Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Basically, a sophisticated way to tell me I am trash at the game.
People get into gaming micro-cultures all the time.
You know there was a point in American football when they didn't have a quarterback? They always just tried to dodge or brawl through.
I think you've trained each other to think about this game a certain way and you perceive any deviation from your meta as senseless and therefore scummy.
there is meta's and behaviors that town can generally follow to win.
Yet in this game misunderstanding is a lethal error.
Strategies and behaviors need not be intrinsically flawed to fail, they need only be different from the other town players (scum coordinate and this isn't a problem for them except insofar as they need to know town's idea of town behavior in order to mimic it).
You can't just call every error in judgement YOU make a mistake in someone else's behavior. The real question is whether a full town of people behaving like the other people would have won. You mix a team of players from NFL 2020 and players from 1910 and they are going to throw a tantrum that somebody was just wildly throwing the ball down the field. That doesn't mean the quarterback pass is trash or that direct runs are trash.
In this case, I think a town of players like myself and That2User would have won.
Notice I haven't made the same mistake. I could have been saying "anyone who doesn't go with the math is scum" but I know that just because someone is town doesn't necessarily mean they play the game by the numbers.
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.
The reason there likely isn't three protective roles, is because it doesn't balance well. Mafia have three different roles that can fvck with their night kill? How is that fair?
How could I possibly know what was fair or not without knowing all the roles and the powers given to the mafia? We don't even know if there are three of them.
What if the game was a bit unfair?
Also, who said "protective" was identical to "messing with night kill"?
Did Cerulean specifically say his role "messed with night kills"? "protective" is a wider category than "mess with night kill"... and if a townie dies in either case that's at best a frustration to scum and not nearly as useful as something that actually prevents a kill like That2User's ability did. "White Mage"
it would have been justified based on the fact that she was town and lied
She was not caught in a lie, don't rewrite history.
Town has plenty of reasons to lie.Catching people in lies is how you scum hunt.
Apparently not the only way since That2User was not caught in a lie and your list has proven nobody a liar yet it has IMO the most significant impact on probabilities.
Your own role might have been more useful if you had withheld your claim until you had two or even three lists.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.
The chances I am not visited are astronomically low in general
Well since it happened in round 1 the chance appears to be similar to seeing the the moon at night (an astronomical observation).
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.
So your strategy in a game where your supposed to find liars is for everyone to just lie?
We're not supposed to find liars, we're trying to find scum.
The general idea is to just lynch them, let them know what they did wrong, and eventually they fix the behavior, or they continue to lose games for their team.
Sounds like you just drive away anyone who thinks about the game differently by being more willing to take losses than they are.
Have you ever tried to go into a different community that plays mafia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So why do you automatically go to Luna over Banana?
I explained that carefully in DP2. All that has changed is there is now less room for error.
(1) If we lynch Luna and he's town then you know for sure that it's either Banana or I. You misslynch and town loses, but at least you have a chance of winning that way. Call that 50% chance of hitting scum. Would have been much better if we had started with Luna.
(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.
If you lynch Banna or myself first you might be thinking that's 50/50 just like the first scenario, but that's wrong.
The actual alternative is between this 50/50 chance and the union of (1) and (2).
If the probability that Luna is scum is 25% then the probability that he is town is 0.75% and the probability that one of the two people left on the list is scum is at least 0.75 * 0.5 = 0.375.
You add that to the 0.25 and you get 62.5% chance of hitting scum in two days.
You start with people on the list it's not that high. It's not even 50/50 because you can lynch both Banana and I and we might both be innocent. That scenario is likely if Luna is scum, so sticking with the same made up number of 25% 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%.
It doesn't matter how more or less suspicious of Banana or I you are, if there is a non-zero chance that Luna is scum that skews the numbers.
You want to know how little Lunatic would have to be suspected in order to make lynching from the list the safer bet at this point?
P_ls + (1 - P_ls)(0.5) = (1 - P_ls)/2
P_ls = 0
The only time it makes sense (mathematically) is when you're certain Luna is town. Yes I know many things are excluded including the possibility that Luna put his scum partner on the list, but this is the baseline. You have my reasoning, you want to pretend like its an excuse go ahead.
If she had told the truth since the beginning, she wouldn’t have gotten lynched
I don't believe that for a second.
If ADOL is town, that’s literally 3 throwers on my team.
Maybe you should expand your definition of "town behavior" to include these "throwers". You might lynch less townies.
Information that can't be confirmed is useless for establishing trust, perhaps it can be used by scum in determining who to target. I won't give away information without a good argument advantaging town. I shouldn't have said what I did first night either.What? Then how do you expect to play this game lol
With excessive sarcasm at the moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
You know what it is? I bet I turned into scum.You didn't have any problem giving out that information after you claimed in DP1, but now you do
...give information that could potentially be validated by someone else
Let the validator make his claim, otherwise this is speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Yea, they're just lynching themselves. Why didn't they act like town?I can't compensate for poor skill of my fellow townies.
It couldn't possibly be that your idea of town behavior and role layouts is a little over-constrained.
She was actually a protective role, and Rasputin.
So you were saying there were too many protective roles when there were two claims of protective roles, but if there were three you wouldn't have lynched That2User?
No, you would have found it even more suspicious; or else all this crowing about "too many protective roles" is deception.
There are two protective roles in town (I know for certain) and I wouldn't be surprised if Ceru is also a protective town.
She was town and literally lied about her role. Town have no reason to lie.
Town has plenty of reasons to lie. Your own role might have been more useful if you had withheld your claim until you had two or even three lists.
How could you have done that if you had told the truth about your role when it was demanded?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I never said anything which could be interpreted as "blind trust", or in fact trust of any kind.Like it’s interesting why you’re willing to blindly trust me regarding my reading of Banana
In fact the only thing I said about banana vs user was that there was more support for going after user and user's logic for lynching Lunatic immediately was right and that was townie of That2User.
... and guess what she was town. My sole behavioral analysis was correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Maybe I'm getting too emotional about this: but if town lynches the two people who got the math right (User and I) and then said "they threw it" I think I'm about done playing mafia. You all got your secret hand shakes and your palm reading, but in the end you're still lynching town and you're still losing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s why he’s asking you who you chose last night?
Information that can't be confirmed is useless for establishing trust, perhaps it can be used by scum in determining who to target. I won't give away information without a good argument advantaging town. I shouldn't have said what I did first night either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
You had two chances to protect the night kill if the role you claimed is legit.
and how would I possibly know who was going to be night killed (outside the list and Luna)?
We can piece together who is lying out of you three better by organizing who visited who last night.
No you can't because you don't know who is telling the truth about visiting whom.
If you have a form of corroboration, start there. Otherwise this is irrelevant and if you are scum it's merely a tool which you might use to distract from the cold hard numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
ADOL who did you protect and why?
Doesn't matter.
Nobody has been better than random based on claim analysis in this game or the last one I played. It's just a tool for misdirection.
There are no hard and fast rules about the theme character split or the roles that might be seen. I won't engage in any discussion which pretends otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, just a quick recap from my perspective:
I am on the list. I know I'm town, so given Lunatic is town that means it was 50/50 that lynching another person on the list would have hit scum.
That didn't happen, so now it's a simple dichotomy (again from my perspective): Either Lunatic is scum, or Banana is.
Pie is certain about banana, so certain that I suspect that they're either the scum team or he somehow validated banana as town in someway he didn't want to reveal.
More than a few people townread Lunatic and apparently failed to see the cogency of That2User and then my observations about information sequence advantage so it won't be cut and dry if Luna is lynched as scum.
Regardless, for the town, this is second to last chance to get it right. I'm not going to support another lynch from the list.
VTL Lunatic
Created:
Posted in:
Aren't they more dangerous than MS-13 gang members?
I can't tell if you're trying to gaslight or you actually believe there are comparable numbers (on any form of violence) absolutely or per capita.
Also, I still don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
Don't care, won't change anybody's mind on anything.
- Captain Obvious
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
So... wait, the basis for lynching him is that
The basis for lynching him is that it would give us more concrete information faster and thereby advantage town since we would have that information earlier.
we might be able to intuit scum from his faked Dreamer result?
Either way we get concrete information. If he's scum not only do we take him out, we also have that additional indicator.
Setting aside that any analysis of that kind is inherently WIFOM (since Luna could have included his scum partner in his results)
While people are going around picking apart the difference between assassination and being lost based on a animated movie, strong evidence like that should be dismissed because its possible it was misdirection?
I don't think so.
Yes it's possible scum Luna put his partner in the list to engender trust, but it would have been a risky move. For the same reason that the list might advantage scum at all (higher chance of lynching in the list) it would endanger his partner.
I just don't see it as a good basis for eliminating him.
It's not any particular path, it's the sum of all the paths. We don't know if Luna is scum and that probability is multiplied by all further probabilities. A contingent uncertainty being resolved gives more information than dependent uncertainties.
It's really not that complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I do find it convenient he seems to be willing to lynch me over anyone else in the results as well
It doesn't happen much, but That2User's argument changed my mind. More specifically it spurred me to game out the days and look at the probabilities. Like whiteflame said 2/9 is the lower end of the probability for hitting scum, but if you were confirmed town your list would beat that probability.
I think whiteflame implied that after a nightkill and a misslynch we would be at 5 town and therefore the odds would be 2/7 = 28% of rand hitting scum which isn't that much better than "33%" on your verified list.
However he failed to take into account that at that point we may know much more than that there is scum on the list, we may know you are scum and that the list is less likely to be scum than random.
when even statistically speaking I feel like it's less likely that I could be scum here based on several factors I've pointed out with my claim and the huge amount of stupid risk involved in claiming the way I did.
Well dismissing all the factors you can't quantify is the privilege of statisticians :)
No I understand that and I understand the odds aren't actually those even numbers after you modify it with fuzzy logic like that. I'm just saying That2User gave good game theory.
Speaking of motivations:
but without any sort of attempt at that, it kind of leaves me wondering if he is just scum and he is going for damage control.
I said something similar, but it doesn't really make sense does it?
Unless everyone on the list is scum (a 3 man team) they have a scapegoat to target on the list. If it's "get a free misslynch" why not attack a townie in the list? Surely that would be an easier sell for the reasons you've given to trust you.
Only after the scapegoat is misslynched would it make sense to try and target you. That might succeed, and I think we may very well see that play out if the first hanged person on the list is town. That would be 2 free kills for scum, each individually an easier sell than going straight for you.
Ignoring the "he knows I know he knows" loop, wishing the list to be proven one way or another as early as possible is a town motivation and it makes me think (a bit) that That2User might be town and the list might be a scum ploy.
I don't really have that much more to talk about beyond that, analyzing the minutia of others or trying to determine if a claim is legitimate has almost no information value IMO so the contingent dichotomies created by your list claim absolutely dominate my opinions.
The only productive thing to do is lynch somebody in this mess. Of the four of us, it seems the group suspects That2User the most so lets get on with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It's more of a "wizard of oz" kind of situation here. I doubt the people who are paying attention even have the power to make him a mod. They haven't had the ability to update the CoC page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
We never know 100%, but it would increase the certainty more than lynching the list.Even if we lynch Lunatic and confirm his results, we still don’t know who is scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Then we have a plan. I'll love it when it comes together :)That’s I wanna lynch That2. And if she’s town and Luna is alive, we lynch Luna tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Banana is town.
Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways lord pie. (You can't possibly know that unless you're scum)
That leaves you, Luna, and That2. That means we have a 33% chance of hitting scum today and 50% tomorrow.
So it sounds like you're asserting that the list creates a scenario where everyone on the list and the list-maker have the same probability of being scum.
For those of us who can't mystically rule out Banana that would be:
Lunatic: 25%
Banana: 25%
ADOL: 25%
That2: 25%
You think its:
Lunatic: 33%
Banana: 0%
ADOL: 33%
That2: 33%
or maybe:
Lunatic: 20%
Banana: 0%
ADOL: 40%
That2: 40%
but it's not that simple. If lunatic is scum then the chances are that the list is all town or at best one scum. That means the progression of probability is not symmetric. You know more if you start with Luna because testing Luna first tells you something about the probabilities of the list as a whole. Same information, but faster; and that matters because of night kills.
However, if lunatic is scum town still has a decent chance of winning if we face Luna on DP3 instead of this round (DP2). So how about we lynch one person from the list, and then if that person is innocent go for Luna? I don't think that's mathematically optimal, but it's better than misslynching twice without learning anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Person B lives, I die, I assume at the start of the next day thread it will say "ADOL died in the night when his village was exposed" or something like that. I would be dead so there is no information I could give even if it was given to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
idk why people have blind faith in luna being the dreamer, why is it so unlikely this is a mafia fakeclaim?
I want this answer too. Please just think a step ahead. What happens on D3 when a townie was lynched from the list? What about D4? D5 and you're out of maneuvering room. If you trust the list at that point and its wrong town loses.
Maybe a hybrid strategy is in order, but there is no logic in lynching the whole list if it keeps being a mislynch every time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I pick a player (doesn't say town or mafia) to build a Potemkin village around. If somebody tries to use a lethal action in the night, I die instead.So let’s say you build the village around a member of scum. What happens then?
I can ask.
Are you saying that town never has lethal night actions so there would be nothing to be protected from?
Yea OK, I get that; but I can't tell the difference between protecting scum who can't be harmed and protecting a townie so how does that help?
It does say "night actions" so I'm sure it wouldn't protect from a lynching (if that's even a thing in this game).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
in what world does 100% knowing 1 player is wolf does not help town? the alternative is having faith in luna is the dreamer, hoping we're lucky in the 3 names.I literally just laid out the scenario for you. Knowing that 1/3 players in his pool are scum would be helpful now when there are 9 players because it takes a small subset of them, sets it aside and gives us an opportunity to lynch in that pool to reduce it.
It would be helpful, but that is not the situation.
If P_lt is the probability that lunatic is town then the probability of hitting scum in his list is either P_lt * 0.33 or P_lt * 0.66 (depending on if there are two scum or just one on the list).
Just because it would be helpful if you knew P_lt = 1.00 doesn't mean that is an apparent fact to town.
In my scenario #1 town would lose after misslynching three people on that list (three days of misslynching plus 3 night kills is -6 town and there are only 7 spare)
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Reread your PM and tell us exactly what Shield does one more time.
I pick a player (doesn't say town or mafia) to build a Potemkin village around. If somebody tries to use a lethal action in the night, I die instead.
There is nothing about who knows what. I assume that nobody is informed when they are protected and no lethal action is attempted. When/If I die protecting somebody, I assume that would be explained in the night action summary but I am not 100% certain.
The town can be moved to a different player twice in the game. Perhaps that means if I build the down the protection outlast my own life, like I could protect someone, get lynched or murdered, and they would still be protected?
I don't see how any of this helps establish trust though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Grigori Potemkin, Shield, because I can protect people from the ugly truth by building a Potemkin village around them.Who did you Shield NP1 and why?
I will certainly be shielding lunatic. Doesn't cure him of suspicion but it's nearly certain that we will lynch someone on his list and if I die protecting Lunatic (and he is town) then:A.) That reveals I'm innocent, and since I'm on the list narrows the suspect list to two. Since we will likely lynch someone that narrows it to one. That means you only need to lynch one person next round to either get a scum or prove Lunatic lying scum.B.) Gives Lunatic a chance at another dreamThere’s no point in you protecting Luna. He can’t dream again if you do because he doesn’t dream when someone visits him.
I did not realize at the time that I announced that strategy that protecting Luna would block him.
If he isn't lynched I think town should all agree to not visit Luna (in most circumstances), this creates a chance for a new list to be created. If we have two lists that we can confirm then town victory chance is very high.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok so let's try to game out the most likely scenarios:
1.) Lunatic is mafia, there are no scum in his list, he doesn't care that he'll be found out to be scum after all three are killed because after three days of miss-lynching and night kills mafia will have won.
2.) Lunatic is mafia, his teammate is in the list, risking the teammate is a risk they're willing to take because then everyone will believe lunatic is very townie and when he happens to produce another list that will win scum the game for the same reasons as (1)
3.) Lunatic is town, 1-2 scum are in the list, every time town lynches someone on the list the chance of the next lynch being scum go higher. In this case what would scum who are on the list want to do? The last thing they would want to do is have town immediately commence to lynching the list. There wouldn't be many ways to delay that but trying to miss-lynch lunatic is one of them.
However in this scenario it would be a bad strategy if both scum are in the list. After Lunatic is confirmed town that whole list is going to be lynched if its the last thing town does, especially if a scum is found.
So we have 9 living players and 2 are scum, so 7 living town.
D2: lynch lunatic, -1 town
N2: rando town dies, -1 town
D3: 5 town, 2 scum: town starts lynching the now confirmed list. If both scum are on the list it's a 66% chance of hitting scum. If only one, then 33% chance. For the sake of the "mafia hope" scenario lets say another townie is miss-lynched (from the list), - 1 town
N3: rando town (not on list) dies, -1 town
D4: 3 town, 2 scum: Town still outnumber scum (i.e. the game isn't over), and now there is a confirmed list of suspects with a townie out of contention. i.e. the list at this point is either (T, S) or (S, S).
In the case of (T, S), scum still has a decent chance. They just need to convince one of the two townies outside of the list to lynch the townie and they win.
However if the list is (S, S), then town can't miss. That would leave it as 3 town, 1 scum. One night kill later 2 town 1 scum, a scum who was on the list. It would be pretty difficult to convince one of the remaining townies to suspect each other more than the list-inhabitant at that point.
Not to mention that 66% chance is a bad one.
So to summarize all that, That2User going directly after lunatic is non-scummy to me, or at least there seems to be a lower likelihood that the team is banana/user. However it could also be a bluff to move suspicion to the other people in the list.
-----------
From my perspective the list is only two long. Only two people need to be lynched to either win or validate Lunatic's story.
However at no point of killing the people on the list is scenario (1) disproved. So the question is, if Lunatic lives, how many people on this list will town miss-lynch before turning on Lunatic, and if turning on Lunatic is something that needs to happen after the first miss-lynch then perhaps it does make sense to do it now and bring about the odds in (3) which are not at all bad for town.
The problem is that we don't know what scum powers they have. Scum lunatic could survive the whole game and just claim that every round he was visited to explain the failure to produce another list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Vader, cause of the role split idea. Yes I know very thin reasoning.
Now that the possibility of unintended consequences for even protection abilities has been brought to my attention I probably should have refrained.
Not sure why asking that helps, nobody can confirm its true or false. If I had protected savant I would be dead and not him. Earth was already dead. So unless people are informed that they were protected (and the role doesn't say they are), no corroboration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Oh really? Does that include protection like my ability?Correct, any visit whatsoever would prevent me getting results. That said, now that I've exposed my role, there's no way mafia would let me get results anyway.
Well maybe I should refrain then. Not to put you in the line of fire, but if you are sure you won't be able to produce another list (and I agree if nobody can protect you), then maybe the best thing you can do is die in the night.
That will remove the suspicion that you are scum and validate the one list we have.
Analysis?
Sorry another EDIT:
If scum sees this intention and they refuse to kill you, they risk another list unless they keep using non-lethal visits on you
If scum sees this intention and they refuse to kill you, they risk another list unless they keep using non-lethal visits on you
All townies should be able to agree to refrain from visiting you except unless they can do something very useful like supporting your claim of town citizenship.
That means scum would have to decide between you being a constant drain on their non-lethal ability or else validating your list by means of martyrdom.
Of course if you are scum you'll just claim somebody keeps blocking you or worse give lists with no mafia in it; but that risk exists regardless so it doesn't affect the comparative logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
*bump repeat:
btw if a dreamer is visited by literally anyone, they do not get more results
Oh really? Does that include protection like my ability?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I die in their place.
btw if a dreamer is visited by literally anyone, they do not get more results
Oh really? Does that include protection like my ability?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Additional: I should have refreshed before posting, there was more.
I think it's fair to suggest full claims from those on my results at the very least. One of you three is scum, the other two are town confirmed.
The other two are town confirmed huh?
That does mean something. That means if you keep dreaming (and town) then town is going to win very quickly, mafia will have to try and stop you. Anyone who can protect lunatic should do so.
Secondly it means this was not a ploy to engender trust into a scum fellow of Lunatic's UNLESS there are three scum.
Which, if Lunatic is scum, and there are only two scum, means the only agenda can be the elimination of three town (which is no small thing).
multiple scum can be on the results.
All the above is void. I think the whole scum team is probably banana and that2user because I know I'm not and of the defending incident. What I'm saying is if we lynch one of them and he's scum, we should go straight for the next.
Full claim please
Grigori Potemkin, Shield, because I can protect people from the ugly truth by building a Potemkin village around them.
I will certainly be shielding lunatic. Doesn't cure him of suspicion but it's nearly certain that we will lynch someone on his list and if I die protecting Lunatic (and he is town) then:
A.) That reveals I'm innocent, and since I'm on the list narrows the suspect list to two. Since we will likely lynch someone that narrows it to one. That means you only need to lynch one person next round to either get a scum or prove Lunatic lying scum.
B.) Gives Lunatic a chance at another dream
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Yep. One of That2User, Banana, and ADOL is scum.
Are you sure its one, or could it be more than one?
iamanabanana defended That2User but if it only one mafia per dream then they can't be a team.
At the same time, if that was a rule, it would only take three rounds to eliminate many people as scum and it really would be super OP. Except if this is all true and Lunatic is town, mafia will kill him next.
So if Lunatic shows up dead, the claim is validated and town should kill everyone on that list until scum is found. Given that there is scant evidence besides this claim, it seems ideal to start killing people on the list right away.
Unfortunately I'm on the list, which means I guess I have to make an argument as to why the other two are more scummy.
....
Banana tried to defend someone who hasn't been validated (That2User), the only guy I defended was Earth who was innocent.
That's all I got. I'll vote to lynch either of the other two.
....
Banana tried to defend someone who hasn't been validated (That2User), the only guy I defended was Earth who was innocent.
That's all I got. I'll vote to lynch either of the other two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
We also have 2 town players currently under the Russia history from what I know so I think some pressure on Soviets should potentially claim
I agree, repost of claims from last day:
ADOL: Russia
Savant: Russia
Lunatic: Russia
Earth: Russia
ILikePie: Russia
Banana: Russia
Whiteflame: Soviet
Cerulean: Soviet
That2User: Russian but active in the time of transition, claiming Anastasia
I think the question is going to hang over us and dominate the conversation until its tested. We should hang Whiteflame or Cerulean to disprove it, unless a better argument arises.
(I dub this the red menace theory)
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
How about zero taxes? It has the advantage of civilization not being ruled by hypocrites.
Created:
At least BK says things like that, things that let you know he realizes he's playing a joke character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The last two vehicles I bought had 150,000 and 120,000 miles respectively. I have spent about $7000 on both cars in the last 6 years.
Either you are spectacular at finding good deals on reliable vehicles or you aren't counting a whole lot of "free" mechanic labor.
Would you buy a used EV that is out of warranty with 100,000 plus miles on it?
For $7000 I would. These large lithium ion banks with fully managed charge interfaces have proven far more long lived than anticipated. Unless you make serious engineering mistakes electric motors outlast almost any other machine.
I'd say there is a good chance there is another 50k in a typical EV @100k.
It's a much more complicated question if you swap in a realistic post-inflation (government theft) price like $20k
Created:
An opinion so banal, an argument so riddled with fallacies, that not even Kyle Kulinski can be blamed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
[Wylted]
It's 5 posts total. This seems nonsensicalVTL vader
Talk about thin justifications...
[Vader]
Are you a part of the Soviet Union history or from Russia historyMy character is before the Soviet Union formation
Seems a reasonable hypothesis for a character split.
I'm from Russian history
Running summary:
ADOL: Russia
Savant: Russia
ADOL: Russia
Savant: Russia
Lunatic: Russia
Earth: Russia
ILikePie: Russia
Banana: Russia
Whiteflame: Soviet
Cerulean: Soviet
That2User: Russian but active in the time of transition, claiming Anastasia
iamanabanana defends That2User
I believe her because everyone is dog piling her right now
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't coming for you, and just because a mob is being irrational doesn't mean the victim is innocent.
*narrows eyes*
Sight suspicion on That2User and iamanabanana.
Null on the rest, no idea what Earth is supposed to have said that was suspicious. Dismissing role confirmation doesn't seem like a good idea. Any information that can be corroborated is advantageous for town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
CBS would also be aligned after they fired everyone that didn't align with the government :)Twitter and Facebook had aligned views on the danger of allowing false claims to be amplified via their platforms and worked with those agencies to prevent that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I mean I am not sure Oswald killed JFK and I am not sure Oswald was a communist at all.
I think there is a significant chance that Oswald was a creature of the CIA and used as the fall guy for a more complex assassination conspiracy. He was killed two days after supposedly killing Kennedy.
No risk of him spilling the beans after sitting in a cell to think about it.
The guy who killed the assassin died four years later at 56. He was approached to be an FBI informant.
What are the chances that two assassins died, one by the other, and both had associations with a federal "law enforcement" or "military" department (with tons of secrets). Both now well established to be pillars of the deep state?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Just to make sure we all understand the law, this is in regards to licenses to transmit in frequency bands (of EM radiation) in the US and its territorial waters.
There is rivalry in consumption of EM bandwidth enforced by the laws of nature, so the courts (barely) tolerated the assertion that use of this communication medium be tethered to the public interest.
In practice (predictably) there has been no serious attempt to enforce honesty or balance of opinions.
In epistemological theory there is no such thing as "balance" between ideas, balance exists in power blocs military and political. Rush Limbaugh broadcast every day on a hundred different AM stations and let me tell you nobody ever managed to balance him out. The only fact checking he was ever subject to was of Bo Snerdley (who I think did a good job by comparison to CBS).
The idea that the FCC could in any way censor or punish content delivered by a means of communication not regulated by the FCC (and more fundamentally which has no practical rivalry in consumption) is open war against the 1st amendment.
Those who think government sending lists of claims to censor to facebook and twitter wasn't a (constitutional) problem, have no room to complain; but I, being both honest and rational, do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Let my cynicism be perfectly clear:
This site contains very little actual debate, just like the rest of the internet and the world.
If there was a way to "criminalize" anything that subverts or distracts from debate on a debate site I would say go for it; but the age old problem is "who decides".
In practice it's either hyper-tolerance or a spiral of censorship that destroys the interest of the few members that a debate site attracts.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread is producing some unprecedented innovations I see.Genocide is not respect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not really interested in figuring out what you are calling "enlightenment", suffice to say it's not what I or most would call the enlightenment.
Created:
Posted in:
Textbook false dichotomy
False dichotomy 1: There is a contradiction between order and random processes. Please read a book on statistical thermodynamics to understand the profound truth that is to be found in stable laws creating order (predictability) from chaos.
False dichotomy 2: That the enlightenment (a very vague and abstract concept) can be reduced down to a single sentiment on one side of false dichotomy #1.
I once again point out that ebuc is either a chat bot or insane. For all the talk of site quality and "won't someone think of the children", I ask won't somebody think of the scientific health of a young impressionable child who sees ebuc's ramblings.
Could take them years to realize that spamming "scientific" keywords is a poor strategy for understanding the universe, getting a job, or making friends.
Created: