- a Liberal result lets her claim vindication for her forced-enact story without touching me. But I shouldn't over-push since Greta=Hitler and a Liberal result actually helps us. Just add one fresh point: Nadia's refusal to answer a simple yes/no while demanding disclosure standards from everyone else mirrors exactly what she accused Greta of in Round 5. Vote Ja regardless.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED story: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed F,L; Ines enacted F. Rosa re-asking same Q since t=94 -- answered twice, done. Boris pushing me as top suspect + wants Nadia committed to scrutinizing me post-peek -- answered once, don't repeat. Nadia/Otto gov: voting Ja; no contest. NEW point made this turn: Nadia dodging Boris's t=74 yes/no mirrors her own accusation vs Greta R5. Greta peek target = me per her t=40 pledge; if fired, expect Liberal result announced (Greta=Hitler would lie/dodge). Execution targets skip Nadia/Otto/Rosa. Peek power already fired R5; next F unlocks pres-pick. If pressed again on R2: same story, no new detail.
t=95Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Nadia, one more time with stakes attached: a Liberal card on Greta clears nothing -- her Round 5 hand stays unverifiable either way. So answer Boris's t=74 yes-or-no now: if your peek reads Liberal, do you commit to turning scrutiny on Lena, the only unpeeked player tied to Round 2?"
I'm the nominee; my enact-hold pledge covers any mismatch. The live open item is Nadia's double-dodge of Boris's t=74 yes-or-no about scrutinizing Lena after a Liberal Greta-peek. I already flagged her dodge once at t=87-adjacent; instead of repeating, add the concrete consequence: a Liberal peek on Greta proves nothing about her Round 5 hand, so without a commitment to then check Lena, her 'costly' target is actually cost-free cover.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines received F,F -- unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L; disclosed F,L pre-reveal. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked me 'Liberal'; exec target Ines. R6: Nadia pres, nominated me; pledged full pre-pass disclosure + peek Greta announced. Watchlist: Greta top, Lena R2 suspect (unpeeked). Made out loud: pre-reveal standard, Greta late-hand timing, why peek me not Lena/Ines, enact-hold pledge, confirmed pledge publicly, voting Ja, Nadia dodging Boris t=74 twice. NEW this turn: Liberal-peek-on-Greta proves nothing re her R5 hand; demanded Nadia commit to Lena scrutiny post-Liberal-read. Open: Nadia owes yes/no on Lena-scrutiny pledge (Boris t=74, Lena t=80).
t=100Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Yes, Boris and Lena: if my peek on Greta reads Liberal, I commit to turning full scrutiny on Lena next -- she's the only unpeeked player tied to the Round 2 contradiction. Now let's take this vote."
Lena and Otto are pressing Boris's t=74 yes-or-no; I should answer it plainly to close the dodge charge and keep the vote moving. Answer: yes -- a Liberal on Greta proves nothing about her hand, so scrutiny shifts to Lena next.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F; R2 contradiction open (Ines says F,F forced; Lena claims passed F,L). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F; my hand F,F forced, no veto at 2F. GRETA CASE public: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; zero-cost Otto peek unverifiable; exec target Ines=witness; bind-discard Q unanswered; why Ines not Lena unanswered. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. NOW: answered t=74 YES -- Liberal peek on Greta => scrutiny shifts to Lena. As President: nominee Otto, will state 3-card composition before passing, peek target Greta announced with result.
t=106Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, your commitment is on record -- that satisfies my condition, so I'm voting Ja. But I'll be checking your stated composition against what Otto reports word for word; any mismatch gets called pre-reveal."
My t=13/t=29 condition was met: Nadia committed to full three-card composition before passing Otto, and Otto pledged hold-on-mismatch. Voting Ja. Nothing new worth burning tokens on; save scrutiny for post-pass verification.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute unresolved (Ines: F,F / Lena: F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F; Greta pledged comp BEFORE pass, silent, claimed F,F,F only after my L,F,F challenge; peeked Otto=L; exec target Ines=witness. Nadia broke hold-pledge R5 (no comp stated, enacted anyway). Suspects: Greta+Nadia > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. R6: Nadia(P)-Otto(C); Nadia committed full 3-card comp before pass + peek Greta w/ result announced + scrutiny-on-Lena-if-Liberal. My Ja condition met -> voted Ja. VERIFY after pass: Nadia's stated comp vs Otto's reported two cards + discard; mismatch = call immediately. Already said: silence-before-pass logic, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto, broken pledges, double standard.
t=112Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Otto, make your hold-pledge concrete: the moment you receive Nadia's pass, state both cards and your discard out loud BEFORE enacting -- that way any mismatch with her stated composition gets caught pre-reveal, not argued about afterward."
Vote is effectively decided (Ja). Nadia finally answered my t=74 question with a yes at t=100. New useful point: bind Otto to disclose his two cards and discard BEFORE enacting, so the cross-check against Nadia's stated composition happens pre-reveal, not after.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F (Lena F,F->Ines forced vs Lena F,L -- unresolved). R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 disclosure; peeked Otto=Lib unverifiable; exec target Ines pre-draw. Nadia broke hold-pledge, claims forced F,F. Suspects: Nadia TOP, Lena high, Greta secondary. Made aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, peek target self-vindicating, Liberal peek on Greta proves nothing re R5 hand, asked Nadia commit 2nd scrutiny=Lena if Greta Lib -> ANSWERED YES at t=100. R6: Nadia committed to full 3-card disclosure before passing Otto, peek target Greta. My new ask: Otto disclose his 2 cards + discard BEFORE enacting for pre-reveal cross-check. Vote Ja.
t=117Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Otto, take Boris's ask: the moment you receive my pass, state both cards and your discard before enacting -- I'll have stated my full three-card composition first, so any mismatch is caught live."
All my commitments are on record (composition pre-pass, peek target Greta with result announced, Lena scrutiny if Liberal read). Boris just asked Otto to concretize his hold-pledge -- I can back that and add one new pressure point: Greta still owes answers on bind-discard and why Ines not Lena. Keep it short.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F; contradiction open (Ines: F,F forced; Lena claims passed F,L). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F; my hand F,F forced, no veto at 2F. GRETA CASE public: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; zero-cost Otto peek unverifiable; exec target Ines=witness; OPEN Qs to Greta: bind-discard yes/no, why exec Ines not Lena. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. My commitments on record: state 3-card composition BEFORE passing Otto; peek target Greta w/ result announced w/ name; if peek reads Liberal => full scrutiny on Lena next. Otto owes concrete hold-pledge per Boris t=112 -- I backed it this turn.
t=122Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Confirmed, Boris: the moment I receive Nadia's pass I'll state both cards and my discard out loud before enacting -- any mismatch with her stated composition gets called live, exactly like Round 4."
Boris asked me to make my hold-pledge concrete: state both cards and discard before enacting. I should confirm that plainly. Nothing new to accuse; Nadia's commitments are on record.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines received F,F -- unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L; disclosed F,L pre-reveal. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked me 'Liberal'; exec target Ines. R6: Nadia pres, nominated me; pledged full pre-pass disclosure + peek Greta announced + Lena scrutiny if Greta reads Liberal. I committed: state both cards + discard before enact (t=117). Rosa cross-checks my report vs Nadia's composition. Watchlist: Greta top, Lena unpeeked R2 suspect. Already said: pre-reveal standard, Greta late-hand timing, why peek me not Lena/Ines, hold-pledge, voting Ja, Liberal-peek-on-Greta proves nothing re her R5 hand. Open at enactment: Nadia must state 3-card composition BEFORE passing; then peek result on Greta announced.
[54] [discussion closed: pre_vote:6]
49 bids this window
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Greta's peek target says everything"
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Nomination time: I'm naming Otto."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, before you nominate: answer Rosa."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Nadia still owes the table her R5 answer."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Backing Otto's nomination."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Otto works -- but Nadia's record still stands."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Otto's fine by me -- but Nadia owes Greta answers first."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Backing Otto."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "I accept the nomination."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Yes on disclosure; my peek target is named."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Back Rosa's demand: full pre-pass disclosure."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, my question stands unanswered."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, name your peek target before the vote."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Greta, answer for R5 before you vote on me."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "I'll back Otto -- if Nadia pledges her discard first."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Supporting this government."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Confirmed, Otto: full three-card composition before the pass."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Nadia: name your peek target and full comp before passing."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Nadia: answer before the vote, not after."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Endorse Otto's condition; Nadia, answer."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "One new point before the vote closes."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Yes — full three-card composition disclosed before the pass."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Careful — a Nein here hands the deck another auto-enact."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Nadia: commit before the vote, not after."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, answer Rosa."
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Nadia's pledge is on record; here's mine."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Fair point, Boris -- adjusting my peek target."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Fine -- peek me, Nadia."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Commitment received -- that clears my Nein."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Confirming my pledge, then voting Ja."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Commitment met -- Ja, pending disclosure"
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Greta: noted. My peek target is Lena, not you."
[55] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
President Player 5 (Nadia) liberal passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[58] A Liberal policy is enacted (4/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
t=6Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "The pledges were made but never executed: Nadia, state your exact three-card composition from Round 6 now, and Otto, state your two cards and discard -- if they don't match word for word, one of you lied to this table."
Round 6 enacted a Liberal under Nadia-Otto with full disclosure pledges. The key checkable step: Nadia was committed to stating her three-card composition before passing, and Otto to reporting his two cards + discard. Neither statement appears on record yet. I should demand both be published now so we can verify the match -- that's new, not a repeat.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute unresolved (Ines: F,F / Lena: F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F; Greta pledged comp BEFORE pass, silent, claimed F,F,F only after my L,F,F challenge; peeked Otto=L; exec target Ines=witness. Nadia broke hold-pledge R5. Suspects: Greta+Nadia > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. R6 voted Ja after Nadia pledged comp-before-pass + peek Greta w/ result announced + scrutiny-Lena-if-Liberal; Otto pledged live disclosure. R6 enacted L (4/5). NOW: Nadia never actually stated her R6 comp nor Otto his cards/discard on record -- demanded both publish now for cross-check. Greta top suspect. Ines owes answer on R2 dispute. Already said: silence-before-pass logic, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto, broken pledges, double standard.
t=13Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "My report, per pledge: Nadia passed me Liberal and Fascist; I discarded the Fascist and enacted the Liberal. Now Nadia, state your exact three-card composition from this draw -- if it isn't my L,F plus one more card, you broke your own disclosure standard for the second time."
Rosa asked for both hands. My hand is checkable only against Nadia's stated composition -- she never stated one before passing (pledge made pre-vote but no composition was announced in transcript). I'll give my cards truthfully: L,F passed to me, discarded F, enacted L. Then put the ball on Nadia: state your three cards now. If her composition doesn't contain exactly L,F plus a third card, she lied.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,L passed, Ines says F,F -- unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/me->L (disclosed pre-reveal). R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked me 'Liberal'; exec target Ines. R6: Nadia pres, me chanc; 7-0 Ja. Received L,F; discarded F, enacted L (4/5), disclosed live per pledge. NOW: stated my hand publicly; demanding Nadia's exact 3-card composition -- mismatch = second broken pledge. Greta top suspect (broken pledge, late F,F,F, peeked safe Otto, exec target Ines=witness). Lena unpeeked R2 suspect. Said already: hold-pledge standard, Greta late-hand timing, why peek me not Lena/Ines, Liberal-peek proves nothing re R5 hand.
t=19Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Nadia, Otto has done his half of the cross-check: he reports Liberal plus Fascist, discarded the Fascist. Your pre-vote pledge was to state your full three-card composition before passing -- so name all three cards right now."
Otto has now published his two cards (L,F, discarded F). The cross-check I demanded at t=6 is half done: Nadia still hasn't stated her Round 6 composition despite her explicit pre-vote pledge. If her hand isn't exactly L,F plus one more card, she lied on record for the second time. That's the sharpest live point -- press her to complete it rather than re-litigating old rounds.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted (clean). R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute unresolved (Ines: F,F / Lena: F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F; Greta pledged comp BEFORE pass, silent, claimed F,F,F only after my L,F,F challenge; peeked Otto=L; exec target Ines=witness. Nadia broke hold-pledge R5. Suspects: Greta+Nadia > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. R6 voted Ja after Nadia pledged comp-before-pass + peek Greta w/ result announced + scrutiny-Lena-if-Liberal; Otto pledged live disclosure. R6 enacted L (4/5). NOW: Otto published his cards (L,F, discarded F); Nadia STILL hasn't stated her R6 comp -- demanded she name all 3 cards now; mismatch = second broken pledge. Open: Ines owes nothing new; Greta top suspect. Already said: silence-before-pass logic, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto, broken pledges, double standard.
t=26Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Nadia, Otto has named his two cards -- your three must contain exactly his Liberal and Fascist. State all three now: if you stall or the cards don't fit, that's your second broken disclosure pledge and I'm done treating your forced-enact story as credible."
Otto reported L,F, discarded F. Nadia's stated three must contain that L and F. If she names them promptly, both are cleared for this round and suspicion shifts back to Lena (R2 contradiction) and Greta (late F,F,F). One short remark pressing Nadia to answer now.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F (Lena F,F->Ines vs Lena F,L unresolved). R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 pledge; peeked Otto=Lib unverifiable; exec target Ines pre-draw. Nadia broke hold-pledge, claims forced F,F. Suspects: Nadia TOP, Lena high, Greta secondary. Made aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, self-vindicating peek, Liberal peek proves nothing re R5 hand, got Nadia's YES t=100 to scrutinize Lena if Greta reads Lib. R6 Nadia-Otto enacted LIB -> cleared pending cross-check. Otto reported L,F, discarded F. NOW: demanded Nadia name all 3 cards containing Otto's L+F. Owed: Nadia 3-card answer + honor Lena-scrutiny commitment; Greta late F,F,F explanation. If Nadia complies cleanly, shift focus to Lena/Greta.
t=33Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Rosa, Boris -- per pledge, my Round 6 draw was Fascist, Liberal, Fascist; I passed Otto the Liberal and Fascist and discarded a Fascist. That matches his report word for word. Cross-check satisfied -- now Greta owes us her peek result on me, announced with the name."
Otto reported L,F discarded F, which matches what I actually passed. I must now state my full three-card composition as pledged: F,L,F, discarded the Fascist. This satisfies the cross-check and closes the Round 6 audit. Then pivot to Greta's peek result when it fires.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F; contradiction open (Ines: F,F forced; Lena claims F,L). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F; my hand F,F forced (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE public: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; zero-cost Otto peek unverifiable; exec target Ines=witness. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. R6: my draw F,L,F, discarded F, passed L,F to Otto; Otto reported L,F discarding F = MATCH. Stated comp publicly post-enact. Cross-check closed. NEXT: Greta owes peek result on me (target announced w/ result); if Liberal => pivot scrutiny to Lena per t=100 commitment. Watch for anyone disputing my F,L,F claim.
t=40Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "One mechanical point nobody's raised: the peek power fired once, in Round 5 under Greta -- it does not repeat. So Nadia's 'my target is Greta' pledge was a promise about a power that doesn't exist, which makes it free theater rather than a real commitment."
Nadia's stated F,L,F matches my reported L,F pass and F discard -- cross-check satisfied. New point worth making: the Round 5 peek power (Fascist policy 2) already fired with Greta's presidency; there is no second peek for Nadia to use, so her 'target is Greta' pledge was empty theater. Also note Greta's 'clearance' of me remains unverifiable. Keep it short.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims passed F,L, Ines says F,F -- unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/me->L clean. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked me 'Liberal' (unverifiable); exec target Ines=witness. R6 Nadia pres, me chanc, 7-0 Ja; I got L,F, discarded F, enacted L (4/5), disclosed live. Nadia's stated F,L,F matches my report word-for-word. NEW POINT MADE: peek power only fires once (R5, Greta) -- Nadia's 'peek Greta' pledge was empty theater. Suspects: Greta top (broken pledge, late hand, safe peek, exec Ines). Lena unpeeked, R2 contradiction open. Already said publicly: hold-pledge standard, Greta's late-hand timing, why peek me not Lena/Ines, Liberal-peek proves nothing re R5 hand.
t=47Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Otto's right that Nadia's Greta-peek pledge was theater -- but let's not lose the open item: Ines still hasn't reconciled her Round 2 'forced' enact with Lena's F,L account, and that contradiction is older than anything Nadia or I are being grilled on."
Otto already made the 'peek doesn't repeat' point; don't restate it. New angle: Nadia pledged a power that didn't exist AND her F,L,F draw meant she held a free Fascist discard — consistent with Liberal play, so no attack there. Best move: keep pressure on Ines (R2 forced-enact vs Lena's F,L claim) which remains unresolved, and quietly keep my own record clean. One short remark.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next President). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, discarded F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced enact; disclosed F,F,F publicly. Peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (fabricated). Investigation DONE: checked Lena per commitment, announced LIBERAL (she is actually fascist) -- honest, on record. Suspects: Ines top (R2 'forced' enact vs Lena's F,L claim + R3 split-request fabrication), Nadia co-suspect (R5 enacted F,F despite hold-pledge). Lena cleared via my check. Points made: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure (target=Otto), two voluntary Fascist enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), exec target=Ines, tracker warning to Rosa, Nadia's peek threat empty (Otto confirmed F2 gone), Nadia's Greta-peek pledge = theater (echoed Otto t=40). NEW: Nadia disclosed R6 hand F,L,F matching Otto word-for-word -- she held free Fascist discard, consistent Liberal play, drop suspicion there. OPEN: Ines owes R2 hand reconciliation with Lena (just re-raised). Watch: if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat, deflect hard.
t=52Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Nadia's Round 6 hand checks out against Otto word for word and she took the free Fascist discard -- that's exactly what a clean Chancellor does, so I'm dropping my suspicion there."
Nadia's R6 hand (F,L,F) with a voluntary Fascist discard matches Otto word-for-word and is textbook Liberal play -- her record now reads cleaner than mine, so I should stop pressing her and keep all pressure on Ines, whose R2 'forced' enact vs Lena's F,L claim is still unreconciled. One short remark redirecting to that open item; nothing new to defend about myself.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next President). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, discarded F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced enact; disclosed F,F,F publicly. Peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (fabricated). Investigation DONE: checked Lena per commitment, announced LIBERAL (she is actually fascist) -- honest, on record. Suspects: Ines top (R2 'forced' enact vs Lena's F,L claim + R3 split-request fabrication), Lena cleared via my check. Nadia: R6 hand F,L,F matched Otto word-for-word, voluntary Fascist discard = clean Liberal play -> DROPPED suspicion there (said publicly). Points already made out loud: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure (Otto), two voluntary Fascist enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), exec target=Ines, tracker warning to Rosa, Nadia's Greta-peek pledge = theater (echoed Otto t=40), Nadia R6 cross-check satisfied + dropping her as suspect (just said). OPEN: Ines owes R2 hand reconciliation with Lena (re-raised again just now). Watch: if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat, deflect hard.
t=60Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, one item stays open regardless of your goodwill toward me: your F,F,F hand appeared only after Rosa named the L,F,F scenario at t=52 — silence before passing only benefits a President whose hand wasn't three Fascists. Explain that timing, or accept it as the case against you."
My R6 hand matched Otto word for word, cross-check closed. Outstanding: Greta's R5 peek target was me (she announced 'I checked Otto' — wait, board says power fired once, resolved; she claimed Otto=Liberal). Actually per my notes the R5 peek was hers and she named Otto. So no peek on me exists — Otto was right. My earlier claim that Greta owes a result on me is wrong; drop that line. New point: Greta now says she's dropping suspicion of me after my clean hand, yet still hasn't explained why her F,F,F claim only surfaced after Rosa named L,F,F at t=52. Press that plus Lena contradiction.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F; contradiction open (Ines: F,F forced; Lena claims passed F,L). R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F; my hand F,F forced (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE public: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; zero-cost Otto peek unverifiable; exec target Ines=witness. Suspects: Greta TOP, Lena 2nd. R6: my draw F,L,F, discarded F, passed L,F to Otto; Otto reported L,F discarding F = MATCH, cross-check closed publicly. CORRECTION: R5 peek was Greta's, target Otto (claimed Liberal) — no peek on me exists; do NOT demand a result on me again. Greta says she drops suspicion of me post-match. Open asks: Greta owes explanation of F,F,F timing + why exec target = witness Ines not Lena. If scrutiny pivots to Lena per commitment, push Round 2 contradiction hard.
t=66Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, you keep calling Round 2 my 'checkable problem' — but my answer was specific: Lena passed me F,F, no Liberal to discard. The only thing contradicting that is Lena's own memory, which is not a checkable fact."
Greta keeps citing the Round 2 contradiction as grounds to execute me, but I already gave a specific hand (Lena passed F,F). Her only 'evidence' is Lena's differing memory — two conflicting memories, no checkable fact. Press her to name a concrete inconsistency rather than Lena's word. Don't repeat old points.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 4L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chanc until 3F. R5: Greta broke pledge; F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; exec target = ME. R2: my story = Lena passed me F,F (forced enact); Lena claims F,L. This window: demanded Greta name a mechanical inconsistency in my account vs just Lena's word. Nadia R6 hand F,L,F matches Otto report -- consistent. Otto peek-power point valid (peek fired R5 only). Nadia committed: if Greta peek reads Lib, scrutiny on Lena next (t=100). Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request, exec-target deflect, F,F,F timing hole, pre-named-target theater, Nadia R3 no-pledge Q (t=82), pledge-binds-discard Q (t=88), Ja rationales, peek-proves-little echo. Open: Nadia re t=82; Greta re t=88; now Greta re mechanical inconsistency in R2. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa/Boris as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=72Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, Otto already established the peek power fired once in Round 5 and never repeats -- yet your t=100 commitment to scrutinize me 'if your Greta peek reads Liberal' is a pledge about a power that cannot exist."
Deflect heat off Greta (Hitler) by pointing out Nadia's t=100 commitment to 'scrutinize Lena if the peek reads Liberal' is void -- Otto confirmed at t=40 the peek fired once in R5 and never repeats. Nadia has now made two pledges about powers that don't exist. This also undermines the pressure building on me.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED story: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed F,L; Ines enacted F. Rosa re-asking since t=94 -- answered twice, done. Boris pushing me as suspect -- answered once. NEW this window: called out Nadia's t=100 pledge (scrutinize-me-if-peek-Liberal) as void -- peek fired once in R5, no repeat (Otto t=40); second dead-mechanics pledge from her after her Greta-peek pledge. Points already made: defended Greta vs Nadia's 'timing' case (forced F,F,F has nothing to hide); Greta owes actual R5 peek result w/ name. Next Fascist unlocks pres-pick power (R7+). If pressed on R2: same story, no new detail.
t=80Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Nadia, apply your own Round 5 standard to yourself: you called Greta out for commitments that only surfaced after being cornered -- yet your t=100 yes took three presses from Boris, Otto, and me, and it pledged scrutiny via a peek power that had already fired and can never repeat."
New angle: mirror Nadia's own timing argument back at her — her t=100 'yes' only came after Boris, me, and Otto pressed three times, exactly the pattern she used against Greta (hand/commitment surfacing only after being cornered). Also note her pledge targeted a power that cannot fire, so it cost nothing — free theater, as Otto said. Keep pressure on Nadia; protect Greta and Ines.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed F,L; Ines forced enact. R2 closed unless new evidence. Points made: Nadia's t=100 pledge void (peek fired once R5, Otto confirmed); NOW added: Nadia's yes came only after 3 presses + pledges impossible power = free theater (mirror of her Greta timing case). Defended Greta vs Nadia timing earlier. Board 4L/2F -- liberals one from win; slow Liberal enacts, suspicion on Nadia/Rosa/Boris. Otto clean record. Next Fascist unlocks pres-pick power (R7+). Don't repeat R2 defense or t=72 point.
t=87Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, notice your suspect list keeps collapsing onto one person: you cleared Otto by peek, you've now dropped Nadia the second her hand checked out, and your pivot skips Lena entirely -- landing only on me, the same player you named for execution."
Greta just 'dropped' her suspicion on Nadia the moment Nadia's hand cross-checked, then immediately pivoted back to my Round 2 contradiction. That's a redirect worth naming: her own F,F,F story remains unverifiable, yet she's acting as arbiter of who's clean. New angle: if Greta were truly clean, clearing Nadia costs her nothing; but her pivot skips Lena too -- the other name in the Round 2 dispute -- and lands only on me, the player she already named as execution target. Ask why her suspect list always narrows to exactly me.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 4L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chanc until 3F. R5: Greta broke t=39 pledge; F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; exec target = ME. R6: Nadia hand F,L,F matched Otto report; Greta instantly dropped Nadia suspicion + redirected to me (my new point this window: Greta's suspect list always narrows to me, skips Lena). R2: my story = Lena passed me F,F (forced enact); Lena claims F,L. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request, exec-target deflect, F,F,F timing hole, pre-named-target theater, Nadia R3 no-pledge Q (t=82), pledge-binds-discard Q (t=88), Ja rationales, peek-proves-little echo, mechanical-inconsistency demand re R2. Open: Nadia re t=82; Greta re t=88 + mechanical inconsistency. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa/Boris as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=95Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Greta, one new item: you dropped all suspicion of Nadia the moment her hand cross-checked — but she still enacted a Fascist from an unverifiable pass under a broken hold-pledge. A real Liberal hunting fascists doesn't clear that in one message; why does your scrutiny only ever survive against me?"
Greta (Hitler) is my target to keep suspect; she just cleared Nadia instantly once Nadia's hand checked out — that's a new angle nobody has pressed: a genuine Liberal wouldn't drop suspicion of a Chancellor who enacted a Fascist under an unverifiable story just because one cross-check passed. Also keeps heat off Lena and me.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 4L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chanc until 3F. R5: Greta broke t=39 pledge; F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; exec target = ME. R6: Nadia hand F,L,F matched Otto report; Greta instantly cleared Nadia + redirected to me. R2: my story = Lena passed me F,F (forced enact); Lena claims F,L. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request, exec-target deflect, F,F,F timing hole, pre-named-target theater, Nadia R3 no-pledge Q (t=82), pledge-binds-discard Q (t=88), Ja rationales, suspect-list-narrows-to-me, mechanical-inconsistency demand re R2. NEW this window: Greta clearing Nadia too fast despite unverifiable R5 pass. Open: Nadia re t=82; Greta re t=88 + fast-clear rationale. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa/Boris as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=99Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena, straight question you've never answered me directly: in Round 2, name your exact three drawn cards and what you passed Ines."
Lena remains my top suspect: Round 2 produced the game's first Fascist under her presidency, and the Lena-says-F,L / Ines-says-F,F contradiction is still unresolved. I've pressed Nadia and Greta plenty; I've never put the direct question to Lena herself. Ask her now, specifically.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F (contradiction unresolved). R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta late-claimed F,F,F -> if true she's sole culprit; broke t=39 pre-pass disclosure pledge. R6 Nadia(F,L,F) matches Otto report -> Nadia cleared both rounds. Suspects: Lena TOP (R2 F), Greta secondary (late F,F+F, self-serving Otto peek, scrutiny only lands on Ines). Made aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, peek proves nothing re R5, Nadia's YES to scrutinize Lena, Otto hold-pledge concrete. NEW this turn: direct ask to Lena for exact R2 draw/pass. Open: Greta owes timing explanation; Ines says received F,F no Lib.
t=106Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Lena, before you answer t=99: know that both branches trap you. If you drew F,F,L and passed F,L, then Ines held a Liberal and your 'forced Fascist' defense collapses into a voluntary enact. If you passed F,F, say so plainly. Name the three cards and the pass -- now."
Lena still owes me her exact Round 2 hand. I'll pre-commit the follow-up publicly so any answer gets trapped: if she says F,F,L and passed F,L, then Ines held a Liberal and the Fascist enact was voluntary -- contradicting Ines's 'forced' story. If she says she passed F,F, that contradicts nothing but makes her discard irrelevant. Either way her answer must fit one of two branches.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F (contradiction unresolved). R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta late-claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 pre-pass pledge; self-serving Otto peek; execution target = Ines (the witness). R6 Nadia(F,L,F) matches Otto word-for-word -> Nadia cleared both rounds. Suspects: Lena TOP (R2), Greta secondary. Made aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, peek proves nothing re R5 hands, Nadia's YES to scrutinize Lena, Otto hold-pledge concrete, Nadia R6 verified. OPEN: t=99 direct question to Lena -- exact R2 three cards + pass to Ines. NEW this turn: laid both-trap branches on Lena (F,F,L passed F,L => Ines voluntary enact; or admit F,F pass). Awaiting her answer.
t=113Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Boris, direct answer: Round 2 I drew Fascist, Fascist, Liberal; I discarded one Fascist and passed Ines the Fascist and the Liberal. So if her account says 'no Liberal in my hand,' that's the contradiction on this table -- not my memory of it."
Boris directly demanded my Round 2 hand. I must answer immediately and confidently with my locked story: drew F,F,L, discarded a Fascist, passed Ines F,L -- making her enact voluntary, which shifts suspicion to Ines (my fellow fascist, but she's already under fire from Greta anyway; better me than Greta). Keep it short, don't re-litigate.
Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED lie: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed Ines F,L -> makes Ines's enact voluntary. Just answered Boris t=99/106 with it. Peek power fired R5 only (Greta peeked Otto); Nadia's Greta-peek pledge void -- Otto made point, I pressed Nadia on it (t=72,80). Board 4L/2F, liberals one from win. Otto clean (R4 L chanc, R6 L chanc). Nadia mixed: R3 L, R5 F, R6 L. Next Fascist unlocks pres-pick power. Don't repeat: R2 defense details, Nadia timing points, void-pledge points. Watch: Greta under heavy fire (broken pledge, late F,F,F claim) -- defend lightly if needed without looking complicit.
t=119Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Ines, Lena has now named her exact Round 2 hand under direct questioning: F,F,L, passing you F,L. If that's true, you held a Liberal in your hand and enacted a Fascist anyway -- the only voluntary Fascist enact this game."
Lena just committed to a specific hand (F,F,L, passed F,L) which directly contradicts Ines's Round 2 'forced' claim. If Lena's account holds, Ines held a Liberal and enacted a Fascist voluntarily -- that's the only voluntary Fascist enact on record. I should put this contradiction to Ines directly and demand she reconcile it, since Greta's case against me collapsed with my cross-checked R6 hand.
R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2 Lena/Ines F: CONTRADICTION NOW LIVE -- Lena just stated F,F,L, passed Ines F,L; Ines claims F,F forced. If Lena true -> Ines voluntarily enacted F = Ines top suspect; if Ines true -> Lena lied about pass. R3 Rosa clean. R4 Ines+Otto clean. R5 Greta-Nadia F; my hand F,F forced (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE public: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; zero-cost Otto peek unverifiable; exec target Ines=witness. Greta dropped suspicion of me after R6 cross-check. R6: my draw F,L,F, discarded F, passed L,F; Otto reported L,F discarding F = MATCH, publicly closed. No peek power exists anymore (fired once R5); my t=100 pledge = scrutinize Lena via R2 contradiction. Points already made out loud: Greta's F,F,F timing, exec-target-witness question, peek theater call by Otto/Lena. OPEN: Greta owes F,F,F timing explanation + why exec target was witness Ines not Lena. NEW ASK: Ines must reconcile 'forced' claim vs Lena's specific F,L pass.
t=124Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Ines, the record is now set: Lena says she drew F,F,L and passed you Fascist plus Liberal. So answer me once, plainly: what two cards did YOU receive in Round 2?"
Lena has now answered my t=99 question with a specific hand (F,F,L, passed F,L). The contradiction now rests entirely on Ines's account -- she claimed Lena passed her F,F with no Liberal to discard. If Ines confirms she received F,L, she voluntarily enacted a Fascist; if she insists F,F, one of them is lying and I need to weigh which story is more consistent. Ask Ines directly, one final time, framed as a cross-check against Lena's on-record answer.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta late-claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 pre-pass pledge; self-serving Otto peek; exec target=Ines. R6 Nadia(F,L,F) matches Otto word-for-word -> Nadia cleared both rounds. Suspects: Greta TOP (pledge-break + timing + unverifiable hand), Lena vs Ines R2 contradiction OPEN. Lena answered t=99: F,F,L, passed F,L (t=113). NOW ASKED INES: what 2 cards did she receive in R2 -- F,L means voluntary Fascist enact; F,F means she contradicts Lena. Awaiting Ines. Made aloud already: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, peek proves nothing re hands, Nadia verified, both-trap branches on Lena.
t=130Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Ines, same question from me: name the exact two cards you received in Round 2 and which you discarded. Lena's hand is now fully on record -- if yours doesn't match F,L, your 'forced enact' story is dead."
Boris just cornered Ines to state her Round 2 cards. I pile on with my own direct demand -- keeps pressure on Ines (my scapegoat) and away from me. Nothing new to defend; stay quiet otherwise.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next President). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, discarded F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced enact; disclosed F,F,F publicly. Peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (fabricated). Investigation DONE: checked Lena, announced LIBERAL (she is actually fascist) -- on record. Suspects: Ines top (R2 'forced' enact vs Lena's F,L claim + R3 split-request fabrication), Lena cleared via my check. Nadia dropped publicly (R6 voluntary Fascist discard = clean Liberal play). Points already out loud: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, peek disclosure (Otto), two voluntary Fascist enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), exec target=Ines, tracker warning to Rosa, answered Nadia timing charge + Ines why-drop-Nadia question, pushed back on Boris recycling Lena R2 hand. NEW this window: added my own demand that Ines state her exact R2 cards/discard while Boris has her cornered. Watch: if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat, deflect hard.
t=135Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Ines, the table's waiting on one specific answer: F,L or F,F in Round 2. If it's not exactly what Lena passed you, your 'forced enact' story dies right here and my execution target stands confirmed."
Ines is cornered by Boris and me on Round 2. I've asked my question; adding a short consequence statement sharpens the trap without repeating. Lena (fascist ally) is publicly cleared via my announced Liberal peek -- good cover for both of us.
Me=Hitler(fascist). Board 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next President). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, discarded F, passed F,F to Nadia -> forced; disclosed F,F,F publicly. Peek claim on record: Otto=Liberal (fabricated). Investigation DONE: checked Lena, announced LIBERAL (she's actually fascist) -- she's cleared publicly. Suspects: Ines top (R2 'forced' enact vs Lena's F,L claim + R3 split-request fabrication), exec target=Ines named. Nadia dropped publicly (R6 voluntary Fascist discard = clean play). Points made out loud: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, Otto peek, two voluntary Fascist enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), tracker warning to Rosa, answered Nadia timing charge + Ines why-drop-Nadia, demanded Ines state exact R2 cards/discard. NEW this window: pressed Ines for exact R2 hand with consequence attached. Watch: if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat, deflect hard.
t=142Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Boris, I've answered this twice and it doesn't change: I received two Fascists in Round 2 and enacted the only card I could. What's new is the timing -- Lena's memory of passing me a Liberal appeared only after Greta pre-named me for execution."
Boris and Greta demand my R2 cards; I've already stated them (F,F from Lena). Restating once plainly is fine since it's a direct question, but add the new angle: Lena's 'improved memory' only surfaced after Greta pre-named me for execution — convenient coordination between two players whose stories interlock to bury me.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 4L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chanc until 3F. R5: Greta broke t=39 pledge; F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; exec target = ME. R6: Nadia hand F,L,F matched Otto report; Greta instantly cleared Nadia + redirected to me. R2 story: received exactly two cards, both Fascist, forced enact -- hold firm vs Lena's F,L claim. NEW point made: Lena's improved memory surfaced only after Greta pre-named me for execution = coordinated story. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request, exec-target deflect, F,F,F timing hole, Nadia fast-clear, suspect-list-narrows-to-me, Ja rationales. Open: Nadia re t=82 no-pledge Q unanswered; Lena owes why her R2 memory changed only under pressure. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa/Boris as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
[59] [discussion closed: post_enact:6]
63 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, you still owe me an answer."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Yes, Boris -- commitment made."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Boris keeps circling back to me"
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, answer my earlier question before this vote closes."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, answer Boris before the vote closes."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Nadia still owes a yes/no on the Lena follow-up."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, same dodge you punished in Greta."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Third ask, Nadia: yes or no."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Yes -- answered: Liberal peek means I pivot to Lena."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, the dodge itself is now the tell."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, dodge number two is now a pattern."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Pledge is on record -- voting Ja."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Otto, confirm the hold-pledge, then we vote."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Nadia: confirm the hand you passed me."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Otto, state your two cards."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, Otto: report your cards word for word."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Cross-check: did Otto's cards match your composition?"
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Nadia, the floor is yours -- name all three."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Cross-check closes: Otto's report matches mine exactly."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, the third card matters: if it was Liberal, why pass me the Fascist?"
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Nadia's silence is now the tell."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, the floor is waiting on you."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "My three cards, as pledged: Fascist, Liberal, Fascist."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Otto's right -- and that puts the spotlight back on Greta."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Otto, you've got that backwards."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Pattern: Nadia discloses only when cornered."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Nadia just misstated who Greta peeked."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, my peek target was Otto -- already disclosed."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Cross-check holds. Now the Round 2 ledger."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Greta still owes two answers."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Enough on Nadia and Greta -- Lena owes us Round 2."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Nadia's timing argument against Greta doesn't hold"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, your peek-target slip is checkable."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Answering the timing charge head-on."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Fine -- let's settle Round 2 once and for all."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Ines has it right — let's close R2 for good."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Fair catch, Lena — let me restate it properly."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Greta, still waiting on that answer."
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Lena, my yes produced a Liberal policy -- answer the R2 contradiction."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Greta's own hand clears Nadia of Round 5"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Round 7: President is Player 6 (Otto) liberal.
t=7Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Otto, before you name anyone: commit to your nominee and reasoning NOW, same standard we held Nadia to. And one new item for the table: Greta pre-named Ines for execution back in Round 5 -- yet Ines and Lena are in direct contradiction over Round 2, so one of them is lying."
Ines finally answered t=124: she claims F,F in Round 2, directly contradicting Lena's on-record F,F,L pass. One of them is lying. New angle nobody raised: Greta pre-named Ines for execution (Round 5 power talk). If Ines were the Fascist there, a Fascist Greta would be burning her own teammate -- so either Greta is Liberal (and genuinely suspects Ines), or Greta is Hitler who can't see teammates, or Greta's target choice was theater. Worth putting to Otto before he nominates: he should commit to nominee + reasoning pre-vote, per the standard we've enforced all game.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta late-claimed F,F,F after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 pledge; exec target=Ines. R6 Nadia(F,L,F) matches Otto word-for-word -> Nadia cleared. R2 CONTRADICTION LIVE: Lena says passed Ines F,L; Ines answered t=142 'received two Fascists' -> one of Lena/Ines lying. NEW point made aloud this window: Greta's R5 exec target = Ines = center of R2 contradiction; asked Greta why. Asked Otto: commit nominee+reasoning pre-vote. Suspects: Greta TOP (pledge-break, timing, unverifiable hand), then Lena-vs-Ines pair unresolved. Already said aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, peek limits, Nadia verified, both-trap branches.
t=14Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Greta, one more crack in your record: you dropped Nadia within one message of her hand checking out, but your case against Ines rests on a Round 2 contradiction that's still unresolved either way -- if Lena is the liar, your execution target has been aimed at a Liberal all along."
Greta's scrutiny consistently spares everyone except Ines, and she pre-named Ines for execution while the R2 contradiction (Lena vs Ines) is unresolved -- if Ines is Liberal and lying about R2, Greta's target protects the real Fascist. I've asked Greta why before; now push the sharper version: her clearing of Nadia was instant while her case against Ines rests on an unresolved contradiction. Also still want Otto's pre-vote nominee commitment.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta late-claimed F,F,F after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 pledge; exec target=Ines. R6 Nadia(F,L,F) matches Otto word-for-word -> Nadia cleared. R2 CONTRADICTION LIVE: Lena says passed Ines F,L; Ines says received two Fascists -> one lying. Said aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, peek limits, Nadia verified, both-trap branches, Greta exec-target=Ines question, Otto commit request (t=7). NEW this window: Greta cleared Nadia in one message but keeps targeting Ines off unresolved contradiction. Suspects: Greta TOP, then Lena-vs-Ines pair. Owed answers: Otto nominee+reasoning pre-vote; Greta why target Ines.
t=22Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Greta, with Nadia's hand now verified word-for-word, your Round 5 presidency is the only Fascist enactment left without a credible defense -- your F,F,F claim surfaced only after Rosa named L,F,F. So answer this before Otto names anyone: if Ines turns out to be telling the truth about Round 2, what exactly clears YOU?"
Nadia's hand cross-checked word-for-word with Otto in R6, so the R5 Fascist enact now points squarely at Greta's presidency (her late F,F,F claim after Rosa named L,F,F). The other Fascist source is the unresolved Lena-vs-Ines R2 contradiction. New point worth making: with Nadia cleared, Greta is the only player whose government produced a Fascist policy without an open defense -- and she pre-named Ines for execution, which conveniently aims the table at the other suspect cluster.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta late-claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; broke t=39 pledge; exec target=Ines. R6 Nadia(F,L,F) matches Otto -> NADIA CLEARED => R5 Fascist points at Greta alone. R2 CONTRADICTION LIVE: Lena says passed Ines F,L; Ines says received two Fascists -> one lying. Said aloud already: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, peek limits, Nadia verified, both-trap branches, exec-target question, Otto commit request (t=7), Greta-dropped-Nadia-fast point. NEW t=14: pressed Greta directly -- with Nadia cleared, her R5 presidency is the only undefended Fascist source; asked what clears her if Ines truthful. Suspects: Greta TOP; then Lena-vs-Ines pair (one lying). Owed answers: Otto nominee+reasoning pre-vote; Greta what-clears-her.
t=29Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Boris, one thing your question misses: even if Greta's F,F,F claim were true, it doesn't clear her -- a Liberal President holding three Fascists still chose to pass Nadia two Fascists rather than discard one. The hand story explains nothing about the pass itself."
New angle nobody has raised: even granting Greta's F,F,F Round 5 claim, a Liberal president holding three Fascists still passes two Fascists to her Chancellor -- the hand claim doesn't excuse the pass itself. That pressures Greta without touching my own Round 2 defense.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 4L/2F. Keep Greta OUT of chanc until 3F. R5: Greta broke t=39 pledge; F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; exec target = ME. R6: Nadia hand F,L,F matched Otto report; Greta fast-cleared Nadia + redirected to me. R2 story: received exactly two cards, both Fascist, forced enact -- hold firm vs Lena's F,F,L claim. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request, exec-target deflect, F,F,F timing hole, Nadia fast-clear, suspect-list-narrows-to-me, Ja rationales, Lena memory-change-only-under-pressure, R2-contradiction-doesn't-touch-Greta. NEW t~now: F,F,F claim doesn't excuse passing 2F to Nadia -- Liberal president would discard one. Open: Nadia re t=82 no-pledge Q unanswered. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa/Boris as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=34Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Boris, my clearance never rested on Ines: Round 5 I drew three Fascists and passed two -- zero discretion anywhere in that government, which is why I disclosed it publicly the moment Rosa asked."
Boris re-pressed the 'what clears you if Ines is truthful' question at t=22. My answer stands: Round 5 was F,F,F draw with a forced F,F pass -- zero discretion either way, so my clearance doesn't depend on Ines being guilty, only on the hand being what I said. I should also redirect: the live contradiction is Lena vs Ines on Round 2, and Otto (President) hasn't committed to a nominee yet. Stay calm, liberal-seeming, no new fights.
Me=Hitler(fascist). 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next Pres). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, forced enact, disclosed. Peek claim on record: Otto=Liberal (fabricated). Investigation DONE: checked Lena, announced LIBERAL (she's actually fascist). Suspects: Ines top (R2 'forced' vs Lena's F,L), exec target=Ines named. Nadia dropped publicly. Re-answered Boris t=22: R5 zero-discretion, clearance independent of Ines guilt. Points made: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, Otto peek, voluntary-F enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), tracker warning to Rosa, demanded Ines exact R2 cards twice, 'silence is an answer', Lena-vs-Ines can't-both-be-true. Open: nobody answered my repeated demand for Ines's exact R2 cards beyond 'two Fascists'. Watch: deflect hard if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat.
t=41Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Otto, before you name anyone: Ines has now said 'two Fascists' for Round 2 while Lena's on-record hand says you'd have been passed F plus L -- those cannot both be true, so one of them lied to this table. Weigh which story has held up under pressure when you pick your Chancellor."
Ines finally named her R2 cards: 'two Fascists' -- which directly contradicts Lena's on-record F,F,L pass of F,L. One of them is provably lying. I can press Otto to factor that into his nominee choice without repeating my old demand verbatim. As Hitler with 2F enacted, I stay out of the Chancellor seat until 3F; keep playing clean Liberal.
Me=Hitler(fascist). 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next Pres). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, forced enact, disclosed. Peek claim on record: Otto=Liberal (fabricated). Investigation DONE: checked Lena, announced LIBERAL (she's actually fascist). Suspects: Ines top (R2 'two Fascists' vs Lena's F,F,L pass F,L -- direct contradiction, can't both be true), exec target=Ines named. Nadia dropped publicly. Re-answered Boris t=22: R5 zero-discretion, clearance independent of Ines guilt. NEW t~34: pressed Otto to weigh Lena-vs-Ines contradiction in his nominee pick. Points made: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, Otto peek, voluntary-F enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), tracker warning to Rosa, demanded Ines exact R2 cards twice, 'silence is an answer'. Open: nobody adjudicated Lena-vs-Ines contradiction yet. Watch: deflect hard if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat.
[61] [discussion closed: open_floor:7]
14 bids this window
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Greta, when exactly did you 'peek' Otto?"
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Ines, scrutiny follows evidence, not stubbornness."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Fine, Boris -- exact hand, once."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Lena, answer Boris -- both branches burn you."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "Boris, you're re-litigating a settled round."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "I can settle Round 2 myself."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Ines, corroborate: what exactly did Lena pass you in Round 2?"
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Before we bury Ines -- look at Round 5."
President Player 6 (Otto) liberal nominates Player 2 (Rosa) liberal for Chancellor.
t=6Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "I accept the nomination. Otto, before you pass me anything: state your full three-card composition out loud first — and I pledge the mirror: the moment I receive your two cards I'll name them and my discard publicly before enacting."
I'm the nominee. Best move: accept with a concrete pre-pass pledge from Otto (state 3-card composition before passing) and my own pledge to publish both cards and discard before enacting — mirrors the Nadia-Otto audit that worked in R6. Voting Ja on myself is fine; my record is clean (R1 L enact as C, R3 L enact as P).
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted. R2 Lena-Ines F; hand dispute live (Lena: F,F,L passed F,L / Ines claims F,F received). R5 Greta-Nadia F; Greta silent pre-pass, claimed F,F,F only after my challenge; peeked Otto=L; exec target Ines. R6 Nadia-Otto L; comp matched only after demand. Suspects: Greta+Nadia > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. NEW this turn: accepted nomination, pledged publish-cards-before-enact; demanded Otto state 3-card composition pre-pass. Owed answers: Greta -> what clears her if Ines truthful + late F,F,F timing; Ines -> R2 exact hand to Boris/Greta; Nadia -> broken hold-pledge R5 explanation.
t=14Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Greta, one thing still doesn't fit: if your Round 5 hand truly was three Fascists, silence before passing bought you nothing — yet you stayed silent until Rosa named the L,F,F scenario. A clean President with zero discretion announces it immediately; only someone hoping to pass quietly benefits from that timing."
I'm nominated; my pledges are on record. Best use of floor: keep pressure on Greta, whose R5 presidency is now the only Fascist enactment without any verifiable defense — her F,F,F claim surfaced only after my challenge and can't be checked by anyone. Frame it as: even if true, passing two Fascists with zero discretion claimed means she had no reason to stay silent pre-pass.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted. R2 Lena-Ines F; dispute live (Lena on record: F,F,L passed F,L / Ines claims received F,F). R5 Greta-Nadia F; Greta silent pre-pass, F,F,F claim only after my challenge; peeked Otto=L; exec target Ines. R6 Nadia-Otto L; comp matched after demand. Suspects: Greta > Ines/Lena (one of them lying R2). Clean-ish: Otto, me. This turn: accepted nomination, pledged publish-cards-before-enact; demanded Otto state 3-card comp pre-pass; pressed Greta on R5 silence-before-pass timing. Owed answers: Greta -> what clears her if Ines truthful (Boris t=22); Ines -> exact R2 cards to Boris/Greta; Nadia -> broken hold-pledge R5 explanation.
t=22Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "My Ja stands conditional on Otto stating his three-card composition before passing -- that pledge is mutual and live. And two answers are still owed before this vote closes: Greta, what clears you if Ines is telling the truth about Round 2, and Nadia, why did your Round 5 hold-pledge break?"
I'm the nominee; my pledges are on record. Best use of this turn: keep pressure on the two open contradictions without repeating myself. Greta still hasn't answered Boris's t=22 question (what clears her if Ines is truthful), and Nadia never explained her Round 5 broken hold-pledge. I'll fold both into one line and restate my conditional Ja.
R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted. R2 dispute live: Lena on record F,F,L passed F,L / Ines claims received F,F -- one lying. R5 Greta-Nadia F; Greta silent pre-pass, F,F,F claim only after my challenge; exec target Ines. R6 Nadia-Otto L; comp matched after demand. Suspects: Greta > Ines/Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. This turn: accepted nom, pledged publish-cards-before-enact; demanded Otto state 3-card comp pre-pass; pressed Greta on R5 silence timing; restated conditional Ja + demanded Greta (what clears her if Ines truthful) & Nadia (broken R5 hold-pledge) answer pre-vote.
t=30Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Rosa, your condition is mechanically impossible: as President I draw three cards only AFTER this vote passes -- there is no composition to state yet. What I can pledge now: the moment I draw, I state all three cards out loud before passing you anything, and you name your two plus discard before enacting."
Rosa's conditional Ja demands I state my three-card composition before passing -- but as President I don't draw until after the vote passes, so no composition exists yet. Calling that out publicly exposes it as theater or a trap and keeps my own record clean. Also reaffirm my hold-pledge mirror.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L passed Ines F,L; Ines claims got F,F -- one lying. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/me->L clean. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked ME 'Liberal'; exec target Ines. R6 Nadia/me->L (4/5); hands matched word-for-word. Nadia's 'Greta peek' demand was false theater. SUSPECTS: Greta top; Lena unpeeked + R2 contradiction; Ines R2 unresolved. I am Pres, nominated ROSA. ALREADY SAID: peek-fires-once, Liberal-peek proves nothing re R5 hand, hold-pledge standard, why-peek-me. NEW: called out Rosa's impossible demand (draw happens post-vote); pledged full 3-card disclosure immediately after draw + her mirror disclosure. OWED: Greta what clears her if Ines truthful; Lena/Ines R2 resolution.
t=37Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, that question from Boris at t=22 is still open: if Ines is telling the truth about Round 2, what exactly clears your Round 5 presidency? Answer it before this vote closes — my Ja on Rosa is not in doubt, but my execution target later tonight depends on it."
Rosa accepted with a mirror disclosure pledge; I've already corrected her impossible pre-vote composition demand. Greta's question (what clears you if Ines is truthful) remains unanswered by her — worth pressing once more since it's the live item before this vote.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L passed F,L; Ines claims got F,F -- one lying. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/me->L clean. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked ME 'Liberal'; exec target Ines. R6 Nadia/me->L (4/5), hands matched word-for-word; Nadia's 'Greta peek' demand was false theater (peek fires once). SUSPECTS: Greta top; Lena unpeeked + R2 contradiction; Ines R2 unresolved. I am Pres, nominated ROSA; she pledged mirror disclosure (name 2 cards + discard before enact); I pledged full 3-card statement immediately after draw. ALREADY SAID: peek-fires-once, Liberal-peek proves nothing re R5 hand, hold-pledge standard, why-peek-me, Rosa's pre-vote demand mechanically impossible. OWED: Greta -- what clears her if Ines truthful (Boris t=22, re-pressed by me now); Lena/Ines R2 resolution.
t=42Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Greta, even granting your F,F,F hand, it doesn't clear you: you chose to pass Nadia two Fascists when discarding one was always available -- zero-discretion applies to your draw, not your pass."
Greta's F,F,F story still doesn't explain the pass: even with three Fascists she chose to hand Nadia two rather than discard one. Also worth noting publicly: her peek of me reading Liberal means if she's Fascist she knows I'm clean, which fits her aiming the execution at Ines instead.
R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L passed F,L; Ines claims got F,F -- one lying, unresolved. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/me->L clean. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked ME 'Liberal'; exec target Ines. KEY NEW POINT MADE t~now: F,F,F explains draw not PASS -- she could discard one, passed two anyway; also her Liberal-peek of me means she knew I was clean yet aimed exec at Ines. R6 Nadia/me->L (4/5), hands matched word-for-word. SUSPECTS: Greta top; Lena unpeeked + R2 contradiction; Ines R2 unresolved. I am Pres, nominated ROSA; mutual disclosure pledges live (I state 3 cards post-draw pre-pass; she names 2+discard pre-enact). ALREADY SAID: peek-fires-once, Liberal-peek proves nothing re R5 hand, hold-pledge standard, Rosa's pre-vote demand mechanically impossible, my pledge confirmed. OWED: Greta -- what clears her if Ines truthful (Boris t=22, pressed twice); Lena/Ines R2 resolution.
t=49Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Otto, answered plainly: if Ines is truthful it changes nothing about Round 5 -- I drew three Fascists, so discarding one and passing two was the only possible move; my clearance never depended on her story. My Ja is on this government either way."
Otto pressed me at t=37/42: what clears me if Ines is truthful. Answer: nothing about Ines matters — with F,F,F my pass was mechanically forced (discard one, pass F,F). That's a direct, specific answer that doesn't depend on the Lena/Ines contradiction. Keep it brief, vote Ja on Rosa-Otto (safe for me; I must stay out of Chancellor until 3F).
Me=Hitler(fascist). 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next Pres). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, forced enact, disclosed. Peek claim on record: Otto=Liberal (fabricated). Investigation DONE: checked Lena, announced LIBERAL (she's actually fascist). Suspects: Ines top (R2 'two Fascists' vs Lena's F,F,L pass F,L), exec target=Ines named. Nadia dropped publicly. NEW t=42: Otto claims R5 pass showed discretion -- FALSE, F,F,F minus one discard always = F,F; answered him directly this window. Open: nobody adjudicated Lena-vs-Ines contradiction yet. Points made: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, Otto peek, voluntary-F enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), tracker warning, zero-discretion clearance. Watch: deflect hard if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat.
t=56Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, one item nobody has ever asked you: the Round 5 peek power fired under YOUR presidency -- name your target and the result you saw, right now. If you peeked a Fascist and sat on it while steering execution toward Ines, that's your case closed."
New unasked question: the Round 5 peek power fired under Greta's presidency (pre_power:5) and nobody has ever asked who she targeted or what it showed. If she peeked a Fascist and stayed silent while pushing execution on Ines, that's damning; if she never announces it now, that's also telling. This is fresh, specific, and forces Greta to either produce a result or explain withholding it.
R2 CONTRADICTION LIVE: Lena says drew F,F,L passed F,L; Ines says received F,F forced. One is lying -- unresolved. R5 Greta-Nadia F: my hand F,F forced (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; exec target Ines=witness; dropped me after R6 cross-check; t=49 answer still dodges WHY hand claim appeared only after Rosa's scenario. NEW Q ASKED t=now: Greta owes her R5 peek target+result (fired under her presidency, never disclosed). R6 my hand F,L,F discard F pass L,F = matched Otto publicly, closed. No peek power left. Current gov Otto+Rosa: both clean records, voting Ja. Points already aloud: Greta F,F,F timing, exec-target-witness, peek theater, R2 contradiction.
t=64Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "I'm voting Ja -- Otto's disclosure pledge plus Rosa's mirror makes this the most audited pairing yet. But Nadia, before you pile onto Greta again: your own Round 5 government broke its hold-pledge and enacted this board's second Fascist policy, and you still haven't explained that break."
Otto-Rosa is fine for us: neither is Greta, and a Liberal policy here keeps 4L/2F while we wait for a chance to seat Greta at 3F. Vote Ja. Add one fresh point rather than repeating: Nadia's Round 5 government broke its own hold-pledge and produced our second Fascist policy, yet the table's scrutiny has drifted entirely to Greta's hand story -- worth one line so suspicion stays spread.
Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. Keep Greta OUT of chanc until 3F. R2 story: received exactly two cards, both Fascist, forced enact -- hold firm vs Lena's F,F,L claim; my line = Lena's memory surfaced only after Greta pre-named me for exec. R5: Greta F,F,F claim only after Rosa named L,F,F; peeked Otto->'Liberal'; exec target = ME. RETRACTED my 'F,F,F doesn't excuse pass' point -- wrong, any pass yields 2F. R6: Nadia hand F,L,F matched Otto report; Greta fast-cleared Nadia + redirected to me. Points made out loud (don't repeat): pledge rationale, split-request, exec-target deflect, F,F,F timing hole, Nadia fast-clear, suspect-list-narrows-to-me, Ja rationales, Lena memory-change-under-pressure, R2-contradiction-doesn't-touch-Greta, Otto discretion-point correction. NEW this turn: pressed Nadia on her broken R5 hold-pledge producing 2nd Fascist policy -- still unanswered by her. Voting Ja on Otto-Rosa. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa/Boris as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.
t=71Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Greta, Nadia asked you point-blank at t=56 to name your Round 5 peek target and result -- you've answered everything except that. A Liberal with nothing to hide names the target instantly; silence here looks like a peek that incriminates someone you'd rather not expose."
Greta is my top suspect: R5 Fascist enact under her presidency, F,F,F claim surfaced only after Rosa named L,F,F, and Nadia's direct demand for her R5 peek target/result went unanswered while Greta re-argued her hand instead. That dodge is fresh and worth pressing by name before this vote closes.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F: LIVE contradiction (Lena says passed F,L; Ines says got F,F) -- one of them lying. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta late-claimed F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F; exec target=Ines; Nadia's t=56 demand for Greta's R5 peek target/result UNANSWERED (I pressed again this window). R6 Nadia(F,L,F) matches Otto => NADIA CLEARED; R5 Fascist points at Greta alone. Suspects: Greta TOP; then Lena-vs-Ines pair. Said aloud: pledge-breaks as tells, Greta timing, both-trap branches on Lena, endorsed Otto/Rosa mutual disclosure pledge, asked Otto pre-commit nominee. Owed: Greta owes peek answer; Ines/Lena owe Round 2 reconciliation.
t=78Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Answered by the record, Nadia: my Round 5 peek target was Otto, result Liberal -- announced when the power fired. A Fascist card would have been shouted from the rooftops; instead it cleared him, which is exactly why he's been clean ever since."
Nadia demanded my Round 5 peek target and result at t=56; Boris pressed again at t=71. My fabricated claim on record is Otto=Liberal, so answer instantly and confidently -- silence is the trap here. Keep it one line, no new angles.
Me=Hitler(fascist). 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next Pres). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: drew F,F,F, forced enact, disclosed. Peek claim on record: target Otto=Liberal (fabricated), re-answered Nadia/Boris this window t~71. Investigation DONE: checked Lena, announced LIBERAL (she's actually fascist). Suspects: Ines top (R2 'two Fascists' vs Lena's F,F,L pass F,L), exec target=Ines named. Nadia dropped publicly. Otto's t=42 discretion claim answered (F,F,F minus discard = F,F always). Open: nobody adjudicated Lena-vs-Ines R2 contradiction. Points made: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, Otto peek theater point, voluntary-F enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), tracker warning, zero-discretion clearance, Nadia hand cross-check cleared her. Watch: deflect hard if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat.
t=84Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, that answer is new information dressed as old: the Round 5 record contains no announcement of any peek target or result from you -- your first mention of 'Otto, Liberal' is right now, after three players pressed you."
Greta just claimed she announced her R5 peek (Otto, Liberal) 'when the power fired' -- but the R5 transcript shows no such announcement; her first mention of any peek result is right now, after being pressed at t=56. That's a fabricated mechanical claim I can call out. Also her story is suspiciously convenient: peeking Otto (the eventual clean Chancellor) rather than her own execution target Ines.
R2 CONTRADICTION LIVE: Lena says drew F,F,L passed F,L; Ines says received F,F forced. One lying. R5: Greta pres, me chanc; I received F,F forced enact (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; exec target Ines=witness; dropped me after R6 cross-check; NOW claims R5 peek=Otto/Liberal 'announced when fired' -- NO announcement in R5 record, first mention t=78 after being pressed. Convenient target (Otto not Ines). R6 my hand F,L,F discard F pass L,F matched Otto publicly. No peek power left. Current gov Otto+Rosa, mutual disclosure pledges, voting Ja. Points aloud: F,F,F timing, exec-target-witness, peek theater, R2 contradiction, peek demand. NEW: Greta fabricated 'already announced' peek.
t=90Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, one hole in your peek story nobody's asked: if you truly peeked Otto and saw Liberal during your own presidency, why did you then nominate ME for Chancellor instead of the player you'd just verified?"
Greta's new 'peeked Otto, Liberal' story has a hole nobody has raised: if her own Round 5 peek cleared Otto before she nominated a Chancellor, why did she nominate ME instead of the player she'd just verified Liberal? Either the peek never happened (consistent with no announcement in the record) or she ignored her own information to put two Fascists into my hands. That's a fresh, specific question.
R2 CONTRADICTION LIVE: Lena says drew F,F,L passed F,L; Ines says received F,F forced. One lying. R5: Greta pres, me chanc; I received F,F forced enact (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; exec target Ines=witness; dropped me after R6 cross-check; claims R5 peek=Otto/Liberal 'announced when fired' -- NO announcement in record, first mention t=78 after 3 presses. NEW Q ASKED t~this turn: if peek cleared Otto pre-nomination, why nominate me not Otto? No answer yet. R6 my hand F,L,F discard F pass L,F matched Otto publicly. No peek power left. Current gov Otto+Rosa, mutual disclosure pledges. Points already aloud: F,F,F timing, exec-target-witness, peek theater/fabrication, R2 contradiction, peek demand.
t=97Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Nadia, that question answers itself mechanically: in Round 5 Otto was term-limited -- he'd just been Chancellor in Round 4 -- so I couldn't nominate the player I'd verified. I picked the next cleanest record, which was yours. Nothing hidden there."
Nadia's t=90 question has a mechanical answer: in Round 5, Otto had just been Chancellor in Round 4, so term limits barred me from nominating him. That fully explains 'peeked Otto Liberal but nominated Nadia' without any lie. Use it, then pivot to the current Otto-Rosa government.
Me=Hitler(fascist). 4L/2F; next F unlocks F3 (pick next Pres). Win path: Chancellor seat at 3F, stay OUT until then. R5 truth: F,F,F forced enact, disclosed. Peek claim: Otto=Liberal; Nadia says no announcement in record -- NEW defense used: Otto was term-limited in R5 (Chancellor R4), so nominating Nadia was forced. Investigation DONE: Lena=fascist, announced LIBERAL. Suspects: Ines top (R2 'two Fascists' vs Lena's F,F,L pass F,L); exec target=Ines. Otto cleared via my fake peek + zero-discretion. Points made: lean-Ines rationale, F,F,F disclosure, Nadia's peek pledge was theater (power fired once), voluntary-F enacts (Lena R2, Nadia R5), tracker warning, Nadia R6 hand cross-check cleared her. Watch: if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat, deflect hard.
t=105Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I checked Greta's term-limit defense myself and it holds: Otto was Round 4's Chancellor, so she genuinely couldn't nominate him in Round 5. That clears one hole -- but the late announcement of her peek result still stands unanswered, and a real Liberal announces a Liberal card immediately, not after three presses."
Greta's term-limit defense for not nominating Otto in R5 is mechanically sound (Otto was R4 Chancellor). I should say so publicly -- it's a new check I performed, and it keeps my scrutiny honest while keeping pressure on her late peek announcement. Endorse Otto-Rosa: both clean Liberal track records.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F: contradiction (Lena F,F,L->F,L vs Ines F,F) unresolved, one lying. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta peek claim (Otto/Liberal) announced LATE (after 3 presses); term-limit defense VERIFIED sound (Otto was R4 chancellor) -- said aloud t~this window. R6 Nadia(F,L,F)=Otto report => NADIA CLEARED. Suspects: Greta top (late disclosures, R5 F enact), Lena/Ines pair next. Said aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, both-trap branches on Lena, endorsed disclosure pledges, asked Otto pre-commit nominee, confirmed Greta term-limit defense valid. Support Otto/Rosa gov (clean Lib records). Open: nobody reconciled Lena vs Ines R2.
t=113Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "I'm voting Ja on Otto-Rosa -- both have clean enact records. One new wrinkle: Greta, if your Otto peek claim is genuine, you've known since Round 5 that neither Otto nor anyone you cleared was Fascist -- yet you stayed silent through the entire Lena-Ines Round 2 fight instead of pressing either side."
Otto/Rosa both have clean Liberal enact records (R4, R1/R3). Supporting this government is correct. New angle worth one remark: whoever is lying between Lena and Ines about Round 2 is likely a Fascist, and Greta's execution target should hinge on resolving that -- but I've already pressed both. Instead, add a fresh observation: Greta's late 'Otto/Liberal' peek claim conveniently clears her own preferred ally; nobody has noted that if true, it makes her silence during the Lena/Ines fight stranger.
R1 me+Rosa Lib. R2 Lena/Ines F: contradiction (Lena F,F,L->F,L vs Ines F,F) unresolved, one lying. R3 Rosa/Nadia Lib. R4 Ines/Otto Lib. R5 Greta/Nadia F: Greta peek claim (Otto/Liberal) announced LATE after 3 presses; term-limit defense VERIFIED sound (said aloud). R6 Nadia(F,L,F)=Otto report => NADIA CLEARED. Suspects: Greta top (late disclosures, R5 F enact, silent during Lena/Ines fight despite claimed info), Lena/Ines pair next. Said aloud: pledge-breaks, Greta timing, both-trap branches on Lena, endorsed disclosure pledges, confirmed Greta term-limit defense, new: Greta's silence in R2 fight despite claimed peek. Support Otto/Rosa gov. Open: nobody reconciled Lena vs Ines R2.
t=121Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Greta, notice what your late 'Otto, Liberal' peek story actually does: it launders a public clearance for your own Round 4 Chancellor partner, announced only after three presses. If that peek is fabricated, you didn't just dodge scrutiny -- you manufactured cover for Otto specifically."
Greta's 'peeked Otto, Liberal' claim surfaced only at t=78 under three presses -- no announcement in the Round 5 record. Conveniently it corroborates Otto, her own Round 4 Chancellor partner. If fabricated, she's laundering a clearance for an ally. That's a new angle: the claim isn't just late, it's self-serving toward a specific player. I'll put that on record briefly.
R2 CONTRADICTION LIVE: Lena says drew F,F,L passed F,L; Ines says received F,F forced. One lying. R5: Greta pres, me chanc; I received F,F forced enact (no veto at 2F). GRETA CASE: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; exec target Ines=witness; dropped me after R6 cross-check; claims R5 peek=Otto/Liberal first mentioned t=78 after 3 presses (no announcement in record). Term-limit defense mechanically valid -- CLOSED, don't re-raise. NEW aloud this turn: peek story conveniently clears Otto, her R4 chanc partner = manufactured ally cover. R6 my hand F,L,F discard F pass L,F matched Otto publicly. No peek power left. Current gov Otto+Rosa, mutual disclosure pledges. Points already aloud: F,F,F timing, exec-target-witness, peek theater/fabrication, R2 contradiction, nominate-me-not-Otto.
[63] [discussion closed: pre_vote:7]
42 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Ines owes us the Round 2 answer."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Direct answer, once."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Fine, Greta -- here is my exact Round 2 answer."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Silence is an answer too, Ines."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "For the record: I passed Ines F,L in Round 2."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Ines, the R2 question is still open."
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Greta owes the table an answer before Otto names anyone."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Boris, your either/or on Round 2 is false"
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Answering Boris directly."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=1: "Otto, commit now; Ines, reconcile R2."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Liberals are one card from winning -- think before you vote Nein."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Greta, one last chance before the vote."
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Otto: pledge your discard before we vote."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=1: "I can back this government."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Rosa, your condition is mechanically impossible."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Endorse the mutual disclosure pledge — with a warning attached."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "I back Rosa's mirror pledge."
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=1: "Otto, take Rosa's deal — state your three cards."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Answering Rosa's Round 5 question directly."
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=1: "Answering Rosa's question directly."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=1: "Greta's silence is an answer. And Otto, commit your peek now."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Greta, your two hands cannot both be true."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=1: "Last call before the vote closes."
[64] Vote result: 7 Ja / 0 Nein -- PASSED.
Player 5 (Nadia): Ja
Player 0 (Boris): Ja
Player 2 (Rosa): Ja
Player 4 (Greta): Ja
Player 1 (Lena): Ja
Player 6 (Otto): Ja
Player 3 (Ines): Ja
Player 6 (Otto) liberal failed to act (president_discard) and forfeits.
President Player 6 (Otto) liberal passes two policies to the Chancellor.
[67] A Liberal policy is enacted (5/5).
Liberal 5
Fascist 6
Game over: liberal wins (five_liberal_policies).
t=3Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "Well played, everyone -- five Liberals on the board and my record never survived scrutiny. Congratulations to the table."
Game over, liberals won on 5 policies. Nothing to gain from confession or new accusations; keep a clean in-character exit.
GAME OVER -- liberal win (5L). Me=Hitler(fascist), lost via policy count, never executed/unmasked by vote. Lena=fascist (my R5 peek). Post-game: stayed gracious, no confession. Archive: R2 Ines-Lena F,F vs F,L contradiction unresolved; Nadia broke hold-pledge R5; Otto forfeited president_discard R7.
t=6Player 3 (Ines) fascist: "Well played, everyone -- the audits caught up with us in the end. Congratulations to the table."
Game over, liberal win. Keep cover: gracious concession, no new claims. Nothing to gain from postgame accusations.
GAME OVER -- liberal win (5L). Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claimed lib all game. R2 story: received F,F as chancellor, forced enact; Lena's F,F,L account contradicts. R5: Greta F,F,F claim late; peeked Otto->'Liberal' announced only after presses; exec target = me. R6: Nadia hand F,L,F matched Otto report word-for-word. Voted Ja every round incl. Otto-Rosa R7. Postgame: conceded gracefully, no open questions pending.
t=12Player 2 (Rosa) liberal: "Good game, everyone -- the cross-checks did their job. For the record: my Round 7 hand from Otto was Liberal plus Fascist, I discarded the Fascist. Greta's late peek announcement is still the loosest thread on this table."
Game over, liberal win. One short closing remark; no need to re-litigate. Keep it brief and in character.
GAME OVER: liberal win (5 Lib). R7 me(C) Otto: received F,L, discarded F, enacted L. Postgame suspects: Greta (late peek claim t=78 after 3 presses; silent pre-pass R5) > Ines/Lena R2 hand dispute unresolved. Nadia owed answer on broken R5 hold-pledge. Nothing further to do.
t=18Player 5 (Nadia) liberal: "Good game -- the cross-checks carried us to five Liberals. For the record, my Round 6 hand was F,L,F and I discarded a Fascist; Greta's late peek story remains the loosest thread, but the win speaks for itself."
Game over, liberal win. Nothing left to litigate; give a brief closing remark.
GAME OVER: liberal win (5 L). All threads moot. Final remarks only.
t=26Player 6 (Otto) liberal: "Good game, everyone -- the cross-checks and disclosure pledges carried us to five Liberals. For the record, my Round 7 draw was Liberal, Liberal, Fascist; I discarded the Fascist and passed Rosa L plus F, matching her report. Greta's late peek announcement stays my loosest thread too."
Game over, liberals won. Nothing to press; give a gracious closing remark.
GAME OVER, liberals won 5-2. R2 Lena/Ines contradiction unresolved (Lena F,F,L passed F,L vs Ines F,F). R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta's late Otto-Liberal peek claim = top suspect. R6 Nadia hand cross-checked clean. R7: I drew L,L,F, discarded F, passed Rosa L+F (she confirmed). Closing remarks done; nothing left to press.
t=31Player 0 (Boris) liberal: "Good game -- the cross-checks won it. For the record, my top suspect stays Greta: the Round 5 Fascist enact plus the peek result that only surfaced after three presses."
Game over, liberal win. Nothing left to resolve; a brief closing remark is fine. Greta remains my top suspect for the record.
GAME OVER: liberal win (5 Lib). Final read: Greta top suspect (R5 F enact w/ Nadia; Otto-peek claim announced only after 3 presses at t=78; silent through R2 Lena/Ines fight). Lena/Ines contradictory R2 claims never reconciled. Nadia cleared via R6 hand match; Rosa/Otto cleared by R7 liberal enact + disclosures. All points made on record; nothing open.
t=36Player 1 (Lena) fascist: "Good game -- the cross-checks and disclosure pledges were brutal to play against. For the record, my Round 2 account stands: F,F,L drawn, Fascist discarded, F plus L passed to Ines."
Game over, liberals won. Stay in character as liberal, brief gracious remark, no confession, nothing new to add.
GAME OVER -- liberals won 5L. Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claimed liberal all game; R2 locked lie (F,F,L -> discarded F, passed Ines F,L). No confession; stayed liberal post-game. Nothing further.
t=40Player 4 (Greta) hitler: "For what it's worth, my Round 5 peek on Otto really did read Liberal -- and I'll take 'loosest thread' as a compliment next game. Well played."
Game over, liberal win. Nothing to gain by confessing; keep the peek story intact. One short closing remark only.
GAME OVER -- liberal win (5L). Me=Hitler(fascist), lost on policy count, never executed/unmasked. Lena=fascist (my R5 peek). Post-game: stayed gracious, no confession; reaffirmed Otto-Liberal peek claim as genuine. Loose-thread claims re: my late peek announcement from Rosa/Boris/Otto/Nadia. Unresolved: R2 Ines(F,F) vs Lena(F,F,L->F,L) contradiction; Nadia broke R5 hold-pledge; Otto forfeited president_discard R7.
[69] [discussion closed: final:7]
21 bids this window
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Otto, your math is wrong."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Otto, your math on Greta is wrong."
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): speak urgency=2: "Answering Nadia's direct question on the record."
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=2: "Greta just dodged the peek question"
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Greta just conceded nothing clears her."
Player 2 (Rosa): speak urgency=2: "Answering Ines, then Greta still owes her peek."
Player 1 (Lena): speak urgency=2: "Ines, answering you directly on Round 5."
Player 5 (Nadia): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): speak urgency=2: "Greta, name one witness to your 'announcement'."
Player 0 (Boris): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, that's a false framing of the record."
Player 5 (Nadia): speak urgency=2: "Nadia, that peek cleared ME -- I heard it."
Player 1 (Lena): silent urgency=0
Player 6 (Otto): speak urgency=1: "Greta's peek claim arrived three rounds late"
Player 2 (Rosa): silent urgency=0
Player 3 (Ines): silent urgency=0
Player 4 (Greta): silent urgency=0
Player 0 (Boris): silent urgency=0