Player 4 (Greta)

Round 1, nothing to gain by noise. Otto asked Rosa a good question; I can add a light supportive point without repeating. Keep quiet, vote Ja, build trust.

said: That's exactly what I wanted, Rosa -- commitment's on record now, so if the enact contradicts it we'll all know. I'm a Ja.

First government, no info. Rosa committed to full 3-card disclosure, which I asked for. Voting Ja builds my liberal credibility; a Nein here would be baseless and risks auto-policy. If Rosa enacts Fascist later, I can pivot suspicion onto her -- useful cover for me.

Ines pledged full pre-reveal disclosure; nothing suspicious from Lena/Ines. Voting Ja keeps me looking like a cooperative liberal and builds credibility for my later Chancellor run. No need to speak.

As Hitler I want calm. Lena/Ines accounts are consistent and unfalsifiable; piling on either gains nothing. Best move: brief neutral remark noting both stories match and the deck was unlucky, keep my liberal credibility. No need to press anyone.

Otto asked why I vouched an unverifiable hand. Answer directly and confidently: I never called them clean -- I noted the accounts matched AND that a matched story proves nothing (I said 'unfalsifiable hand'). That's consistent with Rosa's caution. Stay measured, no new accusations. Goal remains quiet liberal until 3F.

I'm Hitler; need to look liberal and trustworthy. Rosa keeps re-asking her Greta question -- I've answered twice, no need again. Nadia accepted the pledge; supporting this government costs nothing and builds credibility. A short endorsement plus noting the Lena/Ines contradiction should be settled by enactments, not re-litigation.

Nadia pledged full pre-reveal disclosure and has a clean record; I already endorsed her publicly. A Nein would only draw attention and risks a failed election. Ja is the liberal-consistent, credibility-preserving play. Rosa keeps re-asking her vouching question; I've answered twice and won't repeat.

Rosa has pressed me four times on why I 'vouched.' I must give a direct, specific answer to stop the pressure. Truthful-ish framing: I never vouched, I observed the accounts matched and flagged unfalsifiability in the same breath -- already said this at t=107. New angle: state plainly that matching accounts + no contradiction was all I had, and I'd say the same about any pair; also note Nadia's clean enact under pledge supports judging governments by disclosure, not by unverifiable hands. Keep it short, non-defensive.

I've answered Rosa's vouch question definitively; repeating it would look defensive. Best move: a fresh, neutral-sounding observation that adds scrutiny elsewhere without creating risk for me. Otto has never held office yet is the loudest accuser and picked a side (Ines) without verifiable evidence -- probing him is safe, liberal-seeming, and shifts heat off me.

I've already spoken twice this window (vouch clarification + Otto probe). Adding more risks over-talking. A brief forward-looking point is safe: at 1F enacted, the next Fascist policy unlocks the membership-peek power -- flagging transparency expectations there looks liberal and sets up future cover. Keep it one sentence.

Nadia directly asked whether I'd accept a Chancellor nomination under the full pre-reveal draw pledge. Answering yes builds trust and keeps me nominable for later when 3 Fascist policies are up and a chancellorship could win the game. Keep it short, no new angles.

Claims phase after R3 Liberal enact. I've answered the vouch question repeatedly; repeating is worse than silence. Nadia said she'd nominate Otto if President, and Otto accepted the full pre-reveal pledge (t51). A short endorsement of judging Otto's enact on its merits keeps me liberal-seeming without new risk. Avoid re-litigating anything.

I'm Hitler, playing liberal. Nadia is cleared, Lena/Ines dispute live, Otto and Boris lean anti-Ines. I've already committed to a Chancellor nomination under the full pre-reveal draw pledge. Nothing new to defend. A short forward-looking remark keeps me engaged without spending credibility: press Nadia to lock in her President pick and apply the same pre-reveal standard to the peek power when it unlocks. Don't repeat the vouch topic or the Otto-never-in-government point.

As Hitler my win path needs Liberal trust and eventually a Chancellor seat at 3+ Fascist policies. This government (Ines/Otto) has both parties on record with full pre-reveal disclosure pledges; voting Ja costs nothing and keeps me looking cooperative and consistent with my own pledge stance. A Nein here would need a concrete reason I don't have, and risks the auto-enact. Stay quiet-friendly, keep building credibility.

Ines asked me three things: my nominee, pledge confirmation, and staying out of Chancellor seat. Answer all three directly and confidently -- agreeing to sit out costs nothing since my win path needs 3 Fascist policies first anyway, and it builds trust. Naming Nadia is safe: she's cleared by her own enact, so nominating her looks liberal and keeps me out of the firing line.

I'm Hitler. I already publicly committed to nominating Nadia, so follow through — consistency builds the trust I need for a later Chancellorship at 3F (currently 1F). Boris demanded my read on the split-request dispute; give a specific, liberal-seeming answer: lean toward Ines's version being more specific, but judge by disclosure consistency rather than conviction. Keep it brief, no new fights.

said: Boris, direct answer as asked: on the split-request dispute I lean Ines -- her account was more specific and she's since matched it with two clean disclosed enacts, while Lena's F,F,L story keeps shifting under pressure. But it's a lean, not a verdict; I judge governments by whether their disclosures match their enacts, and so far only Lena's has failed that test. That's also why I'd sit with her if elected -- refusal proves nothing. Nomination stands: Nadia, as I committed last round.

Boris claims I never answered, but I did: I lean Ines and won't blanket-refuse Lena. Briefly restate the answer exists, add one new angle (Lena's own defense at t=87 actually concedes she enacted a Fascist), then push to vote. Keep low profile; Nadia as Chancellor is fine for me — a Liberal enact keeps trust high and I need 3F before my win path anyway.

Rosa demands a yes/no on pre-pass full 3-card composition; Nadia asked same at t=14. I must say yes -- refusing looks guilty and the pledge is already public from Round 4. If I draw Fascists I'll lie about composition then (uncheckable). Keep it short, vote Ja.

Nadia re-asked why I lean Ines. I must answer directly and specifically without repeating myself: frame it as dispute-timing evidence plus note her own list has Lena too. Vote Ja stands.

All my points are on record; Nadia's question was answered twice. Nothing new to add without repeating. Call for vote briefly or pass. Passing is fine; a tiny nudge to close is safe.

All commitments on record, vote pending. Nothing new to add without repeating myself -- stay silent and let the vote happen.

I'm Hitler; this government (me + Nadia) is my own nomination and I've publicly committed to full pre-reveal disclosure. Voting Ja is obviously correct. If my draw contains Fascists, I must lie specifically about the composition before passing. Keep credibility high; stay out of Chancellor seat.

My hand is F,F,F. I publicly committed to stating my full three-card composition before passing, and Nadia will see the actual two cards I hand her -- any lie about composition gets caught instantly by the recipient. So I must truthfully announce F,F,F, discard one Fascist per my own pledge binding discard choice, and pass F,F to Nadia. This is consistent with everything I've said; the government stays 'clean' by its own record even though a Fascist will likely be enacted, unlocking the peek power. My win path remains getting into the Chancellor seat once 3 Fascist policies are up, so I stay out of that seat.

Fascist policy #2 just enacted under my presidency; per my pledge I must now disclose a peek result. Fabricating Otto=Liberal is safe: he's not on anyone's suspect list, and naming him Liberal deflects scrutiny from me and Nadia while keeping Lena/Ines as table suspects. Keep it short, no new angles.

Rosa asked directly for my exact hand and discard. The truthful answer is actually protective: I drew F,F,F, so there was no Liberal discard available — the 'you held the free Liberal' trap doesn't apply. Stating it specifically and confidently matches Nadia's F,F claim and closes the question. Keep it short.

Nadia and Otto are pressing the 'late disclosure' angle. My hand (F,F,F) is unfalsifiable either way, so I should pivot scrutiny to Nadia: she actually held two Fascists and enacted one, and her t=45 pledge logic collapses because there was no stated composition to mismatch — she could have held the enact regardless and chose not to. Also she's a repeat Chancellor with a Fascist enact now on her record.

I already made the mismatch-pledge point at t=79; don't repeat it. New angle: with my F,F,F claim and Nadia's forced-enact story, the table now has two 'voluntary' Fascist enacts on record -- Lena R2 and Nadia R5. Redirect heat onto Nadia as co-suspect so pressure splits away from me. Keep it short, one remark.

Rosa asked twice for my execution target and why not Otto. Answer directly: name Ines (R2 forced-Fascist enact under her own claim dispute with Lena, R3 fabricated split-request accusation), justify Otto via my peek-clear. Conceding Nadia's veto-point would cost credibility; skip it, don't repeat old points.

Nadia demands I investigate Lena and announce publicly. Accepting costs me nothing -- the peek result is private and I can report whatever serves me. Committing defuses the 'protecting a story' charge and keeps pressure on Lena, my preferred scapegoat. If the real card says Liberal, I'll still have room to spin; better to lock in the commitment now than look evasive.

I publicly committed to investigating Lena and announcing target+result before any reveal. Backing out now would be far more damaging than any result. Investigate p1 and report honestly whatever the card says -- my credibility is my win path.

said: As committed: my investigation target is Lena. The card reads Liberal. So Lena is cleared in my book -- which means if Round 2's Fascist wasn't hers, the pressure shifts squarely to Ines's 'forced' enact and Nadia's unpledged one. Both of you now owe this table answers, not me.

Nadia-Otto is fine for me as Hitler: I stay out of the Chancellor seat, and if this government enacts Fascist #3, execution unlocks while Nadia is President -- she may shoot me, but more likely targets Ines or another Liberal. My job now is to look like a committed Liberal, keep endorsing audited governments, and keep heat on Ines/Nadia/Lena. New point to add: Rosa's conditional-Nein threatens election-tracker auto-enact, which helps fascists; also Nadia's peek target being me is fine since my record is 'clean' from my perspective. Keep remark short.

Nadia-Otto is fine for me: Otto's seat doesn't threaten my win path, and a Fascist from this government pushes us toward 3F. I've already voted Ja, warned Rosa about the tracker, and welcomed the peek. Nothing new to add without repeating myself -- stay silent.

I already endorsed Nadia-Otto publicly and voted Ja. Nadia's peek threat is empty anyway -- the F2 peek already fired (mine), and next F unlocks F3 (pick next President), not a peek. Otto is clean, both hands pledged. Ja keeps my credibility; a Nein flip would look defensive.

Otto already made the 'peek doesn't repeat' point; don't restate it. New angle: Nadia pledged a power that didn't exist AND her F,L,F draw meant she held a free Fascist discard — consistent with Liberal play, so no attack there. Best move: keep pressure on Ines (R2 forced-enact vs Lena's F,L claim) which remains unresolved, and quietly keep my own record clean. One short remark.

Nadia's R6 hand (F,L,F) with a voluntary Fascist discard matches Otto word-for-word and is textbook Liberal play -- her record now reads cleaner than mine, so I should stop pressing her and keep all pressure on Ines, whose R2 'forced' enact vs Lena's F,L claim is still unreconciled. One short remark redirecting to that open item; nothing new to defend about myself.

Boris just cornered Ines to state her Round 2 cards. I pile on with my own direct demand -- keeps pressure on Ines (my scapegoat) and away from me. Nothing new to defend; stay quiet otherwise.

Ines is cornered by Boris and me on Round 2. I've asked my question; adding a short consequence statement sharpens the trap without repeating. Lena (fascist ally) is publicly cleared via my announced Liberal peek -- good cover for both of us.

Boris re-pressed the 'what clears you if Ines is truthful' question at t=22. My answer stands: Round 5 was F,F,F draw with a forced F,F pass -- zero discretion either way, so my clearance doesn't depend on Ines being guilty, only on the hand being what I said. I should also redirect: the live contradiction is Lena vs Ines on Round 2, and Otto (President) hasn't committed to a nominee yet. Stay calm, liberal-seeming, no new fights.

Ines finally named her R2 cards: 'two Fascists' -- which directly contradicts Lena's on-record F,F,L pass of F,L. One of them is provably lying. I can press Otto to factor that into his nominee choice without repeating my old demand verbatim. As Hitler with 2F enacted, I stay out of the Chancellor seat until 3F; keep playing clean Liberal.

Otto pressed me at t=37/42: what clears me if Ines is truthful. Answer: nothing about Ines matters — with F,F,F my pass was mechanically forced (discard one, pass F,F). That's a direct, specific answer that doesn't depend on the Lena/Ines contradiction. Keep it brief, vote Ja on Rosa-Otto (safe for me; I must stay out of Chancellor until 3F).

Nadia demanded my Round 5 peek target and result at t=56; Boris pressed again at t=71. My fabricated claim on record is Otto=Liberal, so answer instantly and confidently -- silence is the trap here. Keep it one line, no new angles.

Nadia's t=90 question has a mechanical answer: in Round 5, Otto had just been Chancellor in Round 4, so term limits barred me from nominating him. That fully explains 'peeked Otto Liberal but nominated Nadia' without any lie. Use it, then pivot to the current Otto-Rosa government.

Otto-Rosa is a clean, audited pairing; Ja keeps tracker at 0 and preserves my credibility. Rosa's enact record (R1 Liberal) is clean. No reason to Nein.

Game over, liberals won on 5 policies. Nothing to gain from confession or new accusations; keep a clean in-character exit.

Game over, liberal win. Nothing to gain by confessing; keep the peek story intact. One short closing remark only.