Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Someone uses a random number generator to do it lol, it doesn't have to be every single user
Personally, I would not trust that player to accurately share the results, nor the randomization of how they're selected in the first place.
Neatly, for future games I do have a solution!
Each player already has their signup order listed, so we'll use that for their corresponding numbers.
For the seed, plug in the date and time of the first post (1203190425), and we get the number 10 every time (Oro). Use just the date (120319), 10 (Oro) again. Use the time of that post (0425), you get 3 every time (Warren). Use the post number (139015), and we get 1 (Speed) every time. Or course, for future games one of the numbers from the page would need to be selected ahead of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Do you have a better method?Like I said, RandomTRUE random
Please demonstrate how this is done.
Granted, I can think of one way using a random number generator (still not truly random, but close enough); but unless you pick a seed (which diminishes the randomness), each user would see a different result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I'm asking why you think being the last to show is scummy
It's not actually scummy, it's more about trimming dead weight. Plus even odds with anyone else of them being mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
For future reference, do you have a better method for determining first day lynch, or do you generally suggest no lynch?Random is fine by me. However, lynching the last person is not random.
Do you have a better method?
Admittedly, the number of no shows last game is a big factor in why I suggested it (someone being last, implies they might not show up at all).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Thing is that Ragnar was more than competent in the game I did. Seriously, he did AMAZING.
Thank you!
This seems very scummy to me
Fair enough. For future reference, do you have a better method for determining first day lynch, or do you generally suggest no lynch?
I'm going to go ahead and claim vig
So many possibilities on this claim go through my head. While it could be a fake claim to lure out the real vigilante, with only two mafia that would seem like a needless waste... It could be a lying townie trying to draw heat, but that would be almost strictly harmful to the town... Overall I'll take you at your word; as much as I would have preferred the mafia not knowing the identify of the only power role.
I'll probably NK Ragnar if he isn't lynched
Fair enough. Now that you've outed yourself as vig, you will need to do a kill to confirm it; and in an otherwise all vanilla game, I am as good as any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
do you still want to lynch water since they were last to show?
Not overly, but it's a pretty fair random standard if Siri's demand for blood is to be obeyed. Hence, I've voted for Discipulus instead, the only person here who is confirmed to not be town. Plus we can watch everyone eat, and those who hesitate (or commit some other dining taboo), we know are not one of us.
If so, why is that scummy?
I don't know if doing a day one lynch is scummy or not. Since it takes 6 of us to agree, and the mafia team only has 2, I don't think it can be conclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm confused...The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.
Created:
Posted in:
As seen in the fourteenth amendment: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; the government can nether deny someone their rights to include health care decisions, nor force them to surrender their liberties by having abortions or rounding all the men up to be neutered to prevent abortions (less invasive on the men...). Given the history of abused powers even when it violated the constitution, there is no reason to doubt removing these limitations would lead to even greater abuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@Discipulus_Didicit
With it confirmed Discipulus is not a replacement for Water...
We're all hungry, but we don't need to turn on each other when there's an outsider we can feast upon.
We're all hungry, but we don't need to turn on each other when there's an outsider we can feast upon.
VTL Discipulus_Didicit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@Discipulus_Didicit
Is Discipulus a replacement for someone? Or is he fair game to lunch without any risk nor consequence for town?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Are we a town of cannibals?According to iPhone autocorrect, yes.
Praise to Siri and her infinite wisdom!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Should we lunch or no-lunch this DP?
What are the pros and cons of it? I mean besides my calculation that there's only an 18% chance that any random player is scum.
Also regarding the typo... Are we a town of cannibals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Those who have suggested killing anyone: Ragnar, Drafter, Supa, Press.
I of course was serious. Granted, the last game I played (and only forum game) had a lot of MIA scum.
For easy reference (and later for someone more experienced to turn into a town/scum chart)
ACTIVE
6. SupaDudz
2. PressF4Respect
7. Lunatic
11. Greyparrot
9. Drafterman
4. Ragnar
1. Speedrace
5. ILikePie5
10. oromagi
3. Warren42
***************
8. WaterPhoenix
INACTIVE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Greyparrot
I just found a treasure trove of information! http://style.org/unladenswallow/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
African or European?
Created:
Posted in:
your basically suggesting lynching the last person to get on and notice the dp is up
Correct.
Created:
Posted in:
So unless anyone has a better idea, I thought through an easy and fair way to determine whom to VTL today.
ACTIVE
6. SupaDudz
2. PressF4Respect -Strawberry
7. Lunatic -Chocolate
3. Warren42
5. ILikePie5
8. WaterPhoenix
10. oromagi
INACTIVE
When the list reaches only 1 below the divider, we simply VTL that person. Granted this only gives an estimated 18% chance of catching a scum.
Created:
Posted in:
This will be my third game of Mafia. I do however own Secret Hitler, so I am not a complete noob.
The first game I played was over Google Hangouts. I think I was some type of vigilante, and was forced to role call in the first day, and immediately lynched.
The second game I played was here in the forums. It was the MCU Heroes one, in which everyone had special roles.
This will be my third game.
I'm slightly confused how we are supposed to identify the scum, without special roles. I mean do we just roll the dice and lynch at random?
Created:
Posted in:
Changes have begun. They will not happen all at once. Please bear with us through this minor transition.
Created:
As a reminder, there is a COC Revisions thread up right now.
There are also existing limits on how much abuse can be directed at us, outlined in the extended policies...
Section B: Conduct Towards AdministrationSubsection B1: The Chief and Deputy Moderators and Site Owner
- Conduct violations against the Chief Moderator, Deputy Moderator, and the Site Owner will not be enforced, barring certain exceptions
- Exceptions to PA.A1.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
- Plausible, repeated, or serious threats
- Hacking or attempted hacking
- Staff Impersonation
- Doxxing or attempted doxxing
- Life- or health-threatening cyberbullying
- Violating the privacy of PMs not related to issues of moderation
Subsection B2: Other Moderators and Administrators
- Conduct violations against those moderators and administrators not covered by PA.A1.SB.SbB1.PI will not be enforced, barring certain exceptions
- Exceptions to PA.A1.SB.SbB1.PII are limited to:
- Threats
- Hacking or attempted hacking
- Staff Impersonation
- Doxxing or attempted doxxing
- Particularly serious personal attacks not related to their moderation duties
- Patterns of unceasing personal attacks not related to their moderation duties
- Life- or health-threatening cyberbullying
- Violating the privacy of PMs not related to issues of moderation
I bolded two important ones. Granted Virt, Mike, and I, are not subject that that level of protection. Still, I will remind people of the Impersonation clause, which applies to all of us, and to which the form of that impersonation has not been defined in this medium.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Well stated.
I don't mind doing just a bit more information gathering (I'm a curious person), even while I think the current draft is essentially good to go.
Granted, I don't expect the very first time refinements are done to equal perfection (as we get more users, the needs will slowly change anyway). Worst case scenario with a dedicated Current Events forum, it doesn't go anywhere, and we ask Mike to delete it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
You suggested the addition of a current events forum. It's come under a little criticism. Would you mind pointing me to the site you mentioned it was popular on, so that I can get a feel for how it fit into their forum design? ... It might be something that can just be folded into the description of the main social hub.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
@PressF4Respect
My attention was called specifically to this thread, but please don't make a big thing about that.
You can expect to see that reminder or another like it more often. I assume people want to see that moderators take their reports seriously, and without deleting or otherwise censoring posts, it's a gentle way to encourage course correction for increased civility.
And yes, users are still talked to privately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thanks, same to you.
Also, Dr. Tank sounds like a boss level from a video game, and I mean that in the best of ways.
Also, Dr. Tank sounds like a boss level from a video game, and I mean that in the best of ways.
Created:
Posted in:
Unless more suggestions come in soon, here is what I am planning to suggest to Mike. I don't know the structural limits, but if archive can be a sub-forum accessed from within the Site Management forum, that's where it will end up (as opposed to second to last place on the normal listing).
- DART Site ManagementDebateArt.com administrative matters, rules, refinements, and more.
- DART Community HubFor the users and by the users, this is the main social hub.
- Artistic ExpressionCommunity generated art, music, writing, etc.
- Current EventsNews and various micro events of the day.
- Entertainment IndustryMovies, TV, music, celebrities, etc.
- Mafia HubMafia and other forum games.
- GamingVideo gaming and related technicality, plus any discussion of board games, etc.
- PhilosophyEpistemology, Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics, and Aesthetics.
- ReligionSpirituality, faith, and religious concepts.
- Science and NatureThe natural world and the systematic study thereof.
- SocietyPolitics, History, Economics, etc.
- SportsNeeding to shoot a 3-pointer while screaming Kobe? This is the forum for you. Just don't airball!
- ArchivePrimarily for outmoded administrative threads.
- MiscellaneousEverything not covered within the other categories...
Created:
Posted in:
***
General reminder, you may critique someone, without jumping immediately into personal attacks.
-Ragnar, deputy moderator
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LordLuke
The writing for Rey is bad enough, that I used her as an example in the Kritik guide. https://tiny.cc/Kritik
Snoke... He was just a plot device instead of a character.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
<br>Candidate Estes Kefauver won 80% of the primaries and 60% of the popular vote in the primaries, but because this was when most states still had state bosses order delegates to support particular candidates, the nomination went to Hubert Humphrey instead
Holy shit!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I've tentatively updated the draft to:
ReligionSpirituality, faith, and religious concepts.
It can of course be changed again (maybe not to renaming the whole forum Purgatory...).
And yeah, divinity does feel a bit cheesy.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a pretty straight forward, but educational in a fun way, and only 5,000 characters per argument!
Created:
Posted in:
/in
Note: This will be my third game (second on the forums), so still a noob.
Note: This will be my third game (second on the forums), so still a noob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
From inside that thread, posts #13 and #14 have answers for you. Ergo, not undefined.
I am not insisting the word be in the description, I merely showed one sample of something more inclusive than the current. I admit that I dislike the word "church" in the current description, due to how varied religions are, and how few of them call their places of worship churches (not even all branches of Abrahamism). Similarly, I would probably object to any specific holy days being in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Spirituality is an undefined and undefinable word, ergo meaningless.
It's in most dictionaries, so quite easy to define.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
In this case, no one tagged any posts for moderator attention. I stepped in to mildly correct the baiting of users not involved in a thread, so as to try to prevent a problem in future (one which the other thread you linked, suggests is recurrent).
If feeling the need to tag someone to get their opinion on a thread, please just ask them without calling them names. As an example:
@BobWhat do you think of this topic?
As opposed to:
@Bob...Just look at the Satanic "Bob" as an example of FAKE Christian Pretzels!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I was recently trying to put my finger on that term. Foregone conclusions. Thanks!
I remain hopeful we'll get some auto loss features in the future, but in the mean time, I think that would be a good category for the COC revisions, to lump a few things together (hopefully including No Contest debates).
I remain hopeful we'll get some auto loss features in the future, but in the mean time, I think that would be a good category for the COC revisions, to lump a few things together (hopefully including No Contest debates).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You don't want to see some of the frequent votes before we added BoP requirements to vote a tie...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I fully agree with this:
For the Archons episode, I just figured Kirk was creating a loophole for the sake of the plot. I never took Kirk's (frequent) circumventions of the Prime Directive seriously, at least not in any philosophical sense.
I got to say, I strongly dislike that the new movies turning the Prime Directive into a joke.
Similarly, I love The Orville actually exploring issues of what happens to a culture when the Prime Directive is violated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@BrotherDThomas
Note: No posts here were reported, I merely chanced upon this thread and am offering some advise to keep things from escalating in future similar situations.
Brother,
If you feel the need to call someone's attention to a thread, please be civil about it. Certainly don't do it solely to bring up past or ongoing disputes. As a reminder from the COC:
d. Cross-Thread Contamination
Cross-thread contamination is when a user brings up disputes elsewhere on the site up in an unrelated thread for the purpose of harassing, mocking, or insulting another member. Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible.
You can also reference Satanists, Satanic People, or Satanic Christians, without specifically naming another member who is not even involved in said thread.
Note: This is not an endorsement of said references.
Note: This is not an endorsement of said references.
Ethang,
You can block him. It would remind him of your disinterest in interacting with him, every time he attempts to tag you. While this would not prevent him from mentioning you, it would change it would change the context further into a dis-favorable direction for him (adding weight to any future reports you may need to make).
Created:
Posted in:
As you all know, there's currently some work being done on forum restructuring and consolidation [1]. I am hoping for some feedback...
Currently the description for the religion forum reads:
Topics related to church and religion
I've tentatively written an update of:
Discussions of divinity, faith, spirituality, etc.
The final text for it is up to you. Ideally it should serve as a friendly welcome and introduction to the forum.
One example is the Sports forum is being updated to:
Needing to shoot a 3-pointer while screaming Kobe? This is the forum for you. Just don't airball!
Created:
Posted in:
A few changes (as opposed to just reordering) I would like to make:
- Change Spelling and Grammar to Presentation & Structure, which would still include S&G as factors in it, but would allow walls of text and other offenses to legibility be penalized when compared against well organized easy to follow cases. ... Come to think of it, another decent name change would just be Legibility.
- Add a special case for No Contest debates, as basically another full forfeiture or concession. A recent example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1366/this-site-is-elitist-bullshandt
- While I know this can be interpreted to be covered under votevombs via the "a vote cast without regard for the content of the debate" clause, but it could do with being expanded and possibly separated from vote bombs for clarity... A vote should not ignore major categorical areas to fluff up the side which favors their bias. Here's a hypothetical: If I vote on an abortion debate in favor of the pro-choice advocate, and the pro-life advocate has a dozen good .gov and .edu sources vs. none from the pro-choice side; if I do not give sources against the side to which I'm favoring, my vote should be removed. Granted, were it flipped around and the side I'm favoring had all those sources, I would say the extra points should be fully at my discretion.
- This isn't important, but right now we call every non-moderated debate type a troll debate... Maybe we should just call them non-moderated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
an archived section would be good to make it clear which threads are active and which ones are old
I went back and forth on the idea, and if it doesn't work out it can always be re-merged later.
Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on the requested Current Events forum? I am pondering if such should just be included as a role within the community hub.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
How do you feel about adding an "archive" forum where we move all old moderation topics to?
I would not be opposed. However, I think unpinned and locked items naturally floating to the back would organically handle that within the Site Management forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
One feature suggestion I've made, and will probably make again, is the option on voting to give less than full argument points (on debates I'm in, I would be fine if people say gave conduct to the other side to lessen arguments if they want to give credit to the non-winning side... I might end up suggesting this as a special rule). So I'm there with you on wanting to try new things.
What do you think the problems with weighted voting would be?
One that immediately comes to mind, is peoples addiction to complaining. They would cry at someone else having given the other side one more point than them, not all votes are equal, blah blah blah... And yeah, me actively using the 7 point system, has caused such complaints before (back on DDO at least, I remember someone giving their side arguments, sources, and I think conduct; so as to outweigh me voting arguments and sources; when of course the side they were voting for offered no sources, nor challenges to sources). Heck I remember times when people would complain for being voted against on sources, when they offered none, so they thought they were immune to the comparison against their absence.
Another problem I do foresee is increased complaints over fakers, in addition to complaints like... Ragnar's not a liberal, he's a progressive, his vote should do this instead... The alternative being things like it should give double points for favoring a communist argument, or other (usually but not exclusively) dumb things.
Another problem is people play devil's advocate (I highly suggest it to understand the other side's argument in depth). So the case of "A vote by a conservative for a conservative gets the conservative debater one vote point." Wouldn't always make sense, when the conservative debater is arguing against a conservative viewpoint (such as in favor of the Due Process clause...), or a liberal argument a conservative viewpoint (such as in favor of the 2nd amendment)... So basically any time someone is arguing generally in defense of the US constitution, they are going to offend people who are generally classified as the same political leaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I like the breaking up of the site management and dart community, though I think the site management should be the top forum.
That came about very early in the discussions, due to the ever growing need for more pinned topics. And yup, the admin forum is now on top.
Created:
Posted in:
Current Draft (updated at 21:40 PST 11/21):
- DART Site ManagementDebateArt.com administrative matters, rules, refinements, and more.
- DART Community HubFor the users and by the users, this is the main social hub.
- Artistic ExpressionCommunity generated art, music, writing, etc.
- Current EventsNews and various micro events of the day.
- Entertainment IndustryDiscussions of Movies, TV, music, celebrities, etc.
- Mafia HubMafia and other forum games.
- GamingVideo gaming and related technicality, plus any discussion of board games, etc.
- PhilosophyThe study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
- ReligionDiscussions of divinity, faith, spirituality, etc.
- Science and NatureThe natural world and the systematic study thereof.
- SocietyPolitics, History, Economics, etc.
- SportsNeeding to shoot a 3-pointer while screaming Kobe? This is the forum for you. Just don't airball!
- MiscellaneousEverything not covered within the other categories...
The second line of each is the description, as seen in the current listing. I would prefer if active users from each forum write the final ones, with the main goal of attracting users. And yup, I admit to not caring for the current "Topics" descriptions, to which them being topics is self evident after the first couple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ctrl+] increases the indent, allowing tiers:
Likethis
So back at DDO, an indicator of fraudulent votes was the changed opinion option on votes. It was not even worth any points, but people would occasionally try to sway it to make the person they were voting for look better (there were also people who made legit use of it). I vaguely remember someone who voted in favor of every pro-life argument (no matter how laughably weak, even forfeits... religious debates suffered similarly with a couple Muslim vote alliances doing likewise), insisting their opinion was changed from pro-choice each time.
Anyway, your ideas have some merit, especially on political debates (not that all debates are political). ... One way it could be tested would be special debate rules posted in the description in a few debates. You would technically use the seven-point system, but have people vote with S&G and Conduct in the place of everything else (S&G for victory, and Conduct as a bonus point for the political ideology of the voter not matching whom they're favoring).
Generally us moderators do not enforce special rules, but I personally would be fine with guarding the experiment via deleting any votes which award more than 2 points (but leaving all which follow that system alone).
Created:
Posted in:
A voting league is another measure that could encourage more voting.
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty sure it's highly racist. Do you have any idea how many Vikings it killed? Attempted genocide against a people for their culture! 🤣
Created: