Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
He says it in the Bible
Why does god need a bible? He can speak to anyone any time, telling them exactly what message they are "supposed" to hear by his supposed plan.
The only plan that requires a bible and 50 layers of hearsay about miracles in a pre-scientific past is a grand joke.
Why comment on God and question those who speak His truth when you do not believe?
People who think the way you apparently think are a threat to truth and liberty and that angers me, motivating a comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
He did say it via others at times but Jesus actually was and is him.
Your saying that someone else said that god said.
I mean you might be wrong about someone claiming to speak for god via the thousand years of re-translation and telephone game.
Or they could have been lying.
Or they may have been tricked by ancient aliens, which despite polling, is a far less grandiose claim than monotheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
The magnitude of your presumption.What are you talking about?
Not only do you presume there is a supreme being, but you also casually act as his agent; which for an omnipotent being implies that even he himself couldn't say it better than you can.
An atheist or agnostic telling a believer how to behave laughable.
Not nearly as ridiculous as the inverse. My theory of the universe gives a role to human reason, so it follows that what I say might have value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
In God's eyes, yielding to sin is wrong.
Are you god or do you just see through his eyes?
Religion makes a lot of people strong and compassionate, but it can be scary and it is never more so than when people confidently speak for god.
Those people lack that subtle subconscious realization that they can't prove a damn thing. They don't understand the difference between their fantasy where faith is all and reality where it means nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
*raises hand, thinks about it, lowers hand*that doesn't necessarily mean all becoming one flesh sex has to be marital sexHow do you become one flesh with multiple people?
Created:
Posted in:
What a stupid response.Love is love, it doesn't fit into neat littlecategories
Created:
-->
@Savant
It's reliably poignant satire.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, the ever reliable Babylon Bee.
Created:
Public health warning: every post in this thread is a non-sequitur
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
ahhhh *taps head* thinking five, I mean 1 move ahead...We also have to make a second law that they cannot remove the law to force people with high IQs into politics at the point of a gun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Brexit was a terrible move and isolated UK from decent trade with its Catholic brethren in Europe.
Where have you been hiding the last 491 years?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not how dogs kill. They wear it down till the muscles get floppy.
They keep running because they've got no other choice. The herd won't wait and nothing improves standing still.
Still they sometimes turn and fight to try and get a lucky hit in.
(I'm talking about normal wolf prey now)
So when the prey is worn down they do hold on and that is what triggers the ultimate collapse.
Regardless it's not about what works on bison, it's about what works on a gorilla. They're not going to wear a gorilla down by making him run. Certainly four aren't. If they try to sneak in for a nip that's a much bigger risk for them than it is for the gorilla. Bison can't hold on, the wolf is always in control of when detachment occurs.
Not so with a gorilla.
Also if the gorilla is allowed to run in this scenario, and they feel its wise, they'd go arboreal before they try cross country. The common heritage of the primate.
Hence:
You won't find any apes alive on the savannahs where wild dogs roam.
Apes don't graze grass. You won't find any wolves in the highlands of central Africa, their primary ability (endurance hunting) would be neutralized by the terrain. Specifically they would be easily out-competed by ambush hunters like the big cats that in fact dominate the biome.
Note that forests with low underbrush and high visibility can be just as good as savanna for the purposes of wolves and just as useless for big cats.
Also, hominids are the apes that adapted to savanna life. We competed with or allied with the canines who were doing daylight endurance hunting.
Also, hominids are the apes that adapted to savanna life. We competed with or allied with the canines who were doing daylight endurance hunting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@TheGreatSunGod
If men in question cant lift more than 50 kilograms, it would take over 10 of them just to match the lifting power, and that is assuming they succeed in combining power there. If they fail, then it doesnt matter if there is even 100 of them.
It's not lift vs lift because there is no mechanism for guaranteed leverage.
It's lift vs weight.
What matters is that a gorilla can throw the weight of a man by grabbing him anywhere.
For example if four men were on the gorilla he would not be pinned, his arms vs their weight; he wins.
If the gorilla was on the men, they combined would be strong enough to lift him, but he wouldn't need to pin them to win. Just swing them around or crush them in a 'hug' (with bites).
For the men to win they need to pin the gorilla while they gouge out his eyes and then strangle him. So that's like seven men.
I'm assuming this is a total war kinda fight where mere pain won't stop anyone so breaking the gorillas fingers wouldn't help that much.
4 wolves can take a gorilla down easy.
Not sure about that either. Wolves can bite and hold on or let go when it's looking bad, but none of their adaptations have equipped them to handle a gripping opponent.
If the bison could grab the first wolf to bite and then break all his bones in seconds that bite wouldn't help.
Only an arterial cut would stop the gorilla, which is why big cats who specialize in precision ambushes have a much better chance. Gorillas aren't safe for them to hunt either.
Created:
Posted in:
Finally a debate resolution that is relevant to each and every one of us!
Where can you find someone who doesn't have a story about walking home from the park with 99 of their friends and acquaintances when all of a sudden a gorilla appears totally intent on depriving you of your snacks?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Western values were Christian.
Not all of them.
Christianity is the fundamental root of all Westernisation.
It is not.
The problem is that you think letting you advocate for bestiality is a Western obligation.
It's an obligation to reality. Those who love truth cannot shun an argument.
Western civilization didn't speak that into existence, it learned through many hard eras and crises the objective validity of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Everything has a cause, and when we say western values are being eroded, and you zoom in to that massive phenomenon, we find people like you. Swimming around like a bacteria, equivocating and subverting definitions.Western values were catholic values. Catholics censored a lot.
How did that work out?
Some people learn from history. They learned why speech must be free.
Others imagine that their emotions and concerns are unprecedented and justify ignoring lessons paid for in blood. Those people repeat history, or rhyme.
I have been a bad sinner at times, I am genuinely against rap diss battles on a moral level now.
You're nuts. It is an affront to the solemnity of the concept of morality to say such a thing.
I think we disagree on what Western values actually were before the modern atheism
Luckily there is this thing called writing.
Western civilization (and all civilizations and cultures) are an evolving gestalt. It's a 2600 year long story covering people who lived radically differently from each other is many many ways.
But there is a theme and an order to it which allows us to say such a thing exists and has meaning.
The value of free speech was an undercurrent that crested twice, first in Athens, then in the United States of America (at its birth). In both cases it flowed out from the origin as part of a cultural revolution that was so powerful that the traditions which had calcified were swept away and everyone who was exposed to that set of ideas was conquered by them without a drop of blood being spilled.
From the USA to France, to Europe, and in the age of European colonialism throughout the world.
For two centuries every people with few exceptions looked to the model of constitutional democracy with enshrined rights to liberty and equality under the law with either awe or fear.
Everywhere in the world they built parliamentary buildings, mimicking the ancient Greek style than anything else, and filled them with representatives and talked much of the rights of the people.
I say all this to explain the enormous weight of the ideas that you're eroding, ideas with still ring with power or else you would not feel the need to give hollow excuses.
On the subject of ideas that conquered, Jesus had some; and western civilization since then (for the ideas nearly instantly conquered Athens and everyone who remembered the dream of Athens) has been a hybrid.
You don't get to unmix the pot and pretend you can ignore Athens and see only Jerusalem.
Thea ideas can be dealt with separately, but western civilization as a phenomenon will never be objectively understood without the full picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I wonder what would happen if you declared how much you love your dogs in public forums.
Anonymous debating was a huge step forward for humanity. It made the ideal real. Discourse without fear of illegal reprisal. Before the 1st amendment appeared in the world it would be legally grey or legally allowed reprisal.
"I like pacifism, except sometimes I have to be violent."That is literally the best approach to have to violence and is what any sane nation would base its self defense principle upon.
Pacifism is defined by adherence to a rule. Non-violence.
Free speech is defined by adherence to a rule.
Nations with armies are not pacifists. Someone who would censor arguments is not a believer in free speech.
You can come up with whatever echo-chamber rules you want, there are doubtless infinite possibilities; but none of them are free speech. The only reason this is even being discussed is because you're not brave enough to come out and admit you don't give a shit for a fundamental innovation of the American experiment which was adopted by all of western civilization.
Get on out of that closet, plenty of other people are doing it. They've got like 300k "non-crime hate incidents" in the UK. Everything has a cause, and when we say western values are being eroded, and you zoom in to that massive phenomenon, we find people like you. Swimming around like a bacteria, equivocating and subverting definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If there was a pot of gold, then it must be risked for freedom of speech.People are willing to sacrifice freedom of speech for free. They dont even have to be bribed here.
Then it's not a sacrifice, it's just a principle they don't hold and don't understand. A buzz word that holds social power but no power over their thoughts and desires.
"I like free speech but it costs too much so there have to be a few exceptions" = "I like pacifism, except sometimes I have to be violent."
Created:
Posted in:
Since you dropped the following argument of this thread. So let's weigh the following impacts.:Your right to freedom of speech on a private platform versus everyone else's right to safety.
Dropped? I never addressed it. I don't even see it.
Safety? Are you mad?
Are you seriously announcing that there is no point in debating recreationally if you're not allowed to argue for something taboo, illegal, or straight-up degeneracy?
Yes
If you there was no possibility of error in a taboo, then humanity would be omniscient and there would be no need for debate.
If you there was no possibility of error in a taboo, then humanity would be omniscient and there would be no need for debate.
History tells a different lesson.
The foundation of the USA was degeneracy to the pre-cromwell nobility of Europe. When you convince yourself that you're so right you aren't even going to let people argue against you, then you're looking for an echo chamber.
You may think you can engineer an appropriate echo chamber, but recent history has again proven that you would fail.
Anyone who thinks like that shouldn't call themselves a debater.
I am more a debater than anyone I have met on this site or debate.org.
I care about the truth, it's not another forum game to me.
but they do have a moral obligation to protect everyone's safety.
From the hit squads that will take out everyone who has ever visited a site where somebody was allowed to make an argument about a taboo subject?
Seems legit...
Whatever drugs you're on, they're making you paranoid schizo.
Freedom of speech on a private platform should be a privilege to be earned, but since it's practically uncensored here, people like you have been taking it for granted.
Freedom of speech is an objective right. Posting on a privately run site is a privilege, but this is a trade. They use your content to make money and you provide content.
If that isn't the case, if it's out of the desire to provide a public service, then what serves the public? A debate site serves the public by providing an internet version of a public forum for debating.
You can't do that and ignore free speech. I mean you can try, but by definition you will fail, thus no public service.
Created:
Posted in:
There are innumerable examples of censorship and mass censorship on each of those platforms. WTF?If that's the only thing DART has, then it doesn't deserve to stick around. There are plenty of other platforms that allow free speech like Reddit, Quora, Discord.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
The real issue is beyond that, if a wsbsite doesnt ban and ASAP delste content that puts it in legal jeopardy then it can get very serious.
This site doesn't pay for itself. There is no put of gold to lose from European users disengaging.
If there was a pot of gold, then it must be risked for freedom of speech.
We've seen the pattern throughout history including the last decade. You let the overton window float free of people and reality you've just created a self-selecting group of censors off on their own (probably) absurd adventure. In other words an echo chamber.
There is not even a point in debating in such a context it is purely a waste of time. Maybe that's why everybody stopped debating and now they're all on social media sites designed to cater to the desire to spam emotion and talking points in two sentences and no more.
A debate site that doesn't care about free speech is like vegan cat food. Pointless and doomed.
This is not paranoia, nor exaggeration
It is both.
This is a thread meant for the owner to read. It is not meant as some drama to the mods.
You said private channels don't work so you made it public, then you say the public thread is only for the owner.
Created:
Posted in:
If there was an Olympic sport about creating the strongest "nobody asked" vibes, you might win.
Your collectivism offends me BTW.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
There really is no point until we have a fully automated production chain. We simply cannot keep enough human beings on Mars to keep themselves alive much less make headway in any kind of engineering project.
If we have a fully automated production chain, we would of course use it on Earth, and would rapidly proceed to a post-scarcity condition at which point people will have much attention to give to long term planning.
Building a base that supports 10-100 people for 10-100 years is doable now, but it will be dependent on constant shipments of replacement components and micro-nutrients from Earth.
In the end there will be too much wear and tear and it wold be cheaper to just send another base. They absurdly claim that about the ISS and the ISS has been subject to storms.
That's not a "colony", it a research outpost, like what they have in Antarctica. It would be great for science, nothing beats being in the field for getting answers.
If everyone on Earth was going to die and I could be on the last crew out to such a facility, I would stay, the slow death of humanity along with the fading hope of the most irrational optimist sounds like torture.
Created:
I wish someone would help you. Whatever precedes these unhinged sardonic myopic ranting sessions cannot be healthy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
The system favours the rich.Yeah, obviously. What system doesn't favor people who have more money?
That might be backward. Those favored by the system become rich.
The question is not how to get rid of rich people, its how to make a system that favors (makes wealthy) the honest and productive people.
Best practical answer and only moral answer is: A system that favors people who convince others that they're worth it without deception.
The fundamental error of "progressive" i.e. redistribution taxation is the notion that the system can be fixed after the fact. The only way the rich would not be deserving of their wealth is if they got it by force or fraud, and the only way to do that (legally) is through government. Furthermore government is supposed to prevent the illegal variations.
You don't "tax" criminals, you stop them, leaving only the government grifters.
Therefore what people keep asking for is "Give me a tax code where the enrichment from taxes and regulations accumulated as an unfair advantage by X is reversed."
It's asking a crime organization to make their victims whole by taking from themselves and giving to the victims.
The results are exactly what one would expect. No matter how high the taxes go, the rich keep getting richer. More accurately the people in on the scheme keep getting richer and the people who aren't keep getting poorer by comparison.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And of course, someone or something might already be heading our way.
Maybe, but it would be quite a coincidence to be contacted at the moment of technological explosion.
The two most probable scenarios are:
1.) They (or more likely their machines) are already here, waiting for a trigger to make contact or blow us away.
2.) We will create an expanding sphere of self-replicating probes and find them in a pretechnological state in 1-50 thousand years, and by "find" I mean we hear about it years later from relayed messages.
It's all very frustrating for people who want star trek to be real.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
These are both phantom breakthroughs.
"AI" is not really artificial intelligence, its n-dimensional matrix algorithms trained to unknown relationships including differential equations. A powerful new tool, but not intelligence.
"quantum computing" has to my knowledge achieved nothing that conventional computers cannot and I know of no theory which even predicts they can do any better.
The idea the state of a bit is an uncollapsed wave doesn't help anything (as far as anyone has ever been able to explain to me).
History is full of such phony fads, they are quickly forgotten and so people, especially as they go through academic pathways, get the absolutely false impression that humanity makes steady progress and doesn't make an absolute fool of itself regularly.
If you're interested in learning about our history of deluding ourselves about the "next thing", you can start at the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysopoeia
That is a particularly good analogy in the case of "AI", because we now know means by which lead can be transformed into gold. Nuclear chemistry, and it is beyond impractical and always will be (because retrieving the stuff stars make will always take way less energy).
I have no reason to think AI is impossible, it will be a glorious day if we actually make a sapient program; but that is not what is happening now and when/if they do pull that off, they will look at these deep learning structures the same way we now look at alchemy. In other words, with pity.
Furthermore there is no reason to believe we need to wait for (true) AI or whatever the hell quantum computing is supposed to add to the table to launch berserk drones or the morally improved variants as we wish.
We don't need true AI to make a program that can deal with 99.99% of natural phenomenon.
We don't need true AI to fully automate the production chain and make it into a closed loop of endless expansion and self-investment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
No need, people like Gore and Obama took nobility away from the prize.Nobel prize from Al Gore.
Created:
I suppose it's a blessing that by the time humanity realizes how stupid it just was, it has already been at least 1 generation, and people are comfortable just pointing and laughing.
"Did they really think bleeding cured a fever? Silly."
"Did they really think that their essay generator trained on reddit was going to build them a post scarcity society? Silly."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
In other news, the sun rose today.it seems like you're appealing to authority to shut down discussion and avoid addressing any of the points I'm bringing up.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It's a rare ability to combine so many different fallacies so often.
"R2: Who cares? Most Crimeans want to join Russia (2014 Crimean status referendum - Wikipedia, UN poll), you guys don't care then. Why care now? No party is consistently pro self-determination."
1.) Tu quoque, if 'you' didn't care about self-determination that means it has no value
2.) Guilt by association, since no party "didn't care" and 'you' must be identical to your party you and a party are indistinguishable (he does this one a lot, its his most obtuse)
3.) I don't know if this is a named fallacy, but inferring that a person or entity "doesn't care" or "doesn't hold a certain principle" because they didn't prevent something is invalid logic if there was nothing they could do or if other factors motivated non-intervention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Only expansion of the money supply causes inflation. We've been over this in another thread. I'll do it again, it's important.Then instead of inflation, "reduction in purchasing power"
Sure
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Yes, there is inflation, and no, that doesn't change the fact that a sales tax is a regressive tax.A sales tax causes inflation, which impacts everyone's purchasing power by the same percent regardless of income.
Only expansion of the money supply causes inflation. We've been over this in another thread. I'll do it again, it's important.
Created:
FYI the fallacy of switching between different definitions of the same word in the same chain of inference is equivocation.
- Captain Obvious, Trivia Newsletter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
It is a bit like anti-abortion activists getting to define their side as "pro life" and the other side as "pro death".
"progressive" it's the wave of the future! Socialist science!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I think the fact that you got lynched in part because of your intransigence is reason enough by itself. Even if town gained absolutely no value from the information of who you used your role on and why, it clearly became a substantial part of the basis for your lynch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Cerulean
We didn't have any Town abilities we really wanted to block, so I spent my N2 Jailkeep on Vader for credibility.
and you knew that because.... town always claims and always tells the truth...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
ADOL, the huge hole in your logic was assuming that Luna as scum would not have included his partner in his Dreamer "results"
There is no hole, it is a grave risk for a fake dreamer to put team on the list.
On average doing that will lose more games than not doing that. Therefore while it doesn't 100% clear the list, it does greatly increase the probability that they are town.
See:
I was thinking of putting ceru in the results but if the plan backfired and mharman had visited me or something I didn’t want to drag ceru with me as I’d assumed people would assume I as scum would do that
(it would be true even if Lunatic didn't admit it was true, but he did)
Also look at that silliness "I'd assumed people would assume I as scum would do that (include scum in the list)"
Literally acting out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QURqdLOcQzc
First iteration strategy: It's a bad idea to implicate your team. Every other iteration is presumption with lower and lower certainty. This is well known in game theory, the solution is to ignore it. That is assume your opponents are doing what advantages them.
Furthermore even in the scenario that he put team in the list, there would be only one scum left which would have extended the number of days that can be used to find him.
Your argument is weak.
which was decidedly anti-town
It wasn't decided by me. I gave everyone plenty of opportunity to give me a reason town would be advantaged. You couldn't speak of course, so if you want to explain it be my guest. I'm not interested in hearing the others repeat their unsupported assertions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
Getting yourself scumread isn't going to help you. If you want to keep playing, though, I hope you will do so. Just be willing to learn and adapt your playstyle, okay?
Only two things made me remotely interested in this game:
1.) Solving logic puzzles
2.) Casual friendly interactions
(1) had zero effect on anybody, in fact it was called flawed by multiple town and I think it was scumread. The fact is plainly in the open that the strategy I and That2User advocated would have won for town, and there was a high chance of town winning with it even if Lunatic had been town.
Here is the wisest thing said in that game:
mafia is never killing luna, luna is never dreaming again, we need to kill luna to see if mafia is in me/adol/banana.vtl luna
Here is where I should have been townread and helped lead town to victory: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12585/posts/510070
Here is the closest thing to a "throw": https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12585/posts/510083
Here is prophecy: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12585/posts/510091
[ADOL answering Whiteflame] So you have to agree that town can't just methodically go through the list and keep hoping that Lunatic was town right? Like imagine we lynch User or I am lynched, turns out the person was town.Are you just going to lynch someone else on the list or are you going to revisit Lunatic's trustworthiness? If it's the later wouldn't it be better to get it out of the way now when fewer night kills have occurred?
Town methodically went through the list and kept hoping that Lunatic was town.
Whatever other mistakes I made either in rhetoric or strategy borne of ignorance of game culture or stupidity; this remains the strongest town contribution as a matter of objective fact.
I perhaps would have tolerated if not agreed with the idea that this was not town behavior, but there was more:
(2) was ruined by more than one of the people accusing others of throwing were (and it wasn't even just a scum strategy).
That's unsportsmanlike like and has nothing to do with the rules or winning strategies.
So no, I will not be playing again.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh your poor innocent pure mind is scarred lol
Making every character grey and removing all moral lessons is a trite tactic used by writers who think nihilism and subjectivism makes their work mature or gritty. It's not just in anime.
I haven't watched these anime but I notice something in common. These so called incestuous relationships have no been real biological ones in either case.
You know in Japan they're constantly calling unrelated people by familial titles right?
Grandma, grandpa, big brother, etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
We all have to suffer because you lack the ability to see truth and think critically.
Even if Trump brings about much suffering, that does not mean the alternative would have been less suffering.
Government theft has retarded an unimaginable amount of prosperity, and since material production grows geometrically with time farther back you go with the hypothetical "what if government hadn't fucked this up" the bigger the impact.
Just as growth is geometric so is decline, and we were heading straight for a brick wall of poverty. The signs are everywhere, in a hundred different metrics the younger generations have less buying power.
That "1%" we're supposed to be jealous of are the corrupt mega-corporations that are involved in the conspiracy to steal everything everywhere. They were the alternative to Trump.
The worst case of this admin is better than the worst case of the alternative. The best case of this administration is better than the best case of the alternative.
What I just wrote is thinking critically. Thinking you were proved right because the world didn't instantly turn into a utopia is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Universal sales tax has the same depressive effect as universal income tax on production.
A baker makes 10 pies and the government steals 2 and wastes them. Now you have 8 pies.
In the grand scope it doesn't matter whether this is done by taking the pies before or after the sale, and that is exactly the difference you're talking about. Income is just the profit from sales useless (and useful) middlemen not withstanding. Income tax is the tax on the sale of labor.
The difference is in the motivations created. Income tax discourages people from seeking high compensation monetarily. This artificially increases the value of non-taxable benefits such as health insurance, vacation times, supports and benefits, company culture (spending time with friends is a primary value for most humans), and most importantly: income stability.
Sales tax motivates the minimization of trading items and services. It artificially boosts the usefulness of full stack production, for example if you're building sailboats you can minimize the production stolen by hiring sail makers and making them in your shipyard instead of buying them (you would have to pay sales tax on that).
It advantages homecrafters/DIYers, cash black markets, and mega-corps that buy their whole supply chain. It strengthens actors looking to create monopolies or near-monopolies.
Sometimes governments try to avoid taxing production intermediate trade, and only charge consumers, but this is generally unsuccessful and devolves into VAT *explicitly penalizing every trade even within production chains*.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I have no idea what you think this proves or indicates beyond internal balancing.If your point isn't that we are doing things wrong what is it?
You're assuming every townie knows and agrees to the same rules, even the unwritten ones, that you do. Not only that, but you don't care if those rules are objective implications of the game rules.
If you guys were like "this is just the town strategy we go with, please comply because mixing strategies will fail", that would be one thing. No, you act like there is one way to play, you don't even care if other people are thinking another way. You act as if different strategy === scum and any outliers from that rule were just stupid, (too bad git gud not my problem).
Kind of That2user to never oblige her reason for lying.
She wasn't caught in a lie, it would have been far more dangerous to admit to lying than to hope the suspicion of lying passed.
The thing is she isn't a "noob" and has even hosted games on this site as much as a year ago.
That makes my point stronger. Your theory is then that she just "threw" the game for ____ reason?
You didn't care before you lynched and you still don't care.
Earth has been playing for years, he even wrote the old guide on how to play mafia lol.
That makes my point stronger. Your theory is then that he just "threw" the game for ____ reason?
But it's a team game, and when my teamates are actively throwing said game, I think that's a reasonable reaction.
I favor the argument that the people ignoring math in favor of picking apart details in "assassination" vs "just dying" or who was qualified to be called the fist Tsar are the ones throwing.
The people suspecting her aren't the anomaly here.
The only lesson I learned is to trust my logic over your gut. Giving the right strategy was town behavior.
There's really not many things that need to be written down, most of it is common sense.
The exact meaning of "protective role" and how many there can be in any game is common sense?
you somehow think you know for a fact that I am scum
That is a lie.
I was not suspicious of Earth, I was right.Having inside information sure makes you look good. Town are uninformed, thus sometimes wrong. Bragging about being right doesn't prove much about your affiliation here bud.
Oh it's not about my affiliation, it's about my analysis. It has fewer assumptions and was more reliable about the fewer claims I did make. Same with the Eragon game. I didn't fill in the blanks with bullshit.
Sometimes, often, it's just bad luck. The room for luck here is obvious, if the town investigative roles are killed early there is no way to gain reliable information, it just comes down to your poker game which is unreliable; especially when you refuse to acknowledge that people might be playing outside of the unspoken rules.
Speaking of results, you haven't done anything to achieve your win condition.
Of course I did. I gamed out That2User's idea further. I explained it to everyone.
Then I guess town "threw it" by not listening to me and her.
You haven't led a single scum lynch
There hasn't been a single scum lynch to lead?
4 ways to have stopped a night kill,
I have zero ways to stop a night kill.
If I die in the night because of a mafia hit, that's still a night kill.
And whose fault is it that you are wrong?
If you're town it won't be my fault because I didn't say I knew you were scum.
I have only claimed that the overall chances for victory were higher if your list was verified as early as possible.
And that2 was too.
Nah, she was and still is right. She didn't say you were 100% scum.
I got results, if I had not ousted them dp1 I risk being night killed NP2 and town never gets ANY results.So make your fake claim something of low threat to the mafia.It's not a fake claim.
IN THE SCENARIO that you're trying to get two lists before going public (as town), you would fake claim a role that was likely to be considered low priority for the mafia and thus reduce the chances of an early grave and even visits.
Ousting night actions early as possible is the smart thing to do in this situation.
Maybe, but that is far from obvious.
Mod literally gives me a list of three random players, she said, she only has to make sure that one of are scum.
Pretty sure that's identical probability.
And in the chance you get double town in those results
It's already in there.
What's not in there is the chance of being killed before two nights can pass. I don't know that number, so maybe you're right and you choose the optimal strategy.
...but that does not mean that it's absurd to think there is a reason to lie or that multiple scum lists are worse than single scum lists, and that is just one role.
Each forum usually either selects a person to represent their community or has someone volunteer. Usually I have volunteered in absence of anyone else having interest to do so. This year we are looking at sending savant, as he has volunteered. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12560-mafia-championship-season-12Its basically a tournament style thing, it doesnt factor in statistics and win rates from other sites.
So that's individual performance. You also already admitted that town on DART tends to do better than town in these larger heterogeneous mixtures.
The final piece of the puzzle would be this: If town on individual forums does better than the large heterogeneous mixtures just like it does better on DART then it's a classic key-lock evolutionary phenomenon.
You're basically birds of paradise flashing at each other. Each subspecies does better with their own kind.
The feather pattern isn't objectively better, it's just better understood by your own community.
Created:
Posted in:
One last thing before I do something more interesting: If it's banana, then pie is the partner. They've been tight from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Maybe micro-cultures aren't always a bad thing though as you assume they are.
Didn't say bad. Being blind to when you are in one is bad though, especially if the core skill of the game is figuring out what other people are thinking.
Of the last ten games town won 50% of the time.
I have no idea what you think this proves or indicates beyond internal balancing.
Were basically creating POE's like "Don't lie for no apparent reason"
Apparent reason != no reason
We don't know why That2User lied but suspicion about a story is not identical to catching someone in a lie. That2User was town, nobody knew she lied until she was lynched.
Assuming her reason for keeping her role hidden was good, the lesson might just to be to lie more carefully; but lacking knowledge of the subculture which apparently informs you of the role layout noobs or people from another subculture can't lie effectively.
"Don't hammer yourself" that seem pretty obvious and reasonable.
You remember when I said I didn't know what Earth was supposed to have said that was suspicious?
What do Earth, That2User, and I all have in common?
1.) New to this game and this particular subculture
2.) WE DIDN'T FIND EACH OTHER'S BEHAVIOR SUSPICIOUS, I went with the crowd on User, my personal take was that she was acting town.
That's how you know this is an interface failure and not "throwing the game". Of course if you consider not knowing the interface throwing the game that's up to you but you might want to write a manual with all these hidden cultural rules because they do not flow from objective game theory.
Earth literally lynched himself, how was that an error in MY judgement?
He crashed out:
"You what fuck you guysvtl Earth"
Do you know what the vote was before that?
Earth (5/6): Pie, Savant, Whiteflame, Banana, Lunatic
What did he say before:
My character is from before the Soviets.
Alright fine, I am Ivan the Great, Russia's first tsar.
What did people say?
My PM explicitly says I was tsar, so w/e.Well if you are town, casey is doing something funny here.
Guess who Earth was? Drumroll:
Earth - Lynched DP1 - You are Ivan III, aka Ivan the Great! Ivan III was the first person in Russian history to bear the title of ‘Tsar’, and reigned as Tsar for longer than any other monarch in Russian history except for his grandson, Ivan IV. As Tsar, Ivan III ended the dominance of the Tatars over Russia and brought other lands into his territory through purchase and conquest. Because of how Ivan consolidated power and brought more people and territory under Russian control, you may add more people to your own neighborhood. You are the Neighborizer. Once per night, you may target any other player to add them to your own Neighborhood, a private chat where every member can directly talk with each other as long as they are alive. You win with the Town.
He resisted claiming for a little bit, told the truth, got lynched, and people blamed everyone but themselves (their own reasoning).
In the Eragon game, I was town, I told the truth about everything, I got lynched, and people blamed everyone but themselves (their own reasoning).
That is what is making this silly and boring for me, the fact that nobody can explain their logic and they don't feel any need to because any loss is the other guy's fault for acting weird.
Above Banana said "Well if you [Earth] are town, casey is doing something funny here."
So do you agree? Is casey doing something funny?
Or do you rewrite history every time the flimsy rationale fails?
I was not suspicious of Earth, I was right. I don't think there is anything wrong with Casey's characters, I think there is something wrong with player's analysis and I am uninterested in learning how to fit into a subculture that refuses to acknowledge that possibility.
You painting yourself and that2user as bully victims disregards all the other valid reasons there are to put you into the position you are in.
As long as you don't care if your "valid reasons" lead to valid results, I don't care what your reasons are.
That you aren't able to see how a townie lying is harmful is a bit baffling.I just gave you a scenario with your own role.If you think I should have lied in any capacity with my role
I was pointing out the advantages, not claiming the balance of advantage favored lying or withholding in this or any other specific game.
it makes you a giant hypocrite for voting me now, suggesting I am lying about my results. You wouldn't need to "prove" my results if I wasn't lying.
That makes no sense.
The results would need to be proved either way, it would just be more useful if there were two lists instead of one.
Yes."Messing with night kills" is inherently what protective roles do. Thats what every known protective role does, including your own. Thats what protective roles are designed to do.
I did not know that it was defined that way.
My list has caught scum, and based on what I am seeing you are likely it.
...and when you're wrong it will be my fault, just like it was That2User's fault and Earth's fault. So fun, so interesting, so dynamic.
Very unlikely. Remember dreamer only receives results if I am not visited.You're infinitely more likely to not be visited or killed if you don't tell the mafia you're a dreamer.I got results, if I had not ousted them dp1 I risk being night killed NP2 and town never gets ANY results.
So make your fake claim something of low threat to the mafia.
The only reason that would be a big risk is because you think you know the role layout, i.e. cultural information not available to new players or players with a different culture.
Secondly after finding out that multiple scum can be on the results, multiple lists don't help as much as I initially thought they did.I think it would help more in that case.Explain.
Pushes the average scum on the list above 33%. How much I don't know because I don't know the method of choosing.
If it's "pick random scum" then "pick two random players" then it would be (100% + 1/Remaining players + 1/(Remaining players - 1)) / 3
So if there were 8 remaining players (9 including the original scum) it would be (100% + 1/(8) + 1/(8 - 1)) / 3 = 42%
You do that twice and any names in both lists are very likely to be scum. 1-((1-0.42)(1-0.42)) = 66% for example.
It wouldn't matter if you're at last opportunity to win at that point because you would have basically got em. Note that the 66% is from the point where there are 9 players. After 2 nights there would be far fewer candidates, eliminating names from the lists. That's another advantage of not revealing the list BTW, the way it went this game mafia knew it was a bad idea to night kill from the list.
Kinda tired of doing math for people who don't care, but a 66% at 9 players would probably be like 90%+ at LYLO.
I've been to the mafia universe championship games 3 times now, where every online forum that plays mafia get to compete against each other.
How would that be done?
Surely you couldn't put all DART members in town or scum, they would recognize the familiar faces and see the pattern. Therefore it follows that the players must be randomly distributed into games and then the win rates of the various forums added up, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Cerulean
the chance that both of us (on the list) are town would also be 25% which means you only have 75% room between Banana and I. 75%/2 = 37.5%.Why are you dividing by 2?
Just using the equality of probability between me and Banana as baseline.
If if was twice as likely that I was scum it would be 75%*2/3 = 50% for me and 25% for Banana. The key fact that only two people have acknowledged is that so long as there is a possibility that Luna is scum and that affects whether the list contains scum it must reduce the odds of finding scum in the list.
But in that case, if we lynched through both you and Banana, it would be 75%, no?
Yea that's true. It was always true.
If town is willing to risk the whole game on the assumption Luna is town lynching through the list would be exactly the way to take that bet.
Taking out Banana and me would be lynching the whole list without confirming Luna is town. Have fun, I've pretty much lost interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Your reason is that I can guarantee that at least a couple townies want you to say who you visited.
Well I want the star ship enterprise, but that doesn't mean I'll get it.
What will these hypothetical townies do with the claimed information?
Suppose, I give an answer, and then scum claim that they have a power that lets them see who visited who, then they claim that I am lying in order to push a miss lynch.
But in order for that to happen they would need to know which person I claimed so they can deny it.
If on the other hand they announce who they were watching, I would (if I am scum) know to not claim I visited that person.
Or maybe a townie can do the same and confirm I visited someone. What if I visited no one?
It's a stalemate, and there are clearly many more possibilities since there are like a million roles.
So if it's so important to claim roles, let the person who can verify or disprove my information come forward. Then I will consider whether it is worth the risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So how are other townies supposed to determine what they are if scum by definition are liars and townies lie too?
Townies don't always need to lie nor do scum.
In general there is apparently a role called "Cop", don't know if you do that role in this particular subculture.
You refusing to do that is throwing or you’re scum.
You've made your opinion on that clear. Give me a reason, I will not be bullied into it by appeals to tradition or your willingness to throw the game in order to punish people who aren't following your unwritten manual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
They are motivated to lynch scum and not town. They don't know who the other town are.That’s not true at all. If every townie lies about their role, how are they any different from scum?
Whether they should lie about their role depends on their role and what has already been revealed.
SOP is a thing in every game. And you divert from it on extremely rare occasions and when you’re certain it won’t have a downside.
It certainly has a downside when you lynch anyone who doesn't follow your protocol and are absolutely certain you didn't make a mistake. Of course the same would be true if you tried to enter a community where nobody was suspected for not claiming a role upon request and they called you a thrower for giving role and character without good reason.
In this case, I think a town of players like myself and That2User would have won.No they wouldn’t.
Guess we'll never know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Are you going to say who you visited or not?
Nope.
If you’re not going to say, we are going to assume by default you are scum and lynch you.
"Jump on one leg head or you're scum"
"That guy just threw the game, what a noob"
Don’t really care at this point
Same.
(2) If we lynch Luna and he's scum, then banana and I are exonerated. Not only have scum been found but the chances of miss-lynching town are drastically reduced.Not necessarily. You or Banana could still be scum.
Low likelihood, but regardless removing a scum buys more time.
Probability cannot account for qualitative factors, which is at least 75% what this game depends on.
Uh huh, those factors mean you threaten to lynch me but not whiteflame because he has reasons for not claiming that he's not giving.
And right now everyone susses you for a reason.
and it's very convenient when you're right no matter what isn't it?
If I'm town I threw it. If I'm scum it's because your qualitative factors are just that damn good.
Created: