Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
Seriously... you need to follow non MSM BS. You need to understand we are witnessing a thieving of an election by the establishment controlled by:
- MSM
- Corporations/Wall Street
- CRT infested Academia
- Big Tech
and more. There is so much evidence that points to banana republic type shit. You mostly are refusing to see it. Trump is standing against the endless wars, he is standing against the corrupt establishment we've all been bitching about for years. They are stealing it. Like Kennedy, like Nixon. It's all out there you actually gotta hop off MSM.
Historic dang peace deals in the Middle East
Normalization of relations in Kosovo/Serbia
Cracking down on NK, China, Russia, and Iran
ALL WITHOUT A BULLET FIRED OR A BOMB DROPPED.
Is it any surprise that the candidate who was ending the seemingly endless wars is being disposed of by 'any means necessary'? I live in WI and as anecdotal as it is there is no way this state went to Biden. 200% turnout in multiple Milwaukee wards and that's always been corrupt af. Sending poll watchers home because counting is stopping(which is absolutely unheard of) and then dumping over 100k+ votes all for Biden and no other candidate at 3am-ish? Which isn't the only place it happened. It's happened in Michigan in Detroit, its happening in Pennsylvania in Philly. It's happening in Georgia in Atlanta. Along with GOP poll watchers being denied from watching ballot counting or placed so far away there can't actually be counting done. It's utter and rotten BS. It's shit you see in communist, authoritarian, socialist, and heavily corrupt countries.
Orange Man is not bad, orange man has been an absolute gem. Which is why the establishment wanted him gone, and their attempt at making that happen after so many others have failed, is happening.
https://youtu.be/rO18KUgKvsc
https://youtu.be/4X2V5hPPp6w
https://youtu.be/QHhxNvYXiJQ
https://youtu.be/EYOiDLV7bVo
Important link: Ignore the black pill, this next vid shows most of what's going on. This guy doesn't even live here, he is an American, he expatriated a long time ago and has watched from the sidelines:
Heck, in PA GOP poll watchers were barred from supervising, sued and won to gain access. Which is what Trump was referring to by stop the vote. As in STOP THE VOTE WHEN THE GOP HAS BEN BEEN KICKED OUT AND ITS UNSUPERVISED. The DNC in PA is now appealing the court order to allow access to pollwatchers. Are you effing kidding me? Why would you even bar access? Why would that even be appealed? It's absurd, absolutely absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
My arguement is that those stats are missing a HUGE swath of the problem for reasons I have already explained
Yes, one reason actually. That it is systemic and widespread. But it's circular reasoning, the issue is systemic and widespread and therefore the numbers are vastly underreported because it is systemic and widespread.
Honestly, if you still arent getting your point is self-defeating, because it is conjecture that need only be refuted by inverse conjecturing. Then idk what else to tell you bud except you are acting cult-like in your adamancy that it couldn't possibly be anything other than what you claim it is.
"We know the number is way higher?" No, actually we don't. But just as in the beginning when you posited this, if you have any way ofF quantifying the unknown so we may all see how much more extreme it is, then please do. Otherwise, again, it is conjecture that is refuted by inverse conjecturing.
My guess is you think blacks are being killed at ridiculous rates too right? Yep, all 10 unarmed ones in 2019. So ridiculous.
As for that TLDR. No, my position is more, the statistics may or may not be accurate, but we do not know to which degree. So we reasonably mitigate by boosting the number by including exonerations with sustaineds. Than, and here's the kicker. I re-extrapolated to a greater degree, already imputed data. The original unreported that was imputed was 11.5%. I dropped it back down to 80, and did it again. So not only did I boost the numbers by an additional 30+%, but then followed it up by boosting it another 20%.
From this, we can draw more than reasonable conclusions that ought satisfy people with exactly your complaints, and make a reasonable conclusion how serious and widespread the issue actually is. But sure bud, my position was totally that we should 100% trust the data despite taking multiple steps to mitigate and account for the human element of lying. Which is present on both sides of that accounting, mind you.
But yet again, like I said, you are illustrating a classic example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good."
Nice try on the TLDR though, you might want to actually analyze the data yourself to discover whether the person who is supplying it wasn't mitigating it already, as in, was not taking it as perfect, to a significant degree. To where if I tried presenting this to an actual statistician, they would roast the soul out of me for ballooning the numbers that much.
Created:
Posted in:
As for the actual attempt at statistical analysis done using the vice article... You do understand that said fatal shooting information was leveraged with the Washington Post and Guardian compilations. Again, two resources that were de facto recognized for being so thorough by being used by the BJS in their special report on arrest-related deaths. So it was not using just information from .02% of agencies. It was using information that was collected independent of agencies voluntarily providing that information. That, is being entirely misleading and I would appreciate it if we avoided such sophistic tactics.
To even try to compare Vice, which was analyzing shootings, both fatal and non-fatal, to a study that was just analyzing fatal shootings, is erroneous in itself. But let's entertain that. Of the largest 50 municipal departments, 4700 non-fatal shootings were found over a 7 year period. That works out to 671.43 yearly. Let's expand that to include the other 748 large local and state agencies. You get 502,229 non-fatal shootings.
But, and here is the kicker, why should we take this extrapolation as a fairly accurate gauge, when the original number was just from 6% of all large local and state agencies? Agencies that are located in the highest crime areas, with the highest prevalency of poverty. That is metropolitan areas. It could be higher, it could be lower. It's probably lower because the smaller you go, the less prevalent violent crime becomes, the less tense and on edge any given situation will be taken to be from the onset.Or, just because a dataset is incomplete, does not mean assessments cannot be drawn from it?
Especially when Vice could have gotten the race, sex, and years of experience of the officers involved, just the same as the MSU and UM study did.
Yet, you seem to fail to ask, "why did they disclude that? They clearly were able to get information on the race of the one shot involved, why not the officer as well? Wouldn't that have been one of the most crucial pieces to determining whether the issue was rooted in racism? After all, it would be hard to conclude that it is, if most shootings, fatal or non-fatal, were racially homogenous."
What might give us an indication of that though? Why, that MSU/UM study in conjunction with the realization that, as was pointed out in the article itself,
"If anything, black citizens are more likely to have been shot by black officers, but this is because black officers are drawn from the same population that they police. So, the more black citizens there are in a community, the more black police officers there are.”
As well as understanding that as police forces have become more diverse, to where the demographics of a given department are similar to the demographics of the area being policed, the rate of fatal shootings has been rising. Albeit, only to a negligible degree. Still, if race were the root of the issue, one would think the inverse would be occuring, if still only to a negligible degree.
For that matter, why did the Washington Post or Guardian disclude those statistics as well in their reportings? Instead, they go the route of the typical sophistic and fractured analyses tactic that is missing crucial variables of, "X occurs disproportionally to blacks. Therefore it is race that is at the root of the problem."
And this where understanding that disproportionalities donot give a gauge of cause, motive, or even that any inherent wrongdoing is being committed to create that disproportionality, comes into play. To point out a disproportionality, is merely to point out a disproportionality.
If you believe that isn't the case, then perhaps the following might change your mind, because:
Did you know black males aged 16-40 commit 50% of the murders in the US yearly? That works out to about 7,500 out of the roughly 15,000 murders. Or 4-6% of the population committing 50%. You will also find similar disproportionalities present in other forms of violent crime, and property crimes. Clearly, this is evidence that blacks have a natural prevalence towards violent behavior and property crimes, right?
No? Good, I agree, to draw that assessment would require the inclusion of other variables to gauge whether other explanations may be more in line with explaining why this may be the case. Things like poverty, absence of nuclear family structure(mother + father both present in the home), prevalency of mental illness, etc. Now how about we apply this thought equally elsewhere?
To even try to compare Vice, which was analyzing shootings, both fatal and non-fatal, to a study that was just analyzing fatal shootings, is erroneous in itself. But let's entertain that. Of the largest 50 municipal departments, 4700 non-fatal shootings were found over a 7 year period. That works out to 671.43 yearly. Let's expand that to include the other 748 large local and state agencies. You get 502,229 non-fatal shootings.
But, and here is the kicker, why should we take this extrapolation as a fairly accurate gauge, when the original number was just from 6% of all large local and state agencies? Agencies that are located in the highest crime areas, with the highest prevalency of poverty. That is metropolitan areas. It could be higher, it could be lower. It's probably lower because the smaller you go, the less prevalent violent crime becomes, the less tense and on edge any given situation will be taken to be from the onset.Or, just because a dataset is incomplete, does not mean assessments cannot be drawn from it?
Especially when Vice could have gotten the race, sex, and years of experience of the officers involved, just the same as the MSU and UM study did.
Yet, you seem to fail to ask, "why did they disclude that? They clearly were able to get information on the race of the one shot involved, why not the officer as well? Wouldn't that have been one of the most crucial pieces to determining whether the issue was rooted in racism? After all, it would be hard to conclude that it is, if most shootings, fatal or non-fatal, were racially homogenous."
What might give us an indication of that though? Why, that MSU/UM study in conjunction with the realization that, as was pointed out in the article itself,
"If anything, black citizens are more likely to have been shot by black officers, but this is because black officers are drawn from the same population that they police. So, the more black citizens there are in a community, the more black police officers there are.”
As well as understanding that as police forces have become more diverse, to where the demographics of a given department are similar to the demographics of the area being policed, the rate of fatal shootings has been rising. Albeit, only to a negligible degree. Still, if race were the root of the issue, one would think the inverse would be occuring, if still only to a negligible degree.
For that matter, why did the Washington Post or Guardian disclude those statistics as well in their reportings? Instead, they go the route of the typical sophistic and fractured analyses tactic that is missing crucial variables of, "X occurs disproportionally to blacks. Therefore it is race that is at the root of the problem."
And this where understanding that disproportionalities donot give a gauge of cause, motive, or even that any inherent wrongdoing is being committed to create that disproportionality, comes into play. To point out a disproportionality, is merely to point out a disproportionality.
If you believe that isn't the case, then perhaps the following might change your mind, because:
Did you know black males aged 16-40 commit 50% of the murders in the US yearly? That works out to about 7,500 out of the roughly 15,000 murders. Or 4-6% of the population committing 50%. You will also find similar disproportionalities present in other forms of violent crime, and property crimes. Clearly, this is evidence that blacks have a natural prevalence towards violent behavior and property crimes, right?
No? Good, I agree, to draw that assessment would require the inclusion of other variables to gauge whether other explanations may be more in line with explaining why this may be the case. Things like poverty, absence of nuclear family structure(mother + father both present in the home), prevalency of mental illness, etc. Now how about we apply this thought equally elsewhere?
Just like to conclude that police shootings, fatal and non-fatal, would require the inclusion of variables such as the prevalency of violent and property crime in a given area, the prevalency of poverty, the race, sex, and years of experience of the officer, the prevalency of mental illness, etc.
None of these things the linked vice article accounts for. So to present it as some form of evidence that conclusions can with a fair amount of accuracy be drawn from, while discounting the others because they are incomplete, is dissonant beyond belief. When one is actually accounting for those variables to conclude race is not the predominant issue at play, while the other is not and merely points out a disproportionality as evidence that it is.
Speaking of dissonance, I will refer back to the dissonance of effectively arguing that because a dataset is incomplete, conclusions cannot be drawn from it. While taking an incomplete and fractured dataset that is not factoring crucial variables, is analyzing non-fatal as opposed to fatal, and drawing conclusions from it. Let alone that the percentage point used to state it is incomplete, and therefore unusable, is misleading and hingent upon ignoring the leveraging of other databases in conjunction with that incomplete dataset.
It's basically rooted in holding that trends seen in one area where a dataset is incomplete to an unquantifiable degree, cannot be used to extend those trends to the whole and draw conclusions using relevant variables. Then turning right around and saying that a trend in this area, using an incomplete dataset that doesn't factor crucial variables in it's analysis to any effective degree, can be used to draw conclusions from.
Sorry, but where I come from, rules for thee, are also rules for me. If you wish to discount the presented evidence because it is incomplete, then you must also discount your evidence, because it is not only incomplete, it is not even bothering to factor in relevant variables necessary to determining cause.
It boils back down to being the same self-defeating point as conjecturing on the unquantifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
@HistoryBuff
"This is the problem though... There are no accurate stats."
Your argument, like Bench's, is distinctly the opposite of truth-seeking to the best of ones capabilities and a perfect example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good."
Your conjecture would apply unless there was absolutely perfect stat collecting from an agency you viewed as perfect. That is distinctly the opposite of truth-seeking. Why?
Because your positing leaves us, again, at entirely conjecture. You say the numbers could be higher, based off of conjecture, all that requires to refute is the inverse conjecture of, "well, they could not be."
Congrats, burden of proof unfulfilled. Why? Because merely pointing out that a data set is imperfect does not itself prove that an issue is widespread and systemic, or rooted in racism, to conclude that said number should be higher.
That would be called putting the cart before the horse and really, circular reasoning.
Ex: I think the issue is widespread and systemic. The datasets are incomplete and therefore much higher, because the issue is widespread and systemic.
Now I will bring up again, are you seeking truth? Or are you merely seeking to discount that which would illustrate what you otherwise believe? Because for example, if you take this imperfect dataset, and conclude it is likely much higher because it is imperfect. Then the same is applicable to something like serial killings. Which, if you use the imperfect data can be shown to take more lives than police who kill those who were not attacking an officer or civilian at the time.
Then you must also believe that serial killings are likely wayyyy higher than that 150 as well. As that number is gotten by mostly imputing data, as opposed to imputing data for a minority of the dataset.
So why would you not act as if serial killings are one of the gravest threats facing people today? That they are rampant and widespread, as opposed to the typical and widely accepted notion they are an extremely rare occurrence?
Both of you need to realize that you are making non-arguments, and thus by the nature of being a non-arguments, only require a non-argument to refute.
You say, "well they could be higher"
I say, "well they could not be."
Congrats, we are now back at the default of "is not" and still not establishing "it is." Let alone to what quantifiable degree "it is."
Created:
Posted in:
Might I suggest you add that if you take away incidents at the low end where the one who diedadied officers or civilians, which most would agree would be a justifiable shooting, you get 142
*The one who died was attacking the officer(s) or a civilian(s)*
it'd be great if this on mobile wasn't deleting words as I was typing them. Is that an issue on a PC too? 🤔
*The one who died was attacking the officer(s) or a civilian(s)*
it'd be great if this on mobile wasn't deleting words as I was typing them. Is that an issue on a PC too? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
"Now, as for your math on the percentages. The thing about percentages, is if you multiple it by the total it was divided by, you get, depending on rounding, the result back or close to it. Multiple .0124 by 65 million buddy... you get 806,000... That is many orders of magnitude above the 8,060 that was the original number being divided by 65 million to get that percentage point."
To clarify on this, I was incorrect. The correct percentage is .0124%. I was spacing that you move the decimal two to the right to get the percentage. When multiplying the percentage to get the original result that was divided, you move it left two. My apologies, and thank you for pointing that out. I'm tired, it was 1am at the time, it took me a bit to realize I had a dum-dum moment with that one. 😆
As for whether .0124% is a percentage point that is a sign of a widespread and systemic issue... Well refer back to the rotting fruit in a grove comparison. Would you declare that a grove where .0124% of the fruit is rotten, to be a sign of widespread rotting in the entire grove?
Created:
Posted in:
Also, Bench. For real with that stuff about, "even if you think there are 99,999 good cops for every bad one, that doesn't mean sensible reforms can be made"
What would make you think I don't think that too when my post ended with explicitly talking about perspective, and needing to place things in proper perspective to be able to gauge the proper response, identifying and seeking causal factors, and rectify them?
It can clearly be seen that there is widespread notion that the issue is widespread and systemic, and that it is rooted in racism. This is what this post is intended to address, so that we can maybe see the issue lies elsewhere.
Like maybe de-militarizing police forces, and establishing independent civilian review boards for citizen complaints of excessive force, for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Absolutely, I do not care that I'm the one saying it. I just care that these kinds of things are being said, instead of the conjecture ridden, fractured statistical analyses, emotionally charged discourse seen in so many places these days.
Might I suggest you add that if you take away incidents at the low end where the one who diedadied officers or civilians, which most would agree would be a justifiable shooting, you get 142. A number that is lower than the estimated amount of serial killings that occur yearly(150). Take that and apply that 24% of fatalities in arrest-related deaths are blacks, and you get 34...
Yet, we think there's a widespread issue of systemic proportions for police shootings, but are able to recognize that serial killings are extremely rare.
Good seeing you are still around btw Robert 👍. Oh, and that video is going over what I can only describe as unwitting agitprop rooted in
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thank you Cody, my apologies if you aren't the Franklin I'm thinking of lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
All that effort, all that writing just to not understand what the term imputed means...
Here is the actual quote taken from that. Where you took data being imputed to mean that's all that was reported...
"Some agencies did not report
complaints data. Total complaints data
were imputed for 92 (11.5%) of the 798
large general purpose agencies."
Imputed would mean to estimate, as in they estimated/extrapolated the data for 11.5% of those agencies. Which is actually lower than the generous 80% I rounded it down to.
Now, i love some good conjecture now and again. But to the extent that you conjectured? No, especially since you are being so misleading about the sources of the information from the first study. That study also used information gathered from the WaPost and Guardian. Two agencies that actually got recognized for their work by being used as reference points in Bureau of Justice Statistics reports on this exact issue. They track the presence of weapons and firearms in incidents too. Are you really goingtgoing to claim the Guardian and WaPost are publications that are going to fudge information on behalf of police?
What do I mean by conjecture though? I mean you are bringing up points that are hardly quantifiable in a statistical analysis.
Ex: "The number could be way higher", why yes, it could. Does that mean it is? If so by how much? What evidence would you have to prove the veracity of any estimate you come up with? Etc. Ergo, conjecture.
Now, as for your math on the percentages. The thing about percentages, is if you multiple it by the total it was divided by, you get, depending on rounding, the result back or close to it. Multiple .0124 by 65 million buddy... you get 806,000... That is many orders of magnitude above the 8,060 that was the original number being divided by 65 million to get that percentage point.
Getting to your point that 2002 data is being used to compare to 2015 data... There's nothing else to really compare it to. Im not sure you realize that by discounting the statistical analysis in such a fashion, you are still left with little but conjecture on your end. Which is refuted simply by conjecturing in the inverse.
"I think its way higher than that."
"Well I think it's not."
Congrats, you've now eliminated any possibility of constructive analysis. Which is the distinct opposite act of someone seeking the truth on a matter. If you are not seeking truth, then why should we hold your view as true either?
Seems pretty self-defeating and just a result of being presented with analysis that doesn't fit with a notion that it's widespread and systemic, and like, totally rooted in racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You may have noticed, I included exonerated within the statistical analysis of valid complaints. Specifically because this it is a fair point that lying occurs. This is true of both sides of that equation though.
Now, even if we take it that all filed complaints were valid, that still leaves us with miniscule percentage points. Even if we double the total number of complaints, you are still left with a miniscule percentage point.
Otherwise, do you have a way to quantify the unknown? Because I dont, leaving such things as entirely conjecture based.
Now, even if we take it that all filed complaints were valid, that still leaves us with miniscule percentage points. Even if we double the total number of complaints, you are still left with a miniscule percentage point.
Otherwise, do you have a way to quantify the unknown? Because I dont, leaving such things as entirely conjecture based.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it Racist? Is it Systemic or Widespread? Hopefully this will provide a general gauge. For the first premise, that it is racist, I will let the source speak for itself. The following is an excerpt from the first nationwide and systematic study on the role of race in police shootings done by Michigan State University and University of Maryland:
"We found that the race of the officer doesn"t matter when it comes to predicting whether black or white citizens are shot," Cesario said. "If anything, black citizens are more likely to have been shot by black officers, but this is because black officers are drawn from the same population that they police. So, the more black citizens there are in a community, the more black police officers there are."
The data show that it"s not racial bias on behalf of white officers relative to black officers when it comes to fatal shootings, and that"s good news. The bad news, Cesario said, is that internal policy changes, such as diversifying police forces, may not reduce shootings of minority citizens.
Beyond officer race, the team drew other conclusions about details related to racial disparities in fatal officer shootings.
"Many people ask whether black or white citizens are more likely to be shot and why. We found that violent crime rates are the driving force behind fatal shootings," Cesario said. "Our data show that the rate of crime by each racial group correlates with the likelihood of citizens from that racial group being shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot. It is the best predictor we have of fatal police shootings."
By connecting the findings of police officer race, victim race and crime rates, the research suggests that the best way to understand police shootings isn"t racial bias of the police officer; rather, by the exposure to police officers through crime.
The vast majority " between 90% and 95% " of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot. Ninety percent also were armed with a weapon when they were shot. The horrific cases of accidental shootings, like mistaking a cell phone for a gun, are rare, Cesario said."
....
As for whether it is widespread or systemic. The notion that police brutality is widespread and systematic is simply unsupported by data. Out of a study on large(100 or more officers) local and state law enforcement agencies the following was found:
- There were 26,000 complaints regarding excessive use of force filed
- Of these 8% were found to be sustained, or in other words, there was sufficient evidence to merit disciplinary action of an officer. Or 2,080.
- 34% were unsustained, or in otherwords there was insufficient evidence present.
- 25% were unfounded, or in other words, determined to not be factual, or to have not happened at all.
- 23% were exonerated, or in other words, the incident was deemed to have occurred, but the officers actions were lawful.
- 9% were other dispositons, such as withdrawing of the complaint.
Even if we take it that 100% of exonerations should have been sustainments, for purposes of illustration, that still leaves us at just 31%, or a mere 8,060 valid complaints.
80% of agencies supplied data, so if you extrapolate that out to 100%, you get 9,672 'valid' complaints.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report; Law Enforcement Management and Administration Statistics; Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force; 2006)
To put that into perspective, there were roughly 65 million people who had public-police interactions in 2015 with state and local law enforcement agencies, or in other words, .00014% of people who had an interaction with a police officer, experienced excessive use of force.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics; Contacts between Police and Public; 2015)
I'm failing to think of a realm where .00014% of something is a significant percentage point, particularly in realms like these, let alone widespread and systematic.
Now let's look at citizens killed by police:
- It is estimated that in 2015 roughly 1,900 individuals died in arrest related deaths.
- Of these 64% were homicides. As in, insufficient or no evidence to conclude it was suicide(by cop), and the death was not accidental(ex: innocent bystanders)
- 18% were suicide(by-cop)
- 11% were accidental
It is also important, this number does not hold bearing on whether these deaths were justified v non-justified. Take just the homicides and you end up with 1,216 deaths.
Now refer back to that roughly 65 million interactions from previous. That's .0000018% of people involved in police interactions in any given year.
Does any of this at all seem widespread and systemic yet?
(Bureau of Justice Statistics; Arrest-Related Deaths Program Redesign Study; 2015-2016)
The Number of arrests is also crucial to understanding the scope. In any given year, there are roughly 10,360, 960 arrests for all offenses.
So deaths result .00013% of the time during an arrest.
Of those arrests, a sustained or exonerated complaint of excessive force occurs .0009% of the time.
It is important to note, that arrests only includes arrests. It does not include interactions where a criminal offense occurred, but no arrest was made. Such as typical traffic stops, many misdemeanor offenses, etc.
(FBI Crime Statistics; fbi.gov)
Is police brutality and killing something we should try to reduce as humanly possible? Yes, absolutely. Wrongful deaths are tragic, especially preventable ones. Is it widespread, no. Unless you would want to claim 1, 416 rotten oranges in a grove of 65 million+ oranges is a sign of a widespread rotting of the entire grove. Which would itself be farcically absurd to claim.
People need to relearn how to gain perspective on issues, because the notions surrounding many issues entirely lack perspective. Perspective being crucial to understanding the magnitude by which we should respond to something.
Protest? Absolutely, Floyd deserves justice and it appears that is being done. There ought be little issue getting a conviction of Murder 3 on Chauvin.
Looting, rioting, beating and killing random people or people trying to defend their property, declaring the whole system is corrupt(and racist)? No, that is many orders of magnitude well above the magnitude of the issue itself.
Understanding the magnitude of an issue is key to being able to identify the proper response, seek and isolate causal factors, and rectify them. If we act like the whole system is rotten as many are, then we are learning little of value because what changes should that system make if it is entirely corrupt? How should the next system be structured so as to mitigate the issue as much as possible? These are not truly answered and we are left with blindly guessing.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't even frequent this site anymore, and the ish i read and how people were excusing it and appealing to nuance where nuance is blowing smoke up ones a** is astounding. I suggest those who behaved in such a manner check themselves.
Cause y'all begging for a helicopter ride.
Created:
Posted in:
It has come to my attention that recently a moderator made sexual comments towards a minor. In this kerfuffle these comments were equated to "PC Culture."
Simple Question needs to be asked then:
Do you think sexual advances from an adult to a teenger, a minor, are appropriate and should be allowed?
This is a simple Yes or No question. Full stop. There is no nuance. Either you think its acceptable or its not. Nuance applied is in this case merely a tool to divert and obfuscate from the core innapropriateness/appropriateness of it.
Justify actions however you wish, in the end the actions stand alone and it begs the singular question:
Do you think sexual advances from an adult to a teenger, a minor, are appropriate and should be allowed?
If no, good.
If yes... you sick, perverted, and harmful individuals. A 16 year old is still an ignorant individual who does not understand the gravity of their interactions, ye who forgets what they themselves were at that age.
Like wtf. Some of y'all are twisting PC culture into that which is against some perverted ish that is not the realm of Political Correctness, but that which is revolting to those with a remote semblence of human understanding, and that's some olympic level mental gymnastics.
I'm as anti PC and SJW as they come, and this kind of behavior ain't the realm of that, full stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Again, it literally never happened. In his very vote because of Wylteds insistence he said he didn't want to lynch you. It.Never.Happened.
Honestly this games stupid. I'm done
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
He was one of the only people who was advocating you as town.
Oh paragon of intelligence, please express to us the profound wisdom there is in thinking there could be game posts prior to the first post of a game?
Sorry for giving you too much credit and thinking you don't have the memory and attention span of a goldfish 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No I blatantly remember attacking me in the DP and bandwagoning too and advocating my lynch,
That literally never happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I admitted to being scum and voted for myself and you guys still won't be able to lynch me. This is hilarious.
I have to admit, it's quite funny, and equally sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Are you turning this into a philosophical discussion of whether soft claims are something town should do?
No, what would make you even think that? I clearly outlined multiple benefits to soft claiming. I'm trying to explain to you and everyone else by consequence that your presentation of soft claims is just patently untrue, but that your soft claim was explicitly done with the expectation it would come off as town, so it's not indicative in the least bit of your affiliation.
You are saying "it's not town, both town and scum do it" but also positing it becomes towny when done in exactly the manner you did it. It does not, full stock.
You keep pointing out FT, but you are ignoring 90% of his scum hunting philosophy and just using the name to try and falsely give yourself cred.
"Why do you think soft claiming is towny"
Was rooted in both discerning why you soft claimed, but also in highlighting what is both false and a convenient representation of soft claimings indicativeness of affiliation in a manner that makes you town.
__________________
When the objective is to/potentially is to decieve the other, tells are not still tells once someone is aware of the tell(not to mention if they do it for the purpose of illiciting that tell.). In poker if you win some hands cause you noticed someone has X tell when bluffing, good job. But once it backfires and it becomes clear they became aware of the tell, you dont keep trying to exploit the tell. A person who knows/thinks X is a tell can/will manipulate that knowledge to their advantage. Its not that said advantage cant have town motives in this case that disqualifies the tell as a tell, its that it has clear and exigent potential scum motives.
Oddly also you have missed almost all of my analysis has been rooted fundamentally in exposing behaviors that belie an underlying predominant/overarching non-town or town motive.
This was actually one of the cores of FT's scumhunting strat. Actions and behaviors are not inherently indicative, it's the motives that underlie them that discern the affiliation. Its WHY they did it, not necessarily WHAT they did.
I assume everyone's purpose is to tie themselves down to a claim, to get some town cred if that is neccessary in late stages of the game such as mylo or lylo
This why you get no town cred for soft claiming. You did it for survival and for your own appearance. It wasn't for any other reason but to manufacture town cred. To be able to go, "look how towny i am!!". Thats a null behavior, full stop.
Soft claims are okay, as long as they are near to impossible to unravel without you aiding it in being done and as long as it is also the only likely explanation for that soft claim
Sure, they're ok. Whether or not they're ok doesn't have relevance to their indicativeness towards affiliations soft claiming has.
The first listed reason only has null and scum motives. The second listed reason is only relevant to the "telling" nature of soft claiming if only town are capable of soft claiming in a manner that is explainable.
_____________________
Created:
Posted in:
whether a soft claimed char can only match a certain role,
*Whether a soft claim can only match a certain thing*
For this to be relevant you would have to hold mafia as incapable of creating a fake claim and breadcrumbing it/ fake claims being supplied and breadcrumbed. Town would magically have to be the only ones capable of doing that 😂
Created:
Posted in:
It's not town as long as you know that there is no other role that claim could be
On an independent note from this being part of "setting up your own tells for the purpose of manufacturing a TR...
No, just no. Soft claiming is hingent upon there being a janitor for it to be a town tell. In a game w/ a maf janitor, mafia have every incentive to not claim anything so as to maintain total flexibility w/janitored claims. By consequence soft claiming beforehand looks town AF.
But even beyond that, soft claiming is a backup in and of itself against a janitor. A recognizable(to an extent) narrowed claim deters/prevents mafia from NK'ing or using the janitored claim if NK'd. If mafia use the claim and that soft claim is recognized, then mafia are caught.
This is the only time breadcrumbing actually is a solid AF town tell. Alternatively, it is helpful to a townies case in the event of a CC, or they are CC'ing, but not to the extent it would result in an automatic preference of one over the other.
But a soft claims towniness has nothing to do with the strength of the soft claim, whether char and role match, whether a soft claimed char can only match a certain role, and everything to do with the motives behind it and to an extent the circumstances surrounding that soft claim.
Created:
Posted in:
Your logic has really been terrible though
You keep saying this, you havent yet to actually address the "logic" behind you being scummy. How can i state this in a way that will make it clearer.
You are selectively applying your rationale, to a considerable degree. I am more than happy to document this, extensively.
You have barely committed to anything beyond what shades you as town/what you expose you already thought was town to begin with.
Your night actions are contradictory to your supplied justification for saying your role is useless.
You throughout your defense kept, by consequence of the defense, negating previous defenses used/exposing them as contrived.
________________
This next part as a whole is to illustrate the potential motives behind the soft claim. There was a motive behind soft claiming, its too blatant of an action for there not to be.
Your soft claim was obscure, and would have required someone put effort into research that you, based upon your lack of desire to elaborate some reads, would not do yourself. So I have a hard time seeing how it being a hedge against a janitor is true.
You aren't claiming a role that would generate an actual, "this is a true CC" buzz. Bodyguards are almost neutral to utility, not surprising if two are in a game. So it's not like ur claiming a role that a cc might be hedged against with, like cop or doc. So I don't really buy this motive either
The one i do buy is that you soft claimed with the explicit purpose of it being town read later on. You of course understand that's suspicious, which is fmpov why you said,
"it's not town, I just want everyone to know no other role fits with that soft claim.
"Look at this thing i did that I said was town to do" while simultaneously hedging against it looking like you're trying to say soft claiming is town/trying to insist upon your own townness, because that's scummy.
Townies shouldn't care how they look period, end of story
Thats you, this DP. Odd how focused you were on making yourself look town with a soft claim when townies according to you shouldn't care about that. So we are to believe because you do, this makes you scum, yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I don't know just odd both DPs had barely active people who managed to jump on when we needed the push for the lynch
Yes, so why single out just one player in that group, when the rationale for the one being scum, doesnt apply to them exclusively?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Then I'm gonna be honest, you should prolly bow out, because you've been acting maf AF this game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I don't trust any of my reads
Understanding that, I dont generally ask that question because I necessarily want to know ur reads. I think we both do understand at least that.
On another question, why is soft claiming towny to you? Do you consider it to be intrinsically towny to do, or is it's towniness hingent upon something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Again more stupid shit
The role is useless or useful depending on my mood and circumstances
You know, this doesn't make you look any less scummy and just reinforces my point that you've consistently been setting up outs for urself should anything you post draw an FoS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Orrrrr you were already setting up the claim from the get go? I can see the connection of martyr w/ bodyguard. But your behavior itself has not matched with your supplied opinion of the BG role, or with the one use for it you've provided.
I'm gonna unvote while I ponder this, because again, you did set up the soft claim, and that counts for something.
I also consider my night action power as useless. I certainly hate these types of roles, though I kind of play one in real life. I talked about playing one in the first chapter of my unrefined yet to be written memoir on entering the fostercare system.
This matches, and again, it counts for something and gives pause to reconsider.
Who are your TR's, who are ur SR's? Whos sus? Who's leaning town?
Created:
Posted in:
I said I intended to name tonight's target moron
And idc if you intend to do that tonite, what i care about is that
1) you now conveniently have come forth with how ur role is useful, antithetical to DP1 where you stated it was useless.
2) ur role being useless because you would die if ur target was targeted. Yet you still targeted people and didnt just waive? Sure thing bud, that totally aligns with you thinking ur role actually saving someone would be detrimental.
3) that you haven't stated who you are targeting before this point. Now this could be chalked up as it not occurring to you before now. But that doesn't align with you still choosing to protect someone.
4) you stated you thought it best you kept ur role a secret. This implies you thought there was a useful purpose to your role sticking around before this DP. But this is directly contradictory to you thinking its useless. Rather, what makes total sense is that you jumped on GP claiming a useless role, but now that ur finally claiming, you realize if you don't provide utility, your role provides no reason to keep you alive.
You can keep replying to extraneous details while ignoring the core issues with your posts and behavior. Thats fine, not gonna change how fundamentally scummy you've been this game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Logical-Master
@warren42
@Argent_Truth
Vote Wylted, if you have any relevant results, please provide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I view the role is useless because it involves the games best player dying
(LMAO, this is so shite. "My role is both useless and useful!" 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I thought keeping the role secret would be useful, because if I name my target and then I die, it basically would town confirm that player after my flip is seen
This would only apply if you named ur target preceding the NP you were targeting them, not afterwards. Where did you mention who you were targeting BEFORE the NP you actually did?
Created:
Posted in:
Seriously, you guys need to closely examine Wylted from DP2:
"Guys Buddas analysis actually has merit, plus GP isn't being consistent with his behavior and meta."
(Which is antithetical to my analysis on GP.)
"Guys just look at Buddas analysis the last 4 pages DP1"
Argent: But he clearly states GP is annoyingly town
"No, you have to look at his earlier analysis"
(Wut)
______________
Yes, because you were sooooo closely analyzing my posts, that you completely missed where I town confirmed Roberts and sus'd him instead. Yup, cause that def shows you were paying attention to my analysis. Especially since you drew a meta and read conclusion antithetical to the majority of my analysis.
______________
This DP: "my read on GP was cause of what i said to Argent, not your analysis."
(Lol, yep that's why you kept mentioning my analysis).
________________
Also this DP:
"Me pushing GP doesnt jive with self-preservation."
Not entirely, but with a moment to ponder, its clear you kept pointing out my analysis, anyone can look back and see that. Theres the out he's been providing himself consistently should he get FoS'd.
"I guess Buddas analysis was incorrect, albeit had merit. Blame Budda, not me" would be the obvious set up for that insistence on people looking at my analysis, despite it apparently having little to do with ur read. (Sureeeeeee)
So yeah, self-preservation still fits like a glove, and hes over here trying to do an OJ like, "see it doesnt fit!!" when he half-assed putting that glove on and it was plain as day that he did 😂.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
What precisely is useful about my information?
Idk, you're the one that said it would be!?!
I have to announce my visits prior to the end of the DP, because you guys will find the information useful when I die.
Post #3 this DP... 💀
Created:
Posted in:
Fmpov looking back i honestly think GP was bs'ing his SR anyways to try and keep both of us alive. His SR went way overboard in a manner that just isnt how GP usually interacts with me 😂.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I just target who best leads the town as scum so I can remove them from that role and take it. vaarka did not fit that bill
Yes, but i do. And who besides you and GP last DP showed the ability to lead town? So post a DP in which town largely sheeped, "I just target who best leads town" doesn't even really apply.
And i would say Vaarka fits that bill anyways He has a tendency to lurk early game then show up late and start leading.(US States Mafia).
_______________
Regardless, why tf should anyone believe your own gauge of your own meta when it's become obvious you have used meta as a convenient buzzword because such meta dispositions and recounting of past events has been extremely shoddy to an overwhelming degree?
Im sure as hell not gonna believe you, you have every motive to lie, and have largely indicated you don't finely grasp anyone's meta.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
If it will I have reason to do so, if not than there is no point
Ah, so you will withhold useful information from town as if a child throwing a fit? And this is supposed to make me or anyone else not want to lynch you because?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
We are talking early in the dp vs late, and we aren't even talking about his decision to hammer, we are talking about his over selling a reluctance to do so, while still do so and making a show of the whole thing.
1) whether early dp or late, voting in a manner to advance game progression is what the behavior was rooted in. Your pointing to extraneous details and acting like that changes the two being fundamentally rooted in the same town desire.
_________________
And like you were making a show of him voting by demanding and insisting he do it? So GP was scummy for "making a show" of his vote? Ok, then how are you not as well?
More inconsistency.
Created:
Posted in:
You are so gung-ho against refuting my points, i dont think you realize you are just highlighting something else as inconsistent and/or contrived with those refutations.
This is what happens when scum are forced to post. It's hard to keep lying, I get it. Idk why post counts are even used when it overwhelmingly disfavors scum to implement because it removes the legitimate and viable strategy of lurking.
You know stalling on claiming isn't helping ur cause either, right? Ur already looking scummy AF, so a scummy role isn't gonna change much about that in a way that makes you so much scummier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
except you ignored the part where I said that we shouldn't have too many wagons
I didn't. In fact i explicitly have said if this were true your SR on GP was then inconsistent with you voting antithetical to meta to progress the DP, and passing that off as town behavior.
tl;dr- its scummy for others, but town when you do it. Thats inconsistency and opportunism.
Created:
Posted in:
Wylted is obviously not town. There is no way if I was scum that I would pressure buddha as scum through most of dayphase1 and then tell my scumbuddies to kill buddha just for funs and giggles. Scum is obviously trying to set me up
This is GP post #98 and its very likely to be true. Mafia have been transparent with their kills. Vaarka was laying low and fence riding. Mafia will 9 times out of 10 assume a power role from that behavior. Hence why he died.
But was that why I was killed? No, because i made it explicitly clear my role was useless multiple times. So we are left with Mafia setting up GP, or mafia killing me because i had pegged a scum. If it was a set-up, that's looks awfully suspicious in conjunction with Wylted setting up the FoS on GP by adamantly insisting he vote for him, which GP ultimately did with the explicit motive to progress the DP.
This should have made Wytled TR him, because deviancy from meta for the sake of progressing the DP is what he himself tried to portray as town early DP1. But he SR's him, for what was ultimately reasoning antithetical to my very analysis he kept pointing to..
If i I was accurate and got killed for pegging one or more scum:
I SR'd Vaarka, Supa, Wylted, and Pie.
Vaarka was town, Supa was town. So we're left with Wylted and Pie(Supa). If it was exclusively Pie, then Aporia would have made just as much sense to kill, in fact more because Aporia SR'd Pie first.
So it being exclusively Pie doesn't jive with that. However, conside Aporia was TR'ing Wylted, while i was SR'ing him. It being because Wylted is scum(and perhaps Pie too) and i pegged that aligns/fits as a motive of that NK.
Created:
Posted in:
Post #93
Don't mock me . GP is scum, I told you to look at Budda's analysis. I don'the care what his reads at the end were I care that his earlier analysis had merit. When people die, especially good players we need to take serious their previous analysis, and their impact on the game should not be limited to the DP they died on.
And much of that early analysis was pointing out he was being hella consistent to his town/null meta and how he reads people. Furthermore, i mean, for how little my analysis had to do with you SR'ing GP... you sure kept bringing it up alot without actually providing specific posts.
Created:
Posted in:
"my reasons for voting GP weren't cause of ur analysis."
Post #81 by you
Anyone who reads through the last 4 pages of dp1, looks at budda's analysis and uses common sense knows gp is scum.
"Common sense" as in the buzzword for 'im full of shit and can't justify it."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Where does a anything I say to Argent contradict post number 5
So post #5 was a legitimate post in which you were outlining reasons why GP was scum?
Then refer to previous posts for why its inconsistent and contrived. I wasnt saying they were contradictory. Rather was pointing out that you stated
No, I explained my scum read was for the reasons I listed for argent, not for your reads
Which, ok, thats cool. So then post #5 was BS and pointing out, "if we look back at Buddas reads" was fapse contrivance to pass of GP being scum(which is not what my analysis as a whole communicated, especially regarding meta and consistency to that and his reads.
Quite literally post #5 DP2
"Re-analyzing Buddas post has merit"
"GP's behavior is inconsistent with his reads and meta."
Quite literally 95% of my analysis on GP reinforced he was overwhelmingly remaining consistent in reads and town/null meta. So my analysis on GP has merit, except the most relevant part to why you were holding him as scum in post #5?
_______________
On a "meta" note. You should stay away from meta analysis. From thinking FT was in a debate about the noov rule, to GP, you are illustrating you have little grasp on meta, despite trying to contrive that you do.
_________________
On a third note,
My philosophy early on has remained consistent. Target unknowns early with the exception of clear noobs
Except this is even further inconsisten with your behavior. You say you've been targeting unknowns. This is wholly out of line with your bw onto me early DP1. Our experience with one another goes way back.
At the time i called you out for separate reasons than this for that. You went, "he's trying to pretend like i couldn't have another reason for voting." Here you finally supply what you want us to think you are consistently following.
But your pressuring of me early DP1 is not in line with that, as our experience with one another goes way back. So you haven't even been consistent with the one thing you swear ur being consistent to. 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
but I think what you said was not a fair representat ion of what I meant there. I'mean very particular about what meaning I want to be taken away
And you are more than welcome to have that opinion. Just as I have the opinion you made it clearly obvious, independent of your own admission, to your behavior overwheingly being rooted in self preservation and not in scumhunting.
So basically, the information you got from your role is useful, but it's a scummy role? Yeah, that doesn't seem to jive. I think ur trying to worm into a way to paint me as scummy despite already saying you visited Aporia DP1, and staying quiet, belying that useful information couldn't be negative, else you would have outted it.
You might as well come out and full claim, you and I both know its gonna happen.
Created: