Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The guarantees it provides...Like the guarantee that the SS trust fund will run out of money in 2033?
On this, I don't feel an ounce of shame repeating myself:
They don't have any wealth.
They don't have any wealth.
Treasury bonds are not wealth. It's a promise from the fed to print money (in practice given the constant of deficit spending).
When your only option to payout is to cause inflation that means your only option to payout is to steal.
If I claim to owe you $10, but the way I pay you $10 is to take $8 from you and $8 from your friend, then how have I helped?
If I claim to owe you $10, but the way I pay you $10 is to take $8 from you and $8 from your friend, then how have I helped?
Maybe I redistributed $2 from your friend to you but that is not a net benefit to the people.
While surplus Social Security funds are held in government bonds (which critics call IOUs), those bonds are backed by the U.S. government...
I wondered what you were responding to and then I ctrl-F to see your responding to the non-intelligence?
What is the point of that?
I did find this funny in the full quote
"While surplus Social Security funds are held in government bonds (which critics call IOUs), those bonds are backed by the U.S. government—just like Treasury securities held by private investors and foreign governments. If they are worthless, so is the entire U.S. financial system. "
Well it got that right rofl!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
you say a lot, but as the AI bot said, your responses are emotion driven, not fact driven.
That is a non-argument from a non-intelligence. My assertions are true, my logic is strong, regardless of emotionally and morally charged language.
i pointed out to you that the worst case scenario for social security is that in eight years it will only be able to pay 87 percent of benefits.
...and in your mind this is a "fact"?
Here are some "alternative facts":
The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities.
US treasury securities are "IOUs" from a criminal organization that has continuously gone deeper into debt for decades. If it was a company its credit would be: absolutely none. However it's a giant criminal organization with a ton of guns and people it can force protection money from.
The only asset the US government has is its ability to use force to steal.
When you add that up social security has NOTHING but the promise of extorting the people of the united states and the world. Which is to say NOTHING.
So let's go back to your quote
The only asset the US government has is its ability to use force to steal.
When you add that up social security has NOTHING but the promise of extorting the people of the united states and the world. Which is to say NOTHING.
So let's go back to your quote
in eight years it will only be able to pay 87 percent of benefits.
Noo, not eight years from now, eighty years ago it was able to pay 0 percent of benefits. Yet despite having nothing of its own to pay with, it stole the value to pay out. That is what has been happening, that is what will continue to happen.
The only thing that will happen in eight years is that the inflation caused by the rampant government spending of stolen wealth will reach the point that this mafia bookkeepers shell game won't even balance anymore.
you didn't respond to this simple but essential fact
I have several times, most detailed above. The reason it isn't working is because they didn't invest in production, there was no check on their theft and they used the money for power and to distribute through a million branching veins of corruption.
They took and took and produced nothing. The government sells nothing (but weapons and threats), the government owns nothing that produces (without quickly converting it to an organization that stops producing).
If the social security administration had been sitting on a pile of gold bars or a giant portfolio of real estate and stocks then it would only be one layer of theft. If further it paid out in real value rather than fixed currency then there would be no fraud.
Then perhaps you could say (correctly) what you have been saying about it running out of money and being unable to meet its obligations.
Then perhaps you could say (correctly) what you have been saying about it running out of money and being unable to meet its obligations.
That is not reality. They have no assets. Their payouts are devalued.
It is a giant pyramid scheme with the admixture of looming threats of violence (try paying employees without withholding for social security).
sure you dont have to provide a solution when criticizing someone else's system
Well there is some progress.
but it makes your argument all that much weaker
Never mind, you still don't understand. It doesn't weaken my arguments in the slightest. There is no logical connection.
cause social security is doing what it's suppose to do
Providing cover for mass theft? That's all its doing.
almost while achieving a lot of objectives that would be hard if not impossible to do elsewhere.
If you mean providing cover for mass theft (money laundering) then I supposed it was fairly successful, but many other schemes have also been working quite well. See military spending, medicare, medicaid.
If you mean providing people a benefit, no. It has necessarily taken more than it ever has or ever will give back. There may be isolated examples of profoundly inefficient redistribution but in the vast majority of cases people would have been better off if they had just been allowed to keep the money.
If you mean providing people a benefit, no. It has necessarily taken more than it ever has or ever will give back. There may be isolated examples of profoundly inefficient redistribution but in the vast majority of cases people would have been better off if they had just been allowed to keep the money.
what's your alternative?
My alternative to stealing is not stealing.
My alternative to wasting money is to not waste money.
My alternative to lying to the public is to tell the truth to the public.
My alternative for not investing money in further production (profitable investment) is to invest in further production.
My alternative for a lying, wasting, defrauding social safety net is any social safety net that does not steal from, waste the effort of, and defraud the public.
My alternative to wasting money is to not waste money.
My alternative to lying to the public is to tell the truth to the public.
My alternative for not investing money in further production (profitable investment) is to invest in further production.
My alternative for a lying, wasting, defrauding social safety net is any social safety net that does not steal from, waste the effort of, and defraud the public.
If such an alternative cannot exist (it can), then a society without a social safety net is preferable.
also you dont seem to realize that most investors not only dont beat the market, they lose money.
Amateur day traders lose money. Stock trading is a gambler's game. Holding onto stocks of profitable companies is not a gambler's game. Dividends from stable companies are stable investments.
Investment firms (in a real market) have subject matter experts who pick out good investments. The portfolios as a whole are as reliable as the economy itself.
Do you know what makes economies unreliable? Governments. Governments stealing, governments getting into trade wars, governments starting wars.
so if you simply let every man for himself, most people would be destitutue in retirement
The premise false false and thus the conclusion is unsupported.
we'd have the problem that had us make social security to begin with.
Government made social security to solve a problem government interference in the market created.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
yes polititicians borrowed from it, but they have to pay it back.
They have no money except what they steal. They don't have a right to steal anything, but even if they did there isn't enough to steal.
So they inflate and devalue their made up debts and the result is that the so called guarantee of comfortable retirement income is insufficient buying power.
worse case scenario, is that in eight years they will have to trim all benefits by fifteen percent.
Worst case scenario is hyperinflation and we've been on an express train straight to it. The people want it stopped, but whether the orange guy can figure out the giant obvious lever needed to do so or not is yet to be seen.
Also the benefits are going down because of currency devaluation. "cutting them by fifteen percent" multiplies against that diminished.
as the ai bot said, it's pay as you go
Same is true of pyramid schemes.
also, you say we can find a way to do it privatized
No, I'm saying theft is wrong and the immorally gained benefits of the theft were always based on a flawed economic theory.
It was a scam in every way something can be a scam. Neither dignity nor guilty pleasure remain. The fools who believed in social security and government safety nets stole an ice cream cone and then stored it in the baking sun.
There is no recovery and no reason to continue. It should be terminated at once, and if there are any left who voted for it (which I doubt) they should face criminal liability.
acheieving all the guarantees that currently exists
No guarantee exists. A legal duty exists for the government to provide currency, but they can and have made currency ever more worthless.
I can easily replace a false promise: I promise the sea god Neptune will provide for your retirement. There, I've just equaled social security.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
It would be capitulation to fallacy to pretend as if an alternative is required before a fault can be identified.id also add, as with most libertarians, you are good at criticizing, but poor on providing alternative systems.
If a man in 200 BC proposes to walk upon the moon by means of catapult, he's wrong. He's still wrong even if his critics don't know any other way to get to the moon.
you say we can invest in the economy, somehow.
How unrealistic of me to believe in such a thing as investment.
if you can detail how that can be done while providing guaranteed income and achieving all the objectives of social security
That would be a false standard.
The bar to beat is not the "objectives of social security" it is the actual outcome of social security.
In the real world, the world of physics and cold hard math, the best intentions don't matter and unrealistic goals are more of a hindrance than pessimism.
The "objectives" of social security may be to provide guaranteed quality of life through retirement, but the actual result of social security has been waste fraud and abuse which has harmed us all including the retired (through an ongoing process I have described many times but which can accurately be summarized as "theft" and which is generally referred to as "inflation".)
Everyone saving for their own retirement is necessarily better than the government claiming to save for your retirement but then wasting all the money and stealing a bunch more on top.
That does not mean there isn't an even better way than "everyone for themselves", but the existence and description of that better way in no way effects the objective facts that make social security immoral and impractical nor change the fact that it is those 'libertarian' economist's predictions which have, once again, proven true and accurate models of reality.
No one who supported social security when it passed predicted this moment we are living in. This moment was the prediction of the critics and naysayers, and people in the Austrian school of economics detailed exactly what theories made the prediction.
The failure of socialism (such as social security) is a scientific fact that socialist are and will continue to ignore until the bitter end, but recent events indicate that the majority does not want to wait for that bitter end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Well since I'm actually intelligent and not an illusion of intelligence I am not impressed or persuaded by either the AI blurb or the act of being a middleman.artificial intelligence doesn't make all my arguments, but most of my arguments are argued better by AI on my behalf.
If you want to act like a human being instead of a chatbot I'll evaluate your arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
if the private sector did social security
... there are a million ways to do things private an public.
Before I read any further, let's remember what actually happened with the so called public trust of government was relied upon: They stole it all.
They stole all the money, all social security payments have been incorporated into the federal budget. There is no giant investment fund. There is no pile of gold. There is no portfolio of assets.
They just took it, because they're thieves. The whole theory of socialism is about giving them the moral excuse to steal it and most of Keynesian macroeconomics is giving them an excuse to steal it, so that's what they did.
That's how low the bar is: open and total theft.
it would probably use annuities. i just read though that social security provides a larger benefit than annuities, with a cost of living increase included every year.
The government is causing the inflation, they have the power to devalue the buying power of investment returns (of all kinds) and that's what they're doing.
This is like saying: you should pay the hotel fees because the hotel manager burned down your house so where else are you going to stay?
This is like saying: you should pay the hotel fees because the hotel manager burned down your house so where else are you going to stay?
the stock market isn't a good place to park the money either.
The only safe place to store value in runaway inflation is land and prepper bunkers. The kind of thinking which created social security is causing runaway inflation.
Any plan that doesn't start with the cessation of cutting ourselves will fail to control the blood loss. Trying to compare investment returns between the baseless claims of legislative action and the rapidly devaluing returns of private investment is like discussing a diets while bleeding out (due to self-cutting).
the problem, is that most people lose money in stocks.
People sometimes lose money in stocks. People always lose money to the government. Like with social security, where they stole it all.
he only knows less than ten people that can beat a stock market index fund. so most people who lose their shirts.
That is a false inference. Failing to beat an index fund does not equal losing value.
it would get overvalued and returns in the future would suck.
Over valuation of stocks do not harm earnings.
In a sane market (free from government cave trolls smashing everything in the background) an abundance of investment capital isn't funneled endlessly into the same stocks but is used for actual investment. i.e. new companies, new factories, new mines, new ships, new power plants, etc...
That is why companies are publicly traded in the first place, to raise investment funds for expansion.
whereas with social security it's guaranteed.
... to be stolen, like it already has been, and as long as there is a single person left in the world who believes otherwise the horse is not dead and I will not stop beating.
in short, there's too many risks privatizing and too much guarantees and benefits to keepting it the way it is.
All that was stolen has been lost. There is no recovering it. There is no benefit to continue the waste fraud and abuse. Continuing it guarantees nothing, produces nothing, only exasperates the problems it has been causing for decades.
The body will heal, given time, we just need to stop the blood letting of the witchdoctor collectivists.
The body will heal, given time, we just need to stop the blood letting of the witchdoctor collectivists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
That's like saying science is based on the assumption of flawless data.Her entire basis rests on the assumption that we live in a perfect meritocracy
Created:
Posted in:
I think: none of the above
Rather, it's simply a culture of blind egotism.
I would say selfishness, but rand fell into that trap; it's a poorly defined word.
I mean people not only have an idea of the ideal partner but also the irrational conceit to think they deserve nothing less. They are taught by cultural subtext of modern drama that people are either compatible or they are not.
While it may be true that some people will never be compatible, and a very few may be compatible from the start, it is far far more likely that both parties need to work to become compatible.
That is why, for all its faults, arranged marriages worked so very often and the societies which used the practice were so stable. The price of quitting was high, so very high for both parties, so they tried.
Today people are like spoiled children, burying their petty grievances until they become mountains and chalk the resulting explosion up to 'fate', a cruel inversion of the romantic fairy-tale.
I am well in the objectivist camp when it comes to relationships, that rationality and honesty about self-interest are at the core of a healthy relationship; but what I just described is not rational, it's dishonest, it is ignoring reality.
It is a great irony that people who refuse to admit to having their own desires and expectations out of a relationship are also most likely to accuse the other partner of selfishness when it falls apart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
...of the dictionary...He calls it bestiality because
Google it if you dare
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
There are hacker organizations which could target the site if such stuff is promoted on it, I guess.
You bow to hackers and you don't have free speech. You don't have free speech and you don't have open debate.
Hackers aren't gods, they have limitations, the final advantage is on the side of the server. Given the fact that I have to go through a bunch of captchas every time I login to this site, I would say it's already hardened against DDoS.
The grand sum of "hacking" beyond that can be defeated by a super secret principle known as: Don't tell anyone your password.
I am simplifying a complex subject, but not to the point of inaccuracy. All security breaches are a result of either not using encryption where you need to or of giving away the key in some way.
In the real world hackers don't brute force anything except DDoS attacks.
Also, it could be a matter of owner simply not allowing some speech. Its his site.
"The site could shut down if the owner shuts it down"
Then the owner should put the parameters of that shut down in a charter and make it clear that MEEPs can't contradict the charter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Site could shut down if some things are promoted
That is false. This site is hosted in the United States of America. Until Trump dissolves the supreme court in a fit that means ANYTHING protected by the first amendment cannot be used as the basis for civil or criminal liability.
No court can order it be taken down if it is protected 1st amendment speech. Why? There are thousands of lawyers who make a living by making governments pay for that kind of thing.
The site owner should live in hope that they try, the punitive rewards could buy him a house.
So the only question is whether it is 1st amendment protected speech, and per more than one high court precedent any public debate of subjects of public interest are protected speech no matter how gross people find it.
Child porn is illegal to produce and illegal to distribute, but moral or statistical arguments ARE NOT!
Child porn is illegal to produce and illegal to distribute, but moral or statistical arguments ARE NOT!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I assumed the CoC had the updated version. If not, where's the new list of rules?
You would, but 'they' won't change the linked document.
Here is me asking what the hell is going on:
Here is the MEEP:
The final vote was:
Yay 9(ramshutu, Prez, sir.lancelot,Austin, Dreamofliberty, bestkorea, whiteflame, David, barney)
Nay 3 (RM, melcharez, B3lla,)
If the site owner is going to override that, it had better be said explicitly. If somebody is intentionally choosing to neither address the fact that this passed easily nor change the Code of Conduct link that's dirty shit.
If the site owner is going to override that, it had better be said explicitly. If somebody is intentionally choosing to neither address the fact that this passed easily nor change the Code of Conduct link that's dirty shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
If it's a bluff it's a terrible idea. Maybe they found reason to believe Biden didn't actually know about the purported pardons.Petty and contrived "scandal".Does Trump really want to play this game? Once he's out of office, Democrats will be scrutinizing the breakfasts he had in the morning to find some bullcrap pseudolegal reason for why his presidential actions were invalid. And if they can get some wingnut lefty judge to sign off on this, it just might stick.Gee, I wonder what this development will mean for rule of law in America. Only good things, surely. /s
If that's the case (and it's just a hypothetical), then saying these things is exactly the right way to exploit the information. Make a big deal about it, get a bunch of pundits invested, force it into court, win the argument.
That's a lot more political capital than simply showing the evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Yea, this is how you know what they really cared about.
Were they really afraid of carbon dioxide? No.
They always just hated humanity, and an environmentalist that solves environmental problems is pure cognitive dissonance for them. They want to be told that there is no hope but less humans.
That was true before this terrorism started, the terrorism is mindless violence against a perceived enemy, but the reason they have no compunctions is because they never really felt comfortable with solutions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
That CoC was replaced by successful vote proposed by Wylted. If it wasn't replaced there was an entire fraudulent process of voting.... which is pretty pathetic no matter how small the community is.You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.
It also occurs to me that if someone with ban privileges wanted to lie and say it was user requested, how would we know?
For the record, if somebody claims I asked to be banned, that's a lie. Also, Epstein didn't kill himself.
Created:
Posted in:
I got back home in time to respond, but it wouldn't have made a difference. There simply wasn't enough information to make strong arguments either way. WF and Ceru went with their gut, their gut was wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Got a better argument? [response to Mharman], from ADOLSo do you or do you not think Cerulean and WF could be scum?
Of course they could be scum, and it's very frustrating to me that people seem to act like there is a way to clear them of the possibility.
You and Mharmen could also be scum.
I have zero reason to trust any of you, but I don't have to make that decision unless you and Mharmen try to lynch their duo and they try to lynch you and I'm the deciding vote.
In that case, at this moment, I would side with Whiteflame and Cerulean for admittedly weak reasons. If you want to put a number to it, it would be like 51% chance Mharmen is scum because I think the role/theme assignment is weirder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Nobody left has been role confirmed to my knowledge.there's no reason he should be clearing Cerulean and WF when they haven't been role confirmed outside of Cerulean claiming mech on WF
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Mharman
So to collapse to a plan of action I'm going to assume Cerulean/Whiteflame are town. It would be a long con indeed if they were scum.Literally all that needs to happen is Whiteflame claiming a role and Cerulean confirming it the next DP. This is a bit of a stupid argument.
Got a better argument?
[whiteflame] There’s no priority from me aside from my statement that you come off as the clearer lynch.
Well I'm not going to vote to lynch myself so there is no action to take on that. Just sit around and then lose.
So if you're town and serious about ADOL/Mharmen = scum, you have nothing to lose by going along with lynching Mharmen. I say the exact same thing to Mharmen about Austin.[Mharman] Ignoring the fact that this applies to you too from their POV, lol
How so?
If the scum team = ADOL/Mharmen then a townie Austin wouldn't care whether he lynches ADOL or Mharmen first.
Or to put it another way, of the three outside the presumed innocent entangled pair, only one is innocent; so that one would not need to decide which of the other two is scum, they must both be scum.
If you think it's white flame and cerulean say so.
Otherwise ADOL/Mharmen/Austin should all be willing to lynch each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Mharman
@AustinL0926
@Cerulean
Based on claims, I am leaning that the scum team is ADOL/Mharman. Oracle fits well for Cerulean and is an early claim.
Well it looks like Mharmen, you, and I all distrust each other too much to go after Cerulean/Whiteflame.
So to collapse to a plan of action I'm going to assume Cerulean/Whiteflame are town. It would be a long con indeed if they were scum.
In that case I know I'm town which means the scum team are you and Mharmen.
You're saying the scum team is myself and Mharmen.
Whiteflame has shown suspicion of Mharmen.
So here is my attack: Let's lynch Mharmen. You can't claim that the scum team is ADOL/Mharmen if I lynch Mharmen. Assuming that Mharmen is scum (and if he isn't town loses) then the last round Whiteflame and Cerulean will have to choose between you and me.
I'll also vote to lynch Austin if WF and Cerulean go that route.
So if you're town and serious about ADOL/Mharmen = scum, you have nothing to lose by going along with lynching Mharmen. I say the exact same thing to Mharmen about Austin.
Therefore this decision is not contingent on any of us, but on Whiteflame and Cerulean. I await their decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
So there is no way to confirm your role is what you said it was except Cerulean's claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
@AustinL0926
[Mharman] They are either both town or both scum imo.
Like I said...
[Mharman] I see the point in taking risks so I’ll be taking one shortly.
Ok
[AustinL0926] Based on behavior, I am heavy inclined to believe the scum team is ADOL/Mharman
It would make sense for scum to not go after the Cerulean/Whiteflame combo right now. So if you and Mharman are scum I am the only target that remains.
[AustinL0926] Voodoo doll is... strange.
Has anyone else been informed of a secret word besides Cerulean? If so that would confirm the role, or something similar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@AustinL0926
@Cerulean
[AustinL0926] When you viewed Cerulean's decision not to say the word as suspicious, would you have still found it suspicious if he explicitly made a decision that he wouldn't say the word? Or was it him just not making a decision at the time that concerned you?
I'll start with this because it seems to be the most important. I think veterans are interpreting everything I say as either a declaration of suspicion or a declaration of innocence. Maybe that's what's causing the confusion.
I was pointing out a logical relationship between propositions, one of the few that can be confirmed with public information.
I didn't say I suspect Cerulean more because of the decision, I said his decision has logical consequences either way which matter if town survives this round.
[AustinL0926] We have flips, roles, theme, and most importantly, behavior to work with.
Theme analysis led to a miss-lynch.
I asked if any of the roles could be confirmed by a witness. For example has anyone else besides Cerulean been given a word from these voodoo powers?
[AustinL0926] Do you believe that over time, scum will show meaningful differences in their pattern of behavior compared to town?
In game theory there are two kinds of actions: forced moves and mistakes.
A perfect scum player may lose, but only by forced moves. As I said before, the only persistently unique scum behavior is protecting the scum team. The obvious deception is scumreading the ally to blend in.
The corresponding error for town players is to give credit for scumreads that do not represent actual risks to the potential scum ally.
In the simplest case voting to lynch a scum ally is (all else equal) a genuine risk. The calculated risk is that the lynch will fail or that the remaining scum player can win alone with the trust gained.
[whiteflame] Do you take issue with the reasons he gave for eventually saying it? Because he did, and I haven’t seen you address that.
No I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Could you be more specific?If you've been keeping the solution to yourself, I would say now is the time. I can't think of a solution, and guessing isn't a solution. 2/5 chance vs whatever the probability that whiteflame is scum witch.completely baffled by this, could you explain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
The game isn't unsolvable if WF is scum, and if he is, then not saying the word might be the *only* way to solve it.
If you've been keeping the solution to yourself, I would say now is the time. I can't think of a solution, and guessing isn't a solution. 2/5 chance vs whatever the probability that whiteflame is scum witch.
It's up to Cerulean whether to risk saying the word or not, but delay without cause creates distrust (from me) not trust. I wouldn't blame him if he was town and took the risk because the odds aren't great without more evidence.Trying to understand this - why is delaying scummy?
Intentionally delaying has only the purpose of "creating distance" (Whiteflame's words, not mine). What you might call an "amateurish attempt to unpair".
Waiting to hear some arguments isn't intentionally delaying and I didn't say anything about delaying, I was counter-arguing Whiteflame's claim that delay increased trust.
since ADOL is new, I'm not really sure what his towngame looks like, so that's why I was kind of undecided on it until now. Just something of concern.
With almost no night actions and very few people commiting to an agenda it looks like helplessness.
The way you veterans seem to think you can sniff out lies with gut feeling rather than use logic doesn't seem to be paying any dividends to me. Other than theme analysis I've only ever offered what little logic there was to use and admitted every time that it wasn't deductive or sufficient.
If town had a chance at the start of the game it didn't help that our cop took out the arsonist and the cop was the theme villain. Since then there has been nothing but making mock lunges to see how people would react or essentially silence. i.e. little to no evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Cerulean
To me, the delay implies no distance.I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "distance" because this seems to contradict your point about there being a disjoint between us because of the delay.
You introduced "delay" and "distance" in #27.
My logic was not based on how soon or delayed Cerulean's potential endorsement of you was, but based on the fact that if you were both scum such an endorsement would certainly be the strongest strategy.
Within the scope of such an endorsement you seem to think that delaying creates "distance" and renders the choice after the entanglement to be more town. I do not agree with that implication. Delay doesn't mean much IMO.
All I'm saying is that of the many possibilities this choice slightly limits them either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Cerulean
That’s fair enough I guess, though even if we were a team, I could see him wanting to put distance between us, which his decision to delay has.
Delay, what could possibly change given town is about to lose? There is nothing to delay for. If at any point he makes the claim that you were revealed to be town the disjoint becomes a joint: either you're both scum or you're both town.
If he is just delaying then it is more likely that you are both scum because the reason he gave for not saying the word won't become less valid the closer we get to the end of the day.
To me, the delay implies no distance.
It's up to Cerulean whether to risk saying the word or not, but delay without cause creates distrust (from me) not trust. I wouldn't blame him if he was town and took the risk because the odds aren't great without more evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Cerulean
Cerulean claiming that you hexed him and then it was revealed that you were town would be a fake townread which would direct attention elsewhere.Again I have come to a weak disjoint: I do not believe that Cerulean and Whiteflame are the scum team.Given the roles already claimed it would be just as easy for Cerulean to claim that Whiteflame is confirmed town (in that case).Why? My goal could be to get Cerulean to fake a townread on me to direct attention elsewhere, which fits this scenario. Why are we necessarily not on a team?
You might be a scum team, but if so you made a mistake by not using that strategy.
If I include mistakes and throws to be equally likely as sound strategy then truly nothing can be inferred and there is no way to exert influence over the outcome.
Is there any evidence that Mharmen/Elva actually did the fortune protection thing?Mharman claimed the BP role. He shouldn't have a night action. What fortune protection thing?
Sorry, Cerulean/Elva.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
the most widely townread player in this game right now. Luna townread him, and I agree with his view.
Confirmed town means they won't lie about threats to the town, it doesn't mean their suspicions are correct. Lunatic and I both leaned towards lynching Wylted and he was town.
The town loses if we don't lynch scum this time.
Character Role NP1 NP2
Cerulean Elva Oracle (weak) Picked ADOL Picked Mhar
Mharman Nasuada Bulletproof N/A N/A
Whiteflame Angela Voodoo Lady Picked Luna (failed) Picked Luna (failed)
Austin Oromis 1shot motivator
ADOL Arya Singer
Dead
Casey Murtagh Prideful Townie
WyIted Galbatorix 2X Prober Vanillaized Luna/Cop Inno
Earth Roran Hammerer
Luna Eragon Arsonist Primed WyIted N/A (Vanilla)
As I've said I've given up trying to figure out anything by theme, but maybe role....
So bulletproof prevents you from being nightkilled right?
So it would always be useful for a townie, but it would also be the ideal role to lie about to explain why you get night killed last.
On the other hand scum bulletproof would be a useless role if none of the town had the capacity to night kill. Lunatic had the capacity to night kill, but after he admitted to being vanillized it became unprovable.
I’m Angela. I am the Voodoo Lady. Two NPs in a row, I’ve targeted Luna with a 15-letter word cued up. If it had worked and Luna had posted the word (the idea being that I would prod him into saying it without using it myself), he would have had a 50% chance of being informed that I was town. Guess that doesn’t matter now.
This is apparently an unusual role and I think that is the true theme of this game.
Again I have come to a weak disjoint: I do not believe that Cerulean and Whiteflame are the scum team. Given the roles already claimed it would be just as easy for Cerulean to claim that Whiteflame is confirmed town (in that case).
If that combo is unlikely then the possible scum teams are:
Whiteflame Mharmen
Whiteflame Austin
Cerulean Mharmen
Cerulean Austin
Mharmen Austin
Is there any evidence that Austin/Oromis actually motivated anyone?
Is there any evidence that Mharmen/Elva actually did the fortune protection thing?
Created:
Posted in:
VTL Mharman, like I said; I've got nothing, but maybe this will convince Whiteflame we aren't a scum team. Won't be on for the rest of the phase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Cerulean
If Lunatic isn't going to be here, we shouldn't vote- a correct lynch needs 4 votes here, so if he's Town and not present, that means that any successful lynches will likely be wrong.
That follows, unfortunately he'll probably be dead, and after that there won't be room for a single mistake.
I think town is going to lose this...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
His reasoning for being on WyIted's lynch isn't strong, but it does make sense for someone new to the game.
Hey, a lot of people lynched Wylted, several are apparently veterans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
I care about it as much as I care about it when North Korean "judges" declare the american potus a war criminal. I don't care. The 50x down tells us what we already know. Reform in these corrupt states must be fundamental and uncomfortable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Going off wagon analysis, both WF and ADOL felt like they were just hopping on the wagon
No, I just didn't have anything better to go on than the fact that Galby is a villain and Wylted's explanations didn't full explain his claims.
Now I'm ready to jump on a bandwagon because I have nothing (no argument for lynching anybody), just still the knowledge that no-lynch is useless. If we believe Whiteflame is about to do something useful we don't lynch him, but he could be lying.
Basically a no-lynch is identical to a vote of full confidence in Whiteflame because we won't be able to tell if he delivered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I wish that protected me from work. The downside of remote...Anyway, I'm stuck at home due to a snowstorm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Can you paraphrase your link from your character to your role?
As you pointed out Arya did sing in the books, specifically at the time in du weldenvarden she sang a sad song with only Saphira around.
Elves sometimes sing spells.
That's really all there is too it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I think if theme logic worked Wylted would have been scum. I've given up on figuring out anything from that and I advise you too as well. I agree the justification for my role is weak, but just like Wylted there is nothing I can do about that; I didn't match the character to the role.
I don't have the experience of the past games of mafia here, but if there is a theme of unusual roles pick the most normal role and lynch him/her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Cerulean
Although I was never sure Wylted was scum and never said I was sure, there was something that made his claims somewhat suspicious and reading the exact role I see I was right about that, that can wait till after the game since Wylted can't comment.If anyone thinks my analysis was suspicious before I'll explain why I think the suspicion (beyond the theme association) was valid even though it turned out to be wrong.I'd like for you to elaborate. As much as I would like to, I can't keep giving you the "this player is new and not playing like newbie scum" pass forever. Whtieflame's point about your role seeming tailor-made to fit mine has some merit.
Wylted said he was waiting for Lunatic to admit to being targeted.
That proved nothing since we had no confirmation of Wylted's power. If you read the role, he didn't need anyone to admit anything. If he targeted someone he would know their alignment one way or another.
There was a contradiction between propping up Lunatic as town and revealing his full role. It is a powerful role that would eventually have won for town if he wasn't taken out. Therefore if scum knew the extent of his power they would certainly night kill him, or try to get him lynched.
So Wylted told a story that didn't make sense with the vague rendition of his role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
No it's supposed to be random. Somebody kills me at night, they get a role check on a random town.
Unless some towner has lied about their role there is nothing to gain by killing me first now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
What’s the justification for singer?
Elves sing. She also gallivants around Alagaesia with super human strength, reflexes, magic.... conspires to ferry fugitive dragon eggs and overthrow evil empires, but she does sing from time to time.
Did you see Galbatorix's role?
Elva/Cerulean/Oracle, Oromis/Austin/Motivator, Whiteflame/Angela/Voodoo Lady are all like hand in a glove.
Maybe that's the give away, if the role fits too well they're scum. Of course Roran the hammerer is chef's kiss so there is an exception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That a particular event was an election, yes there is. See this thread.There is no absence of evidence that elections exist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Mharman
It's that exactly.
Also I didn't and can't do anything in nightphase so that copy pasted column header was wrong. I voted for Wylted to be lynched and that's all I've done but talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There we go, was that so hard?“X does not exist” is always the default position because the alternative is to accept that “X does exist” without evidence
Elections don't exist by default, the end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Character Role NP1 NP2
ADOL Arya Singer No show Picked Wylted
I kept my role hidden because I believed that it would make me a likely target. Now that so many have presumably honestly revealed their roles that is no longer true.
At this point in the game I've decided the theme doesn't mean much. Town has lost a lot of people, but I am now 99% sure Lunatic is Town. I am unlikely to support lynching Mharman.
For the rest I will likely parrot any attack Lunatic or Mharman agree on.
Although I was never sure Wylted was scum and never said I was sure, there was something that made his claims somewhat suspicious and reading the exact role I see I was right about that, that can wait till after the game since Wylted can't comment.
If anyone thinks my analysis was suspicious before I'll explain why I think the suspicion (beyond the theme association) was valid even though it turned out to be wrong.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The belief that economic inequality is a problem at all much less one that warrants explosions is the sole result of socialist ideation.
In the average of the full human context (most times, most cultures) the problem was correctly identified as fraud or theft. In that same context extreme poverty was seen as a moral failing excluding rare cases like disability.
The right-tribe has attracted a lot of resentful people who feel they've been screwed over by the system, but to them and to those similar in the left tribe I urge the abandonment of skewed and useless moral axes like "inequality" which lead to nowhere but strife and dysfunction (ontop of being baseless).
Instead return to (or adopt for the first time as the case may be) appropriate moral axes such as consent and honesty.
Wrecking the day of a productive rich family will cause economic equality, but it is not just and will solve nothing so long as the true threats (as identified by lapses in consent and honesty) remain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The number of false assertions far outnumbers the number of true assertions. Assertions without evidence must be treated as unreal. Negative assertions do not carry a burden of proof.
"We live in a universe that does not contain a flying spaghetti monster."
The only part of that which is a positive assertion is "we live in a universe", that is the only part which carries a burden of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Every claim is a positive claim.
There is no flying spaghetti monster.
Created: