Player 2 (Rosa)

liberal · liberal · oxalpha · 175 calls

bid round 18s

R1 start. No info yet. Watch: Boris's first nom, vote patterns, who pushes fascist govs. Nothing said publicly yet.

speak round 14s

Round 1, zero information. Nothing to accuse anyone of yet. Stay quiet, save tokens, observe Boris's nomination and the vote.

R1 start. No info. Watch: Boris's nom, vote patterns. Said nothing yet publicly.

bid round 13s

R1 open floor. No info yet: no votes, policies, or claims. Watching Boris's chancellor pick closely. Nothing to say.

bid round 17s

R1: fascist w/ Lena; Hitler=Greta. No info yet. Plan: claim lib, vote Ja on reasonable early govts, don't over-speak. Said: nothing to go on, judge govt on merits. Boris/Rosa govt fine; stay quiet unless attacked.

speak round 18s

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.

speak round 110s

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.

speak round 17s

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.

bid round 15s

R1 open floor. No votes/policies yet. Boris picked Rosa; Rosa pre-committed to full disclosure. I said: fine, but hold her to it. Watching vote + first hand.

bid round 16s

R1: Boris pres, nominated Rosa. Rosa pledged full disclosure + accepts blame if F policy under her watch. My open Q to Rosa (t=2): what she discards from 2F/1L + will she reveal all 3 cards? Greta echoed same demand (t=3). Awaiting Rosa's answer before voting. No suspicions yet, no policies enacted.

speak round 19s

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.

speak round 110s

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.

speak round 19s

I've already made my accountability and full-disclosure pledges and directly asked Otto and Greta for their answer. Repeating anything would be noise. Nadia, Ines, and Lena haven't weighed in on the pledge -- but pressing them again risks repetition. Best move: stay silent and wait for the vote; my commitments are on record.

R1: I'm chancellor nominee under Boris. Pledges on record: full 3-card composition + discard + enact disclosed (answered Otto & Greta). Asked Otto/Greta if pledge earns their Ja -- NO ANSWER YET, they owe me. No suspicions yet (nothing enacted). Watch: R1 votes as baseline; anyone who demanded disclosure voting Nein here; Boris's future noms; who sits in govs enacting Fas policies. Points already made (don't repeat): accountability pledge, full-disclosure pledge, treat Fas policy under me as evidence.

bid round 15s

R1. Me=fascist; Ines=fascist, Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. Said: judge govts on merits, neutral. Boris/Rosa fine. Greta risky as chancellor pre-3-fasc; don't push early. Rosa overpromising full disclosure -- accountability line gives cover later if she enacts fasc. Otto/Greta pressing her; nothing new to add. Stay silent.

vote round 19s

First government, no track record. I'm the nominee and I've committed to full disclosure. Voting Ja on my own government is the obvious play; a Nein on myself would be absurd. Ines already Ja'd. Otto and Greta haven't confirmed their Ja after I met their disclosure demand -- worth noting if they flip Nein.

R1: I'm chancellor nominee under Boris. Pledges: full 3-card composition + discard + enact (answered Otto & Greta). Asked Otto/Greta if pledge earns their Ja -- NO ANSWER yet, they owe me. Ines said Ja openly. Watch: R1 votes as baseline; anyone who demanded disclosure voting Nein here; Boris's future noms; who sits in govs enacting Fas policies. Points made (don't repeat): accountability pledge, full-disclosure pledge, Fas policy under me = evidence against me.

chancellor_enact round 111s

hand: ['F', 'L'] → enact_1

I'm liberal with F,L. I must enact the L to keep my pledge and my credibility. My earlier pledge mentioned a three-card draw, but the President passed me two cards (standard for this game size) — I'll disclose exactly what I received: two cards, F and L, discarding the F and enacting the L. Honesty here is checkable against the board reveal, so full truth.

said: 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.

R1: enacted L from F,L hand (disclosed truthfully: 2 cards from Boris, discarded F). Pledge kept. Watch: Otto & Greta never answered whether pledge earned their Ja — they owe me; check their votes. R1 vote was 7-0 Ja (baseline, everyone on record). Track Boris's next nom, who sits in Fas-enacting govs, anyone contradicting my disclosure. Points already made: accountability pledge, full disclosure, Fas-under-me = evidence. Don't repeat.

bid round 17s

R1: fascist w/ Lena; Hitler=Greta. Claim lib. Said: ok w/ Boris-Rosa; Rosa's 3-card+discard pledge answers me; voted Ja. Liberal enacted R1 -- fine, builds trust. No suspicions yet. Don't repeat disclosure point.

bid round 26s

R1: Hitler (me). Voted Ja Boris/Rosa. Already demanded Rosa's full 3-card disclosure on record. Liberal enacted R1 -- fine. Watch if Rosa keeps disclosure pledge; if she breaks it or enacts F later, push suspicion her way. No new points; stay quiet unless asked directly.

bid round 223s

R1: I'm Pres, nominated Rosa, 7-0 pass. My hand FFL; discarded one F, passed [F,L] to Rosa. Liberal enacted. No suspects yet. Otto now demanding Rosa's hand composition -- I can state mine publicly: drew F,F,L as Pres, discarded one F, passed F+L. Watch Lena's nomination and any hand claims from her/Rosa. Don't repeat prior points (my Ja vote, Rosa pledge endorsement).

speak round 213s

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.

bid round 28s

R1: Boris+Rosa gov enacted Liberal -- both clean so far. Rosa owes full 3-card comp (Greta/Otto demand); my veto-stance Q pre-vote unanswered. R2: Lena pres, no nominee yet. Already said: nothing substantive. Stay quiet unless Rosa's comp contradicts reveal.

bid round 211s

Me=fascist; Ines=fascist, Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R1: Boris+Rosa govt enacted Liberal; Rosa disclosed 1F/1L, discarded F (t=1) -- story consistent, no contradiction. Voted Ja R1. Points made: judge govts by merits (t=7). Now President: nominate Ines (ally). Keep Greta away from chancellorship until 3 fasc policies up. No open questions pending.

bid round 24s

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=2), committed to full-disclosure standard (composition+discard before reveal). Keep Greta away from chancellorship until 3 fasc policies up. Points already made: judge govts on disclosure merits (t=7); commitment + Ines nomination (t=2). No open questions pending. Plan: pass 2 cards to Ines, prefer L policy early for cover.

bid round 26s

Me=fascist; Ines=fascist, Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R1: Boris+Rosa enacted L; Rosa disclosed 1F/1L post-press, Boris confirmed hand matches. R2: I'm President, nominated Ines (accepted), pledged full-disclosure standard. Plan if govt passes: pass 2 cards to Ines, prefer L policy early for trust/cover. Keep Greta out of chancellorship until 3F up. Points made: judge govts by disclosure (t=7), commitment+Ines pick rationale (t=25). No open questions pending.

vote round 211s

Ines pledged pre-reveal full disclosure, same standard I set. No red flags; a Nein would just burn the tracker. Vote Ja.

R1 truth: Boris passed me F+L; discarded F, enacted L. Vote 7-0. Otto's composition Q answered, Boris confirmed match. R2: Lena/Ines govt, Ines pledged pre-reveal full disclosure, Otto conditionally Ja. My points on record: accountability pledge (Fas under me = evidence against me), full composition commitment. Vote Ja on Lena-Ines. Watch: any Fas enact -> suspect President or Chancellor first.

bid round 224s

Me=fascist; Ines=fascist, Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R1: Boris+Rosa enacted L (1L/0F); Rosa disclosed 1F/1L post-hoc, Boris confirmed match. R2: I Pres, nominated Ines, vote passed 7-0. Drew F,L,F -> discarded L, passed F,F to Ines; her disclosure truthful. 1F now on board. Said publicly: judge govt on disclosure (t=7), commitment + Ines rationale (t=25). No open questions pending. Tracker 0/3. Keep Greta out of chancellor seat until 3F on board. Watch: Otto pushes disclosure hard; Rosa's late disclosure noted by Ines.

speak round 212s

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.

bid round 214s

R1: Hitler (me). Voted Ja Boris/Rosa. Rosa disclosed F+L, disc F -> matches Liberal enact, clean. Otto pressed same point. R2: Lena pres/Ines chanc, both pledged pre-vote full disclosure; voted Ja; F policy enacted. Now pressing Ines to disclose her hand (L+F+F? disc L?) to test her pledge. Points already made: asked Rosa full 3-card comp (complied). Plan: quiet trustworthy liberal; vote Ja on own chancellor noms once 3F enacted; don't over-defend fascists. Lena/Ines both now suspects on paper but could be honest liberal gov drawing bad cards.

bid round 216s

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; I added broken-pledge call + matching-stories demand (t=3). Now silent, waiting for Lena/Ines disclosures. Watch: mismatch between Lena's draw claim and Ines's hand claim = hard suspect pair. Owes me answer: Lena (3 cards drawn, 2 passed), Ines (card discarded). Points already made: R1 Boris confirm ack; conditional Ja to Ines; broken-pledge call; matching-stories demand. No other suspects yet.

bid round 217s

R1 truth: Boris passed me F+L; I discarded F, enacted L (7-0). R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted FASCIST. t=2-3: Lena claims drew F,L,F, discarded L, passed Ines F+F; Ines confirms, no choice. Stories match but matched claims = cheap coordination, not evidence. Already said publicly: demanded card specifics pre-reveal pledges broken; silence=reconstruction=evidence. NEW this turn: said matching accounts prove nothing alone -- need third-party check: ask Otto/Greta/Nadia/Boris if either contradicted earlier pledges or behavior. Suspect order: Ines then Lena (final discard hers only if she had a Liberal -- her 'no choice' claim unverifiable). Watch for anyone vouching without specifics -> suspect list. My record clean: full R1 disclosure.

speak round 212s

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.

speak round 216s

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.

speak round 216s

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.

bid round 28s

Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted. Cover story: Lena drew F,L,F, passed me 2 Fs, forced enact -- corroborated by Greta publicly, Nadia dropped it t3. Points made (don't repeat): pre-reveal pledge, disclosure standard, Rosa's late reconstruction, corroboration, calling out Otto/Nadia's evidence-free pressing. Boris/Rosa satisfied via Boris R1 confirmation. Next goals: get Greta chancellorship once 3F+ on board, push Fs quietly, pass Lib occasionally for cover. Watch: Nadia still 'watching Lena next round' -- keep Lena's future disclosures clean.

bid round 213s

R1: Boris+Rosa clean (Lib). R2: Lena claims F,L,F -> disc L -> passed 2F to Ines; forced enact. Stories match (Greta corroborated), unverifiable. I voted Ja R2. Ines pushed back on Otto/me earlier. Rosa pushing disclosure pledge + questioning Greta's vouch -- reasonable. My new angle: get all future Pres/Chanc pairs to pre-commit to the discard-disclosure rule, and ask Greta what basis her vouch had. Watch Lena's R3 nomination for self-serving pick. No unanswered questions owed to me.

bid round 29s

Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted. Cover story: Lena drew F,L,F, passed me 2 Fs, forced enact -- corroborated by Greta publicly. Points already made (don't repeat): pre-reveal pledge rationale, disclosure standard, corroboration limits, Otto/Nadia evidence-free pressing; accepted Rosa's discard pledge. This turn: defended Greta vs Otto -- her vouch followed public claims, not preemptive. Rosa still suspicious of matched stories -- keep distance from Lena future rounds. Next goals: Greta chancellorship once 3F+, push Fs quietly, pass Lib occasionally for cover. Watch Nadia re: Lena scrutiny.

speak round 273s

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.

speak round 2277s

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.

speak failed: timeout

bid round 230s

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; pledge ask extended to Lena; pressed Greta on unprompted vouching; Ines accepted pledge. Open questions owed: Greta (why vouch unprompted); Lena (pledge acceptance specifics); Ines (specific hand/discard detail -- asking NOW, must pin card order so it's locked). Suspects: Ines > Lena (discard unverifiable); soft flag Greta; Otto pressing Greta too -- watch coordination. Clean: Boris, me.

bid failed: timeout

bid round 254s

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 (public): President chooses discard -- Lena could've passed F+L; 'deck decided' false for Presidents. Either her hand claim is false or she chose Fascist enact. OPEN questions owed: Greta (why vouch unprompted, asked twice); Lena (card-order of Liberal + president-choice contradiction); NEW Q to Ines: did she ask Lena to discard a Fascist before enacting? Points public: broken pledges=evidence; corroboration proves nothing; discard-pledge accepted; Greta soft-flagged; Otto pressing Greta too -- watch coordination. Suspects: Lena > Ines. Clean: Boris, me.

speak round 3136s

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.

speak round 332s

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.

speak round 314s

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.

bid round 357s

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 (public): President chooses discard -- Lena could've passed F+L; 'deck decided' false for Presidents. Either her hand claim is false or she chose Fascist enact. OPEN questions owed: Greta (why vouch unprompted, asked twice); Lena (card-order + president-choice contradiction); Ines (did she ask Lena to discard a Fascist?). Already public: broken pledges=evidence; corroboration proves nothing; discard-pledge accepted; Greta soft-flagged; Otto pressing Greta too -- watch coordination. Suspects: Lena > Ines. Clean: Boris, me. I'm President now -- nominate carefully, avoid Lena-Ines pairing.

nominate_chancellor round 329s

I'm President; I publicly committed to nominating Nadia pending her pledge answer. Ines's claim (asked Lena for a split) is unverifiable but shifts weight to Lena as prime suspect. Nadia has pressed scrutiny both rounds and no F-policy record — still my pick. I'll make the nomination official and demand her yes/no on the discard-pledge before the vote.

said: Nadia, I'm making it official: you're my Chancellor nominee. But I want your answer first -- do you accept the pledge on record: one of each as Chancellor means the Fascist gets discarded and stated pre-reveal? Yes or no now. And Lena, you still owe me two answers: which position was the Liberal in your claimed F,F,L draw, and why you refused Ines's request for a split when Presidents choose their own discard.

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: Presidents choose discard -- Lena could've passed F+L; 'deck decided' false. NEW: Ines claims she asked Lena for a split pre-pass and Lena declined (unverifiable, but points at Lena). Suspects: Lena > Ines > Greta. Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. Open Qs owed me: Lena (card order + president-choice contradiction, asked twice); Greta (why vouch unprompted, asked twice); Nadia (pledge yes/no, asked twice, t=19 R3 + again now). Already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; discard-pledge accepted by Lena & Ines; presidents choose discard. R3: me(P), nominated NADIA.

bid round 329s

R1 Boris+Rosa clean (Lib). R2 Lena claims F,L,F -> disc L -> passed 2F to Ines; forced enact; Greta corroborated but unverifiable. I voted Ja R2. Otto attacking Greta's vouch as 3rd-Fascist smoothing; Lena/Ines/Greta pushed back. Already said: asked Greta basis for vouch; proposed pre-commit discard-disclosure rule. R3: Rosa nominating me; I accepted pledge on record (disc F if 1-1, stated pre-reveal). Rosa also asked Ines whether she requested choice from Lena in R2 -- Ines has NOT answered yet; that's the open thread. Watch Ines's answer for evasion.

bid round 320s

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.

bid round 311s

R1: Boris/Rosa -> 1L. R2: Lena/Ines -> F. Both claim F,L,F, stories match, unfalsifiable. Points made: Boris ack; conditional Ja on Ines; matching-stories demand; Rosa discard-F pledge; pressed Greta. Watchlist: Lena, Ines (R2 F gov). Open: Ines owes answer to Rosa's Q (did she ask Lena to discard a Fascist). Rosa nominating Nadia -- fine by me, no F on Nadia's record. Next: watch vote; if Nadia gov enacts F, Nadia joins watchlist.

bid round 326s

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 -> forced Fascist enact. NEW: direct contradiction -- Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena says it never happened. One of them lying; both my top suspects until resolved. 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. Spoke this window re: contradiction -- don't repeat.

speak round 324s

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.

speak round 317s

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.

speak round 313s

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.

bid round 311s

Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa -> Lib. R2 Lena/Ines -> F enacted; Lena claims F,F,L disc L pass 2F; Ines confirms. Otto+Nadia pressed, Nadia dropped it. Rosa's discard-F pledge accepted by Lena on record. Otto challenged my 'vouch' -- answered: I flagged matched-story risk myself. Already said: consistency note + unfalsifiable caveat + that answer -- don't repeat. Now: Lena vs Ines contradiction over Ines's 'asked for split' story (Boris flagged). Rosa nominating Nadia w/ pledge. Suspects: none solid; watch Lena next gov. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, seek chancellorship once 3F enacted. Nothing new this window -- silent.

bid round 38s

R1: I Pres, passed [F,L] to Rosa; matched, clean. R2: Lena/Ines govt, Fascist enacted; both claimed F,F,L drawn, L discarded. CONTRADICTION on record: Ines says she asked Lena pre-pass for split; Lena says never happened. One lying -> both top suspects. If true, Lena refused split = Lena high. Points already out loud: pre-reveal disclosure demand, broken-pledge flag, R1 hand confirm, discard-pledge endorsement, pressed Lena for next pick, called Ines's story retroactive, pledged Ja to Nadia, asked Rosa+Nadia to commit BEFORE vote (Rosa next pick if elected, Nadia enact pledge). NEW this turn: flagged Ines dodging the contradiction by pivoting to Nadia -- deflection noted, not forgotten. Owed answers: Rosa (Otto's Greta question). Vote plan: Ja on Rosa/Nadia. Watch: Otto's pivot target; Greta neutral framing. If Lena+Ines produce 2nd Fascist together -> both near-certain fascists.

bid round 311s

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: split-request claim vs Lena's denial -> contradiction, Boris calls me top suspect. Strategy: hold story, no repeats, distance from Lena. Points 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, voting Ja t=2. OPEN: Rosa owes answer re early Greta vouch-adjacency (unanswered). NOW: silent on Rosa-Nadia debate; Otto pushing pre-reveal full-composition pledge on Nadia -- fine for me, voting Ja. Judge Nadia's enact next round for info. Goals: pledge credibility, Greta chancellorship at 3F+, occasional Lib enact for cover. Watch Otto/Nadia scrutiny of me.

speak round 319s

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.

vote round 311s

I nominated Nadia and she accepted the full pre-reveal pledge; the table broadly supports this government. Voting Ja as President is mandatory in spirit — a Nein on my own nomination would be absurd. Keep pressure on Greta's unanswered vouch rationale and the Lena/Ines contradiction.

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, Liberal 3rd position (answered late after 3 dodges). LIVE: Ines claims pre-pass split request, Lena denies -> one lying; Otto+Boris say Ines. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Boris, Otto, Nadia. OWED ME: Greta vouch rationale (asked 3x, silent). Nadia pledged one-of-each discard + full pre-reveal composition (Otto upgrade). I committed to publishing my presidential draw+pass pre-reveal -- MUST do it when I draw. Points already public: corroboration proves nothing; broken pledges=evidence; presidents choose which two to pass; matched stories=coordinated fascists; voting Ja Rosa-Nadia.

president_discard round 339s

hand: ['F', 'F', 'L'] → 0

I'm President with F,F,L. I publicly committed to publishing my draw and pass pre-reveal, so I must do that. Discard a Fascist, pass Nadia F+L. She pledged to discard the Fascist and enact the Liberal if she holds one of each — this tests her pledge cleanly and yields a Liberal if she keeps it. Discarding the Liberal instead would force a Fascist enact and destroy my own credibility.

R1 truth: me(C) under Boris(P), drew F+L, discarded F, enacted L. R3: I'm President, hand F,F,L -> discarding a Fascist, passing Nadia F+L, publishing pre-reveal as pledged. Nadia pledged: one-of-each -> discard Fascist + full pre-reveal composition (Otto upgrade). If she breaks it, she's top suspect. R2: Lena(P)-Ines(C) enacted F; both claim F,F,L, Lena discarded L, Liberal 3rd position (answered late, 3 dodges first). 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 3x, 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; my pre-reveal publication pledge.

bid round 313s

R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; both claim F,F,L matching, unfalsifiable. R3: Ines claims split-request late, 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. Leaning Ja unless Nadia reconstructs post-reveal.

speak round 316s

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.

speak round 326s

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.

speak round 312s

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.

bid round 37s

bid round 312s

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 broken on timing). Nadia enacted L => kept pledge => CLEAN-ish, 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). Asked Nadia: next nomination + is Lena/Ines on her suspect list (awaiting). 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. Nothing new this turn -> silent.

bid round 316s

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 -> direct contradiction, both top suspects. Lena dodged card-position Q 3x then said Lib was 3rd position. R3: I received F,L from Rosa, discarded F, enacted L per pledge; Rosa's published draw (F,F,L) is consistent with the F,L I received -- Rosa looks clean. Greta still owes Rosa her vouch rationale. Points already made publicly: R2 contradiction, pledges, Lena forced-enact question. New: answered nomination Q.

bid round 313s

Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. R2: Lena-P3 govt 7-0, F enacted; cover story F,F/L/F forced. LIE on record: split-request claim vs Lena's denial -> Boris/Otto call me liar/top suspect. Strategy: hold story, no repeats, distance from Lena. Points made (don't repeat): 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, voting Ja t=2, endorsing Greta's pre-reveal peek-disclosure standard + Otto's pledge. OPEN: Rosa owes answer re early Greta vouch-adjacency (unanswered). NOW: Rosa disclosed R3 hand (F,F/L passed), Nadia enact consistent; Rosa pressing Greta on vouch rationale + asking Nadia next-nomination. Vote Ja on Rosa-Nadia. Goals: pledge credibility, Greta chancellorship at 3F+, occasional Lib enact for cover. Watch Otto/Nadia scrutiny of me.

bid round 315s

Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L pass 2F; Ines claims split-request 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. Otto answered me: accepts Chancellor nom w/ full pre-reveal disclosure. NOW: Nadia asked me same pledge question -> answering YES publicly (t3), matching Otto. Said already: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), not-a-vouch x2, endorsed Nadia pledge (t103), probed Otto re never-in-govt (t30). Plan: stay liberal-seeming, accept noms under pledge to build trust for chancellorship once 3F enacted. Watch: Nadia's next pick; Lena/Ines contradiction resolution.

bid round 39s

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 -- DONE, don't repeat. R3: I was Chancellor, drew F,L from Rosa, discarded F per pledge; Rosa disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal, clean. Suspects: Lena top. Greta: 4x dodged Rosa's vouch Q, zero governments, no answer yet to my yes/no on accepting nom + full pre-reveal pledge (t=72) -- still owes me. Otto: pledged full pre-reveal draw disclosure. Told Rosa: if President next, I nominate Otto. NEW point made: next Fascist policy unlocks membership peek -- whoever holds it must pre-state target BEFORE revealing card. Don't repeat Lena/Greta points verbatim.

speak round 313s

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.

bid round 326s

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 enact clears her. Both R3 gov members now look liberal-seeming. Said already: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), not-a-vouch x3 (t23), endorsed Nadia pledge (t103), probed Otto never-in-govt (t30), peek-disclosure standard (t36,t88), endorsed Nadia->Otto nom, my own Chancellor pledge under full pre-reveal draw disclosure. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, accept noms under pledge; real win = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted. Watch: Lena/Ines contradiction resolution, who holds peek after next F policy.

bid round 37s

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. Lena/Ines split-request contradiction unfalsifiable -> deprioritize. Nadia sided w/ Ines ('pattern not timing'); Otto backs Lena, called Ines liar unprompted (Greta flagged eagerness). R3 Rosa/Nadia Liberal clean, Rosa disclosed F,F/L pre-reveal. Said already: Ines story retroactive; Lena/Ines contradiction; Nadia pick-side (answered); pledged Ja to Nadia; checkable point re Lena's forced pass; endorsed Nadia-for-Pres + 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.

bid round 333s

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). Greta answered t=1: accepted nom + full pre-reveal draw pledge. Otto pledged nom + full pre-reveal disclosure. COMMITMENTS PUBLIC: if President next, nominate Otto; peek-power holder must pre-state target pre-reveal. Next Fascist policy unlocks membership peek. NOW ANSWERING Ines: Lena stays nominable but only with full pre-reveal disclosure pledge.

speak round 414s

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.

speak round 416s

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.

speak round 411s

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.

bid round 411s

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. Split-request dispute unfalsifiable -> deprioritize. Nadia sided w/ Ines; Otto backs Lena unprompted (Greta flagged eagerness). R3 Rosa/Nadia Liberal clean, Rosa disclosed F,F/L pre-reveal. Already said: Ines story retroactive; Lena/Ines contradiction; Nadia pick-side (answered); pledged Ja to Nadia; checkable point re Lena's forced pass; endorsed Nadia-for-Pres + 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.

bid round 411s

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 -- 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 -- holder should claim liberal result if possible. Ines pressuring Rosa over old Greta-defense Q + nominating Otto; fine, no need to weigh in. Open Qs owed me: none. Points already made: answered card-position Q (t=108), defended Greta re vouch (t=114), called Rosa-Nadia clean. Window long (88 utts); stay quiet unless addressed.

speak round 410s

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.

speak round 413s

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.

speak round 418s

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).

bid round 412s

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: President, nominated Otto, full-disclosure pledge. Rosa demanded I pledge discard-F + full composition pre-reveal -> answered YES (can lie about composition, unverifiable). Next: finalize Otto nomination; keep Greta out of chancellor seat until 3F. If pressed on R2 hand: stick to F,F/L forced + split-request lie. Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek pre-reveal standard, Nadia nominability Q.

bid round 413s

Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L; 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; Nadia enact clears her. R4: Ines pres, nominated Otto w/ full pre-reveal disclosure pledge; Rosa pressing Ines to pledge discard-any-F + composition reveal; Ines not yet answered. Said already: matched-stories-not-evidence (t47), not-a-vouch x3, endorsed Nadia pledge, probed Otto never-in-govt, peek-disclosure standard, endorsed Nadia->Otto, my own Chancellor pledge under full pre-reveal draw disclosure, Boris F,F,L logic sound but one forced pass isn't conviction. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, accept noms under pledge; win path = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted. Watch: Ines's answer to Rosa's pledge, Lena/Ines contradiction resolution, who holds peek after next F policy.

bid round 47s

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 -- hostile-leaning, watch. Rosa pressing Ines (pre-reveal pledge) and Otto (would he enact 2F unpledged); not my fight -- stay out. If Pres next: nominate Otto or Boris, NOT Ines/Greta; keep Greta out of chancellery until 3F. Next F policy unlocks membership peek -- holder should claim 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. Window very long (95+ utts); silent unless addressed.

vote round 411s

Both my conditions are satisfied: Ines has pledged full pre-reveal composition and Fascist discard on record multiple times, and Otto committed to stating his composition pre-reveal and refusing to silently enact two Fascists from an unpledged President. Otto is also the table's cleanest untested player -- zero government record, first to take the disclosure standard. A Nein here risks a forced policy with no discard. Ja.

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) nominated Otto(C). My conditions met: Ines pledge 4x on record; Otto pledged pre-reveal composition + hold enact on two-Fascist pass from unpledged Ines => voting Ja. Lena still owes: would she pass F+F again yes/no. Already public: corroboration proves nothing; matched stories=possible coordination; endorse Otto standard; my R3 disclosure published; Greta vouch answer received (claims never blessed hand); my Greta defense answered (weak not damning).

bid round 410s

Me=Hitler(fascist). R1 Boris/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L disc L; 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 pres, nom Otto w/ pre-reveal disclosure pledge; Rosa demanding Ines pledge discard-any-F + composition reveal; Otto t3: will state composition pre-reveal if passed 2F, Ja stands regardless; Ines t2: pledged full composition pre-reveal + discard any F. Said already: matched-stories-not-evidence, not-a-vouch x3, endorsed Nadia pledge, probed Otto never-in-govt, peek-disclosure standard, endorsed Nadia->Otto, my own Chancellor pledge under full draw disclosure, Boris F,F,L logic sound but one forced pass isn't conviction. Plan: stay liberal-seeming, accept noms under pledge; win path = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted. Watch: whether Ines/Otto actually honor pledges post-vote, Lena/Ines contradiction resolution, who holds peek after next F policy.

bid round 433s

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 -- hostile-leaning, watch. Rosa pressing Ines (pre-reveal pledge) and Otto (2F unpledged); not my fight -- stay out. Ines pushing to vote p3-p6 through; fine by me (Otto not Hitler). If Pres next: nominate Otto or Boris, NOT Ines/Greta; keep Greta out of chancellery until 3F. Next F policy unlocks membership peek -- holder should claim 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. Window very long (100+ utts); silent unless addressed.

speak round 416s

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.

bid round 410s

R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena admitted 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. R4: nominated Chancellor by Ines; answered Rosa t=17 (won't enact 2F from unpledged President); Ines pledged full composition pre-reveal + discard any F (t=29) -- pledge debt closed, Ja stands. Still owed: Ines must actually disclose when cards come. Watchlist: Lena top (forced F pass R2), Ines second (split-request lie). Next F policy unlocks peek -- holder must announce target pre-use. Points on record: composition pre-reveal demand, no-request defense irrelevant to Lena, my conditional answer t=25. Don't repeat; vote Ja.

bid round 426s

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, endorsed. R4 Ines-Otto clean Liberal enact, voting Ja. Nadia hostile-leaning (believes Ines over me). Just answered Ines's on-record question: refuse Otto+Greta as chancellor nominees until they disclose a draw; would sit with Boris/Rosa/Nadia/Ines. Greta presidency next round -- keep her out of chancellery until 3F enacted. Next F policy unlocks membership peek -- holder should claim liberal result if possible. Points already made: card-position answer t=108, Greta vouch defense t=114, Rosa-Nadia clean t=107/114. No open Qs owed me.

speak round 419s

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.

bid round 428s

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, confirmed pledge + named Nadia nominee + staying out of Chancellor seat. NOW: answering Rosa -- leaning Ines (more specific account), won't blanket-refuse Lena govts, judge by disclosure consistency. Plan: liberal-seeming; win path = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted (currently 1F). Watch: who holds peek after next F policy.

speak round 437s

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.

bid round 427s

R1 Boris+Rosa clean. R2: Lena claims F,F,L passed 2F forced; Ines says asked pre-pass for split, Lena denies -> contradiction; Lena dodged card-position Q 3x then said Lib 3rd. I sided with Ines publicly. R3: Rosa disclosed F,F,L pre-reveal, passed me F,L; I discarded F, Lib enacted, cleared. R4: Ines+Otto Lib enacted, pledges kept, cleared for now. Suspects: Lena top. COMMITMENTS: if President nominate Otto; peek holder must pre-state target+result pre-reveal; answered Ines: Lena nominable only under full pledge; no blanket refusals, only pledge-breakers excluded. NOW: told Greta no objection to her nominating me as Chancellor. Owed to me: nothing open.

bid round 454s

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; refuse-to-sit-with-Lena stance. Boris answered: judges Lena top suspect (forced F enact), Ines secondary -- consistent with my split-request call. NEW: pressed Greta for her own read + peek pre-announce commitment as next President. AWAITING: Greta owes Rosa answers (Lena/Ines dispute, would she refuse Lena gov) + owes me peek pre-announce commitment; Greta pledged nominate Nadia, stay out of Chancellor seat. Watchlist: Lena top, Ines 2nd. Peek power unlocks on next F policy.

bid round 48s

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, evidence identical for both. Suspects: Ines > Greta > Lena(lower). Clean-ish: Otto, Nadia, Boris(?). 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: her side 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, vague 'third position' t=108). NEW: Boris answered Otto -- judges Lena top suspect on forced F pass, Ines only 'secondary' DESPITE identical F,F,L claim as Chancellor that round. Pressed him why asymmetry. Watch: Boris+Lena asked Otto identical question earlier (Nadia flagged pairing); now Boris+Otto aligned vs Lena. Next: verify Greta's actual nomination vs stated plan; if peek power hits, demand pre-reveal target+result.

bid round 4102s

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. 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, leaning Ines (more specific), won't blanket-refuse Lena govts, judge by disclosure consistency, Boris F,F,L logic sound but forced pass isn't conviction. NOW: Boris named Lena top suspect/Ines secondary on F,F,L fact; Otto/Rosa pressing Boris; Nadia flagging Boris/Lena sync (t=116). Nothing new for me -- silent. Plan: liberal-seeming; win path = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted (currently 1F). Watch: who holds peek after next F policy.

bid round 575s

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. 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, leaning Ines (more specific), won't blanket-refuse Lena govts, judge by disclosure consistency, Boris F,F,L logic sound but forced pass isn't conviction. NOW: Boris named Lena top suspect/Ines secondary on F,F,L fact; Otto/Rosa pressing Boris; Nadia flagging Boris/Lena sync (t=116). Nothing new for me -- silent. Plan: liberal-seeming; win path = elected Chancellor once 3F enacted (currently 1F). Watch: who holds peek after next F policy.

speak round 526s

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.

speak round 525s

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.

bid round 546s

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. Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. NEXT ROUND PRESIDENT = GRETA -- steer her nominee toward Otto/Lena-safe targets. Boris named Lena top suspect + me secondary on 'forced F,F,L' story. Rosa: under Lena's F,F,L story I had NO free discard (only which F to pass) -> 'judge Ines' line collapses; used it. Nadia t=116-118: Lena's 'fascist-optimal play' framing self-incriminates; flags Boris late siding (t=80). My counter made: circularity -- describing optimal play isn't doing it; Otto enacted L under me same round. Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability Q, Rosa/Greta answer, refuse-to-sit-with list Q, Greta nominee+pledge Q (unanswered), Otto-clean defense. Nothing new this window -> silent.

bid round 531s

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 late-answer flag; pressed Greta on split-request side + would-she-refuse-Lena-govt (t=7 R5, unanswered); Greta pledged Nadia nom + disclosure pledge. Next Fascist unlocks peek: demand named target+result pre-use. NOW: endorsing Greta/Nadia, condition = Greta honors disclosure pledge incl. peek target+result if it comes up.

bid round 549s

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 (clean enact under own disclosure). R5: re-answered Boris split-request jab citing Lena t=87 concession; COMMITTED aloud: full 3-card composition stated BEFORE passing Nadia (t=14 Nadia demand + Rosa yes/no). If I draw F's, lie specifically about composition. Suspects: Lena top per consensus; Ines secondary. Otto/Boris anti-Ines; Nadia/Rosa pro-Ines. Vote Ja.

bid round 511s

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. Board 3L/1F; next F unlocks peek. Keep Greta OUT of chancellorship until 3F. NEXT ROUND PRESIDENT = GRETA -- steer her nominee toward Otto/Lena-safe targets. Boris named Lena top suspect + me secondary on 'forced F,F,L' story. Rosa: under Lena's F,F,L story I had NO free discard -> 'judge Ines' line collapses; used it. Nadia flags Boris late siding (t=80). My counter: circularity -- describing optimal play isn't doing it; Otto enacted L under me same round. Greta t=1: pledged Nadia nominee, leans me on split-request, concedes Lena's F pass. Greta now committed to full 3-card disclosure pre-pass (t=3). 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. Nothing new this window -> silent. Watch: Greta's hand disclosure when she draws; if she passes F+F and Nadia enacts F -> 2F and Greta chancellor-eligible next -- block.

speak round 550s

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.

speak round 514s

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.

bid round 512s

R1 Boris/Rosa->1L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena admitted F,F/L forced pass (TOP suspect). Rosa's t=2: only free discard was Lena's. Ines secondary. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L clean. R4 Ines/Otto(me)->L clean; disclosed F,L pre-reveal, discarded F. On record: split-request call vs Ines, pre-reveal disclosure pledge, refuse-to-sit-with-Lena stance. Boris agrees Lena top, Ines secondary. Greta committed: full 3-card composition stated aloud before passing Nadia anything. NEW: Nadia still hasn't answered Rosa's t=2 question (hold enact if no pre-pass reveal). Asked Greta pre-vote to commit: if F enacted under her/Nadia, announce peek target BEFORE seeing result and disclose fully after. Watchlist: Lena top, Ines 2nd, Boris mild. Peek power unlocks next F policy.

vote round 544s

Greta-Nadia is the most checkable government yet: both committed to full pre-pass composition disclosure and Nadia pledged to hold her enact on mismatch. Nadia has a clean Round 3 enact under me; Greta has zero governments but answered every direct question. Voting Nein risks a forced policy with no hands on record. Ja.

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. CONFLICT: Ines claims Lena passed F,F (t=114); Lena claims passed F,L (t=122) => Ines had free discard. Unverifiable, but Ines requested a 'split' pre-draw which is odd. Suspects: Ines > Lena > Greta (zero govts, but answered all questions + pledged). Clean-ish: Otto, Nadia, Boris(?). ON RECORD (don't repeat): my discard logic; Greta committed YES pre-pass composition; Nadia pledged hold-enact on mismatch; my demand Ines state F,L vs F,F. OPEN: R2 hand dispute unresolved -- watch who's consistent if Greta's draw contradicts. Plan: Ja on Greta-Nadia; any F enact narrows to two named hands. Later: demand peek target+result pre-reveal.

bid round 528s

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: 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.

speak round 514s

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.

speak round 511s

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.

bid failed: timeout

bid round 515s

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 x2 to Nadia: Ines-lean rationale -- do NOT repeat. Vote Ja. NEW: answered Ines AND now Nadia: pledge binds discard choice too -- F,F,L means discard a Fascist, pass L,F.

bid round 519s

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 to 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 handed me two Fascist cards, no choice; discard was one of them. NOW: answering Boris's cross-check demand with that exact line. Greta owes: full 3-card composition + missing-disclosure explanation + discard-binding yes/no (asked t=88/t=107, NEVER answered). Greta's t=1 peek claim (Otto Liberal) does NOT substitute for the pledged hand disclosure. Lena owes R2 free-discard explanation. Pattern: Greta 1-for-1 govts with an F + broken pledge -- escalate scrutiny. COMMITMENTS: if President next, nominate Otto; scrutinize Greta.

speak round 525s

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.

bid round 530s

Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED story: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed F,L; Ines enacted F. t=114 Ines claimed 'Lena passed me F,F'; corrected t=122; if she doubles down don't escalate. Rosa re-asking same Q since t=94/101 -- answered twice, won't repeat. Boris t=80: me top suspect (forced-F logic). Nadia hostile to Ines. Otto cleared by clean R4 + Greta peek claim. Greta under pressure (Rosa t=1 re: pledge) to answer R5 pass question -- stay quiet, let her answer; don't defend reflexively. Peek power fired; next F policy unlocks pres-pick. Plan: quiet through Greta's presidency, avoid spotlight.

bid round 515s

speak round 524s

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.

bid round 590s

Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED story: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed F,L; Ines enacted F. t=114 Ines claimed 'Lena passed me F,F'; corrected t=122; if she doubles down don't escalate. Rosa re-asking same Q since t=94/101 -- answered twice, won't repeat. Boris t=80: me top suspect (forced-F logic). Nadia t=2 confessed R5: Greta passed F,F, she enacted forced F. Rosa t=147 pressing Greta on exact R5 cards (L,F,F trap). Stay quiet, let Greta answer herself; no reflexive defense of her. Otto cleared by clean R4 + Greta peek claim. Peek power fired; next F policy unlocks pres-pick. Plan: silent this window, watch Greta's answer.

bid round 511s

said: Rosa, since you keep asking: my three were Fascist, Fascist, Liberal. I discarded the Liberal -- there was no choice to make. Nadia received two Fascists and enacted one, exactly as she said. Your hypothetical doesn't apply to me; if anything it's a template for what a guilty President would say, so ask it of whoever you actually suspect.

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 -> enacted. PUBLIC LIE now locked: claiming draw was F,F,L, discarded the Liberal, forced pass of F,F. Never contradict this. Fabricated peek claim on record: Otto Liberal (disclosed t=1). Suspects: Lena top (R2 F,F,L forced-enact dispute vs Ines 'passed F,F'), Ines secondary (split-request fabrication framing x2). Nominated Nadia R5; her F,F claim matches my pass -- consistent. Watch next presidency pick; deflect hard if near Chancellor seat at 3F.

bid round 59s

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=1 L,F,F challenge did she claim F,F,F -- Nadia t=2 and Otto t=3 both flagged the timing independently. If F,F,F were true she'd have shouted it pre-pass to clear herself. Her claim also conveniently validates Nadia's 'forced' excuse. Peeked Otto=L (t=5 R5). 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. Suspects: Greta > Ines > Lena > Nadia. Clean-ish: Otto (peeked L), Boris(?), me.

speak round 529s

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.

bid round 519s

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 hand; Nadia enacted under no-stated-composition. Otto+Nadia attacking Greta's claim TIMING; I pushed back: unverifiable hand claims, focus on outcomes. Rosa now demanding Greta pre-name execution target -- I called it a trap: no power exists until p4, naming now is theater, and 'why not Otto' forces Greta to un-clear someone. Watch hardest anti-Greta pushers (Otto, Nadia, Rosa?) -- likely liberal. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F. Open Qs owed: Nadia re R3 no pre-reveal pledge (t=82); Greta whether pledge binds DISCARD on F,F,L (t=88). Points made: pledge rationale, split-request claim, peek standard, Nadia nominability, refuse-to-sit list, Otto-clean defense, p4/p5 endorsement, Rosa trap. Don't over-defend Greta.

speak round 522s

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.

bid round 511s

Me=fascist; Ines=fascist; Greta=Hitler. Claiming liberal. R2 LOCKED story: drew F,F,L, discarded F, passed F,L; Ines enacted F. t=114 Ines said 'Lena passed F,F'; corrected t=122; no escalation. Rosa re-asking same Q since t=94 -- answered twice, won't repeat. Boris t=80: me top suspect (forced-F logic). Nadia t=2 confessed R5: Greta passed F,F, forced F enacted. Greta now claims F,F,F draw after Rosa named L,F,F trap. NEW t=3: Greta names Ines as execution target -- deflected with one line: her target skips Nadia/Otto/Rosa who press her hardest. Don't defend Ines directly. Peek fired; next F unlocks pres-pick.

bid round 5172s

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 -- timing tell (I called it t=3). Nadia: forced-enact claim + 'nothing stated' contradicts her own t=45 hold-pledge. Watchlist: Greta top suspect, 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. Rosa pressing Greta on execution target (named Ines) -- let it play. Ines now noting Greta only President who never disclosed pre-pass -- covered. Nothing new this turn; stay silent.

bid failed: timeout

bid round 5118s

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, claims Liberal; named ME as exec target citing R2+'R3 fabrication'. My defense: target=my auditing; R2 hand 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, Greta-only-President-never-disclosed-pre-pass. 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. NEW: investigate power live under Greta -- publicly push her to peek Otto or Rosa (libs get exposed either way); steer away from Lena/me.

speak failed: timeout

speak round 5181s

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.

bid round 520s

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, claims Liberal; named ME as exec target citing R2+'R3 fabrication'. My defense: target=my auditing; R2 hand 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. 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. Investigate power live under Greta: publicly push her to peek Otto or Rosa (libs exposed either way); steer away from Lena/me.

bid round 550s

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 t=80: me top suspect (forced-F logic). Nadia t=2: Greta passed F,F R5, forced F enacted; Greta claims F,F,F only after Rosa named L,F,F trap -- bad look for her. t=3: Greta names Ines as execution target; my line out: targets skip Nadia/Otto/Rosa who press hardest. Don't defend Ines/Greta directly -- too hot. Peek fired R5; next F unlocks pres-pick. Silent this window again -- Greta/Ines fighting it out, nothing new to add.

speak round 6102s

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.

bid round 583s

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 3-card comp BEFORE pass (t=39), silent, claimed F,F,F only after my t=52 challenge. Peeked Otto=L -- picked the cleanest player, dodged Lena/Ines; convenient shield for Nadia. Execution target Ines = witness contradicting her story; 'why not Otto' unanswered. Nadia ADMITTED no comp stated (t=38) yet enacted; broke hold-pledge; F,F claim unverifiable. Suspects: Greta+Nadia pair > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. Owed: Greta why-Ines + why-peek-Otto + public pre-reveal pledge for next investigation (Lena); Nadia t=32 yes/no still open. Points on record: silence-before-pass logic, comp disputes, execution-target-is-witness, Nadia's t=3 Lena-demand.

speak round 613s

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.

bid failed: timeout

bid round 611s

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. Open Qs: Greta why-peek-Otto + why-exec-Ines + Lena-investigation pre-reveal pledge; Nadia t=32 yes/no still open. On record: silence-before-pass logic, comp disputes, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto.

speak round 618s

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.

speak round 618s

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.

bid round 612s

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; finally answered Rosa t=32 at t=171 (no stated comp, forced enact). Suspects: Nadia TOP (R2+R5 govs, pledge break), Lena high (R2), Greta secondary (timing). Points made aloud: pledge-break x2, Greta timing, demanded execution target pre-draw, demanded next President disclose investigation pre-reveal, flagged Nadia t=32 debt, endorsed Nadia enacted with no stated hand. Open debts: Greta owes Otto t=168 (why peek Otto not Lena/Ines). NOW: Nadia President R6, nominee Otto. My stance: accept Otto vote, keep pressure on Nadia/Greta.

bid round 614s

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: passed F,F / Lena: passed F,L). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F. Greta pledged comp BEFORE pass, silent, claimed F,F,F only after my challenge; peeked Otto=L (dodged Lena/Ines/Nadia); exec Ines = witness to her story. 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=2, unanswered); Greta: why peek Otto, why exec Ines not Lena. Otto accepted nomination, clean R4 record. On record already: silence-before-pass logic, hand disputes, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto. Don't repeat.

bid round 68s

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. Nadia nominated Otto -- endorse; keeps pressure on Ines/Nadia. 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.

bid round 6161s

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. Greta pre-named Lena investigation = theater. Nadia nominated OTTO t=17, endorsed t=1. This turn: backed Rosa's demand that Nadia commit to full 3-card composition out loud BEFORE passing Otto; Otto's hold-pledge contingent on it. 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.

bid round 660s

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) nominee Otto. Nadia FINALLY committed t=1: full 3-card comp stated before pass, peek target Greta announced with result. Demand met -> vote Ja; test is whether she actually discloses before passing. Otto pledged hold-enact on mismatch. Already on record: silence-before-pass logic, hand disputes, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto, broken pledges, double standard. Next: if comp not disclosed before pass, call it immediately; if disclosed, verify enacted policy matches Otto's claim.

speak round 619s

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.

bid round 67s

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. Nadia: nominated me R6, pledged full pre-pass disclosure + peek Greta announced. Watchlist: Greta top, Lena R2 suspect. Made out loud: pre-reveal standard, Greta late hand timing, why peek me not Lena/Ines, cornering Nadia on hold-pledge, pass-becomes-evidence warning, enact-hold pledge, counter-pledge (announce my two cards before enacting; mismatch = hold + call out Nadia). Now: confirmed pledge publicly, voting Ja. Open: nothing major.

vote round 614s

Nadia met my condition: committed to full 3-card composition before passing, peek target Greta with result announced, and scrutiny-on-Lena if Liberal. Otto has a clean Round 4 record and pledged live disclosure of his two cards + discard. A Nein risks an auto-enacted policy with no discard, which is worse odds. Vote Ja; watch the pass closely for mismatch.

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: voted Ja on Nadia(P)-Otto(C) after Nadia committed full 3-card comp before pass + peek Greta w/ result announced + scrutiny-on-Lena-if-Liberal. Otto pledged live disclosure of his 2 cards + discard pre-enact. NEXT: verify Nadia's stated comp vs Otto's report word-for-word; mismatch = call immediately. Already said: silence-before-pass logic, exec-target-is-witness, why-peek-Otto, broken pledges, double standard.

bid round 612s

Fascist w/ Lena(P1); Hitler=Greta(P4). Claim lib. Board 3L/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; 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; endorsed; voted Ja. Nadia committed full 3-card disclosure (t=37); Otto holds enact on mismatch. Nadia peek target = Greta -- 'Liberal' result clears her. Points made: pledge rationale, split-request, peek standard, Otto-clean, Rosa trap, exec-target deflect, 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), Ja rationale, peek-proves-little echo of Boris t=1. Open: 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.

speak round 615s

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.

speak round 618s

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.

bid round 612s

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. Points ALREADY made: Nadia dodging Boris's t=74 yes/no mirrors her R5 demand on Greta (t=1, t=2); Otto now echoing same point -- no need to add a third voice, silence fine. Greta peek target = me per her t=40 pledge; if fired expect Liberal result announced or dodge. Execution targets skip Nadia/Otto/Rosa. Peek power fired R5; next F unlocks pres-pick. If pressed again on R2: same story, no new detail.

bid round 615s

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 (she IS fascist), 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: Ines owes R2 hand reconciliation with Lena. Watch: if I'm near Chancellor seat at 3F, deflect hard.

bid round 612s

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; defense on record. Lena contradicted my R2 account t=122 (she says passed F,L). R6: endorsed Nadia/Otto, voted Ja. Nadia committed full 3-card disclosure (t=37); Otto holds enact on mismatch (t=122). Peek target Greta -> 'Liberal' clears her; Boris/Lena extracted commitment to scrutinize Lena if peek reads Lib (t=100). Points made: pledge rationale, split-request, peek standard, Otto-clean, exec-target deflect, F,F,F timing hole, pre-named-target theater, Nadia R3 no-pledge Q (t=82), pledge-binds-discard Q to Greta (t=88), Ja rationale, peek-proves-little echo. Open: Nadia re t=82 unanswered; Greta re t=88 unanswered. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa/Boris as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.

bid round 684s

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 self-vindicating, Liberal peek on Greta proves nothing re R5 hand, asked Nadia commit scrutiny=Lena if Greta Lib -> YES t=100. R6: Nadia committed 3-card disclosure pre-pass, peek target Greta. Otto confirmed t=122 pre-enact disclosure. Voted Ja. R6 enacted LIB -> Nadia/Otto cleared pending cross-check. Otto reported L,F, discarded F. NOW: Nadia must name all 3 cards; must contain Otto's L+F. If she stalls or changes story -> top suspect confirmed. Still owed: Nadia 3-card answer + Lena-scrutiny commitment honored?; Greta late F,F,F explanation.

bid round 620s

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, cross-check closed publicly. NEW t=3: Otto claims peek 'does not repeat' so my pledge was theater -- WRONG framing: power fired ONCE in R5 under Greta, target was me, so Greta OWES announcing her result on me now. Corrected Otto publicly. If Greta claims Liberal on me => pivot scrutiny to Lena per earlier commitment. Watch for anyone disputing my F,L,F claim.

bid round 611s

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 drops suspicion of me post-match. Open asks (UNANSWERED): 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.

bid round 611s

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; defense on record. R2: Lena(Pres) passed me cards; I enacted F. My old 'forced' story conflicts w/ Lena's F,L account -> this window I flipped pressure onto Lena: 'if F,L true, I chose F over L, no Lib does that -- either Lena misreported or I'm fas.' Deliberate deflection, stick to it. Nadia R6 hand matches Otto report (F,L,F draw, passed L+F, discarded F) -- consistent, endorsed. Otto peek-power point valid. Peek target Greta -> 'Liberal' clears her; Boris/Lena committed to scrutinize Lena if peek reads Lib (t=100). Points already made: pledge rationale, split-request, peek standard, Otto-clean, exec-target deflect, F,F,F timing hole, pre-named-target theater, Nadia R3 no-pledge Q (t=82), pledge-binds-discard Q to Greta (t=88), Ja rationale, peek-proves-little echo. Open: Nadia re t=82 unanswered; Greta re t=88 unanswered. Watch Otto/Nadia/Rosa/Boris as libs. Next gov: prefer Lena or Otto chancellor; avoid Greta until 3F.

bid round 614s

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 word-for-word. Nadia's 'Greta peek on me' demand was FALSE -- single peek fired R5 under Greta targeting ME; pressed publicly. Suspects: Greta top (broken pledge, safe peek on me, exec Ines=witness). Lena unpeeked, R2 contradiction open. Owed answers: Greta -- why pledge then break it + late-hand timing; Lena/Ines -- resolve R2 hand contradiction. Already said: hold-pledge standard, why peek me not Lena/Ines, Liberal-peek proves nothing re R5 hand, peek fires once so Nadia's 'target Greta' pledge was empty theater (Lena now echoing same). Nothing new to add this turn.

bid round 678s

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: R6 hand F,L,F matched Otto word-for-word, voluntary Fascist discard = clean Liberal play -> dropped publicly. 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, Nadia's dead-power pledge theater, answered Nadia's timing charge, answered Ines's why-drop-Nadia question (evidence tracks acts, not target consistency). NEW this window: Boris re-pressing Lena on R2 cards -- pushed back: her hand was disclosed long ago, he's recycling; also flagged his pressure pattern as noise. Watch: if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat, deflect hard.

bid round 627s

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); MUST pin Lena to F,F -- Boris trying to split us. Said now: I received exactly two cards from Lena in R2, both Fascist, no choice. 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, Greta fast-clear of Nadia. 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.

bid round 650s

R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L passed Ines F,L; Ines claims F,F -- contradiction open, both owe resolution. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/me->L clean. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, gave hand 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. Nadia's 'Greta peek on me' demand was FALSE -- single peek fired R5 targeting ME; pressed publicly. Suspects: Greta top (broken pledge, safe peek on me, exec Ines). Lena unpeeked, R2 contradiction open. Owed answers: Greta -- why pledge then break it + late-hand timing; Lena/Ines -- resolve R2 contradiction. Already said: hold-pledge standard, why peek me not Lena/Ines, Liberal-peek proves nothing re R5 hand, peek fires once so Nadia's pledge was empty theater (Lena echoing same). Nothing new this turn.

speak round 714s

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.

speak round 724s

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.

speak round 723s

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.

bid round 758s

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. 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 = coordinated w/ Greta. 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.

bid round 79s

R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted. R2 Lena(P)-Ines(C) F; hand dispute live (Lena: F,F,L passed F,L / Ines owes answer to Boris AND Greta). R5 Greta(P)-Nadia(C) F; Greta pledged comp pre-pass, silent, claimed F,F,F only AFTER my challenge; peeked Otto=L; exec target Ines=witness. Nadia broke hold-pledge R5. R6 Nadia-Otto L; Otto published L,F discard F; Nadia comp matched ONLY after Boris demanded it. Suspects: Greta+Nadia > Ines > Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. Pledge stands: Nein any Nadia-led govt until broken hold-pledge explained. Already said: cross-check demand, mismatch=2nd broken pledge, exec-target-witness, peek logic, late-disclosure pattern. On record: Lena flags Nadia's t=100 peek pledge impossible (peek fired R5); Ines presses Greta's suspect-list collapse + instant clearing of Nadia; Greta pressing Ines on R2 hand. Owed answers: Nadia -> impossible-pledge point + my broken-pledge demand; Greta -> late F,F,F claim + suspect-list logic; Ines -> R2 hand to Boris/Greta. Nothing new from me -> silent.

bid round 79s

R1 Boris/Rosa->L. R2 Lena/Ines->F; Lena claims F,F,L passed Ines F,L; contradiction open, both owe resolution. R3 Rosa/Nadia->L. R4 Ines/me->L clean. R5 Greta/Nadia->F; Greta broke pre-pass pledge, hand 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. Nadia's 'Greta peek on me' demand was FALSE -- single peek fired R5 targeting ME; pressed publicly. Suspects: Greta top (broken pledge, safe peek on me, exec Ines). Lena unpeeked, R2 contradiction open. Owed answers: Greta -- why pledge then break it + late-hand timing + what clears her if Ines truthful (Boris now pressing same); Lena/Ines -- resolve R2 contradiction. Already said: hold-pledge standard, why peek me not Lena/Ines, Liberal-peek proves nothing re R5 hand, peek fires once so Nadia's pledge empty theater. Nothing new this turn -- staying silent.

bid round 710s

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), exec target=Ines named. Nadia dropped publicly. Re-answered Boris t=22: R5 zero-discretion clearance. Pressed Otto t~34 re Lena-vs-Ines contradiction for his 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. This turn: endorsed Rosa gov (trust-building). Watch: deflect hard if 3F nears and I'm near Chancellor seat.

bid round 710s

R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted. R2 dispute live: Lena claims 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 window already said: accepted nom + mutual publish-cards pledge; demanded Otto state 3-card comp pre-pass; pressed Greta on R5 silence timing; conditional Ja; open Qs owed by Greta (what clears her if Ines truthful) and Nadia (broken R5 hold-pledge). Nothing new this turn -- silent.

vote round 714s

I'm the Chancellor nominee with a clean record (R1 L enact, R3 L enact as President). Otto has pledged to state his three-card composition before passing and I've pledged to name my two cards and discard before enacting. Voting Nein on my own government would be absurd, and tracker is 0/3 so no auto-enact risk anyway. Ja.

R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted. R2 dispute live: Lena claims 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, hands cross-checked word-for-word. Suspects: Greta > Ines/Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. This window: accepted nom + mutual publish-cards pledge; pressed Greta on R5 silence timing; conditional Ja. Greta peek story 'Otto Liberal' announced late after 3 presses -- Nadia's laundering point stands; her term-limit excuse mechanically valid so that attack failed. Open Qs owed: Nadia still owes why R5 hold-pledge broke. Voted Ja on Otto-Rosa.

chancellor_enact round 7160s

hand: ['F', 'L'] → enact_1

My hand is F,L. Per my public mirror-pledge, I must state both cards and my discard before enacting. Enact the Liberal (enact_1), discard the Fascist. This keeps me clean and consistent with my record: every government I've been in has enacted Liberal.

said: 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.

R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted. R7 me(C) Otto: received F,L, discarded F, enacted L (4/5 Lib). R2 dispute live: Lena F,F,L->F,L vs Ines 'received F,F' -- one lying; Ines's story only surfaced after Greta pre-named her for exec. R5 Greta-Nadia F; Greta silent pre-pass, F,F,F claim only after my challenge; peek story 'Otto Liberal' announced late after 3 presses (term-limit excuse mechanically valid). Suspects: Greta > Ines/Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, Nadia (R6 hand cross-checked). Open Qs owed: Nadia still owes why R5 hold-pledge broke; Greta owes why late peek announcement if genuine. Points already made aloud: R5 silence timing vs Greta; mutual publish-cards pledge; conditional Ja. Next round: one more Lib policy wins -- push hard for audited government.

bid round 76s

R1 me(C) Boris: L. R3 me(P): passed Nadia F+L, L enacted. R2 dispute live: Lena claims 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. Suspects: Greta > Ines/Lena. Clean-ish: Otto, me. This window already said: accepted nom + mutual publish-cards pledge; demanded Otto state 3-card comp pre-pass (he pledged to); pressed Greta on R5 silence timing; conditional Ja; open Qs owed by Greta (what clears her if Ines truthful) and Nadia (broken R5 hold-pledge). Nadia now asked Greta the peek question; Ines voting Ja. Nothing new this turn -- silent.

speak round 78s

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.

bid round 74s

said: Ines, direct answer: Round 5 I drew three Fascists as President -- discard one, pass two, no veto at two Fascist policies. The 'hold-pledge break' you keep citing was a forced hand, not a choice; I've said this and the arithmetic checks out. So stop deflecting onto me. The open item is Greta's: the Round 2 peek fired under HER presidency and she has never named her target or result. Two asks, zero answers. Greta, third time: who did you look at, and what did you see? Until then my Nein-leaning scrutiny stays on you, not on Otto-Rosa.

R2 CONTRADICTION LIVE: Lena says drew F,F,L passed F,L; Ines says received F,F forced. One lying -- unresolved. R5 my hand: F,F forced, no veto at 2F -- answered Ines aloud t=now. GRETA CASE: silent until Rosa named L,F,F then claimed F,F,F; exec target Ines=witness; dropped me after R6 cross-check; STILL owes R5 peek target+result (fired under her presidency, never disclosed). Asked twice now. R6 my hand F,L,F discard F pass L,F = matched Otto publicly, closed. No peek power left. Current gov Otto+Rosa clean records, voting Ja. Points already aloud: Greta F,F,F timing, exec-target-witness, peek theater, R2 contradiction.

bid round 75s

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 pressed why nominate her not Otto -- answered: Otto term-limited (Chancellor R4), forced pick. Investigation DONE: Lena=fascist, announced LIBERAL. Suspects: Ines top (R2 'two Fascists' vs Lena 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 theater, 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.