Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
As a guy, I am biased toward the status quo, however, in that I don't feel like waiting an hour at large gatherings to use the restroom. I rather enjoy being able to stroll down the quarter-mile long line of women right over to a urinal and be done with it in.
I'm gonna have to agree with this. It'd be total BS if all bathrooms wewe unisex and guys had to suffer the wait just because women like to write full length novels in restrooms. 😂
Created:
Posted in:
Im starting to get the feeling that this evil the lady Ireena is succumbing to is lyncathropy, and this strange fog is a purposeful ploy to isolate these villages to be preyed upon more easily
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(pretty sure werewolves are lycanthropes, but differ from the stereotypical "full moon" lycanthrope in that they can change back and forth at will 🤔)
Created:
Vote Count
Rational (4/4) - XLAV, Smithers, Virtuoso, Greyparrot
__________________
Rational was lynched, he was guilty!
Night Phase will last until 9/7 @ 11:30am.Â
Created:
Posted in:
(when we proceed we need to all be ready at a moments notice for if we run into werewolves. Earth can cast heavy fog around us, I can cast minor illusion to make it appear as if we turned and started running in the opposite direction, and we can all grab ahold of each other and make haste out of trouble.)
Created:
Posted in:
Those remaining on the road notice themselves in essentially a clear "bubble" of air, perhaps 20 feet in diameter that seems to move with them as they move west
All my time in the Feywild and ive never seen such a thing. We need to proceed with caution, I think that barkeep may have been deluding himself out of fear about the possibility of werewolves.Â
(Does anybody have detect magic or something like that, that can maybe pinpoint exactly whats going on with this fog, and perhaps why it's behaving so unnaturally?)
Created:
Posted in:
I think about it like pre-nups right? They're a-ok to bring up fmpov, but alot of people view it as insulting. Active consent and such forms that often get advocated in tandem, would produce a similar perception of insult, like. "you really think I'm gonna turn around and claim rape? Fuck you for even thinking that" 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Would you agree with that sentiment, Budda?
Most of the time, sure that would be true. But given there is rape, and ita reasonable to presume rape victims tend to make it clearly known they do not wamt to have sex, "say no" doesn't cover it all.Â
Active consent wouldn't necessarily solve this either, because rapists dont care about consent. And then we get into the issue that stopping in the midst of foreplay to be like, "I'm gonna need you to sign an consent form" is a huge buzzkill and oft would lead to zero sex and awkward interactions thereafter and into the future. Baby making would be super constrained, basically, and we want a system thats conducive to babymaking, while also one that stresses consent. Its a balance between the two. Too much focus on consent and the thrill dissapears, because well, you try reading over a contract and staying ready for sex, i wouldnt be able to, and credit to anyone who could 😂.Â
Created:
Posted in:
(it seems we're gonna have to tie a rope to all of us so we dont get seperated in the fog). If we run into a wolf or wolves, i have animal friendship/can speak simple messages to them)
Created:
Posted in:
There isnt some secret kabal dictating these effects, these are natural effects that are general rules of how people operate economically. Its not like we can snap our fingers and *poof* people no longer will operate this way. And assuming we can accomplish that, it would undoubtedly require severely unethical methods by which to ensure its successful implementation. Basically, you couldn't maintain free market capitalism, and incorporate your plan and its necessity to fundamentally alter economic behavior in a relatively free market, which is just an extension of the behavior of the free people therein. And if you do away with one, you necessarily do away with the other. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Sounds like you are trying to dance around that you want to have your cake(profit incentive of capitalism which equals innovation and production) and eat it too(do without the necessary negative aspects therein).Â
Thats not exactly thinking outside the box, thats trying to remove the foundation holding the box up while staying inside of it, and acting like the box isnt gonna consequentially cave in on oneself 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Bitcoin has not caused increases in demand, or death spirals.
Because bitcoin is still tied to currencies. Last i checked, you purchase Bitcoin with national currencies, and can exchange it back for those same national currencies.Â
"Tied", as in linked, its value is still determined by the national currency it can be exchanged for. That national currency is determined in part by the nations ability to cover the total amount of currency in circulation, which js determined by tax revenues, which is determined by percentage of GDP, which is a representative amount of goods and services.Â
"Thinking outside the box"
Incorporating your idea and having it work would require a total abandonment of the basic operatives of economics. If you are already advocating for that which would require that, why stop short at trying to operate as if that system hasn't been fundamentally altered. Why not just advocate for an abandonment of these fundamental principles and the system they are the foundation of(capitalism), and say we should just take away all money and people are just given what they need to survive?Â
That would solve poverty too, without requiring operating as if X is true when X is false. X being, that said currency still retains the same value as before, after 350 trillion is injected into the economy.Â
Created:
Posted in:
This is clearly not always true. Value can be based on perception only
But this is the exception, not the general rule. Art would be an area that is highly subjective as to value. But for most everything else, the opposite is true.Â
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The tricky part is, you are right that there is a subjective element to value and that if we could feasibly get people to still percieve that injected money has the same value, we'd be in the clear.Â
But uh, how would we accomplish that? These things are a part of "the invisible hand" they result from how people naturally operate in regards to economics. As was pointed out earlier, if one got 1 million dollars overnight, it would become much harder to incentivize one to sell any goods or services they have for the same price as previous, especially if they knew, as they would, that everyone else just got 1millon also, woops, looks like inflation just came barging through the wall like the kool-aid mascot. 😂
Created:
Posted in:
Why do you think deflation(price drops) happens when currency supply either remains static or is removed from circulation? Because now there is less money, but a static or increasing supply of goods and services 🤔. That money is worth more in turn. Big issue with that as we all know, is that creates an atmosphere where people are incentivized to not spend and rather hold onto their money. Which creates an economic death spiral
Created:
Posted in:
Things will have value if people think they have value
And people will think they have value only if the currency they're being handed is exchangeable for goods and services. If you inject 350 trillion of value into the economy overnight, goods and services cannot also, inject 350 trillion worth in that same overnight span. You will have a ballooned supply of money, which will create demand, but supply for.that demand cannot increase anywhere close to as quick. And when supply cannot meet demand, prices rise. They rise too far, that money is effectively worthless and people abandon it. Defeating the purpose of giving them all that money to begin with 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
This makes no sense. First, why?
Because even fiat currencies are still tied, even if indirectly, to a "basket" of goods and services. If the US didnt create 18.7 trillion and rising in GDP yearly, and instead created nothing, the dollar would be worthless. Its directly tied to the government's backing of it and it's ability to pay debts summarily, which is tied to the tax revenues of that nation, which is itself tied to the GDP(goods+services). Not a direct link, but an indirect one.Â
This is similar to your Bitcoin example. Where botcoin is tied to national currency standards, which are then tied in a few more steps to the goods and services being produced. Value still starts at goods and services. No goods and services, no currency value.Â
Created:
Posted in:
which is money that is backed only by the say so of government and people's agreement that it has value, not by any commodity
This is misrepresentative of fiat currencies. These currencies are still tied to commodities, but rather than it being a single commodity, its tied to the sovereign nations GDP, or the value of goods and services produced in a given year, and the ability of the sovereign state to pay its debts to a degree. The fiat currencies are still linked to a "basket of goods and services", but rather than being a single good such as gold, or two such as gold and silver, everything is included in the basket.Â
For example, there are approximately $1.425(in billions) in circulation for US currency alone as of 2015. That is just 7.9% of GDP. Of which the US government still brings in tax revenues of about 4 trillion a year. One may wonder, "how can the US govt bring in 4 trillion in tax revenue yearly, if that is greater than the total dollars in circulation? Because the government spends it all and it immediately goes back into circulation. Plus, though budgets are done annually, revenues and expenses operate either quarterly or monthly as they roll in and that revenue is then apportioned for the various budgeted expenses.Â
Basically, even if everyone traded in their dollars for another currency standard, the US could still feasibly cover the cost of such a standard change. But because it is still in good shape, people aren't generally wont to change that standard.Â
Before i make another observation, ive got to clarify, is 4,000(in billions and excluding the Yuan) is 4 trillion right? 🤔. Thats the amount of currency in circulation globally excluding the Yuan which is kept undisclosed. Broad money, or non liquid assets, such as properties, is closer to 80 trillion. So if im not mistaken, the entire globe is indebted cause I'm pretty sure global debt totals for all nations combined surpass that 80 trillion mark 🤔
It doesnt actually, as a qhole debt is at 233 trillion as of third quarter of 2017 in total of which national debts are but a part of that.🔥😰, phew, thats alot of debt.
Created:
Posted in:
Then that "money" is worthless and nobody will want to accept it for anything. How is that gonna help?ÂWhat I propose is not tied to the countries wealth in ANY way.
Created:
Posted in:
So you're ok, then, with terrifying people into not saying no?
The only issue is "terror" is a subjective element, "coercion" is not, but is quickly becoming a subjective element. For example with Louis C.K. Just because of his celebrity quite a large amount of people were saying his actions, the worst of which was asking if he could whack it in front of a couple fans in his private room, was coercion because he was a celebrity and those women felt pressured because of it.Â
When like, ok, so anyone who has any semblence of power and celebrity cant make sexual advances? Because if their celebrity makes any sexual advance coercion, which is absurd to what coercion is, for example, telling a subordinate "either you sleep with me or i'll make sure you lose your job" or "have sex with me if you want this job". The act of coercion requires active intimidation, not percieved.Â
But as pointed out, plenty of people are trying to attribute a criminal act(coercion) to acts which are far from coercive(such as C.K.). That's a dangerous precedent to set because it places the determination of whether or not a crime has been committed, squarely in the hands of the person percieving the wrongdoing, and not independent of that. Basically, its stepping into the territory of, *thats a crime because I thought it was". Which in turn makes alot of people guilty of crimes they rationally should not be held as guilty of 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Me analysing set up would imo be a fair scum tell if I actually knew what it was
You came across as extremely certain it was 1TP, 1 mafia, the reasoning of which was it would make most sense balance wise. When in 7 player games TP's are just hella imbalanced and hard to incorporate, and the easiest route to a balanced 7 player game is 2 mafia 5 town 🤔Â
Created:
Posted in:
When people go overboard with analyzing the set-up is when it becomes a scum tell.Â
I agree, but that would be less a scum-tell because of the action of analyzing set-up, more a scum tell because of a lack of scumhunting fmpov🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Oh goody, a noble quest for we heroes, who knows perhaps maybe Mr. "Will of Zud" even finds himself a fine and beautiful damsel to court with the riches we are set to make if we succeed.Â
I'm sure that sounds excellent, definitely something to write home about and brag to his parents about (😘🔥😰)
Created:
Vote Count
Rational (2/4) - XLAV, Smithers
__________
Created:
Posted in:
If it is treasure we are after, you dont get paid for not doing what was requested. If we fail, we walk away empty handed, and it seems unless we set forth quickly what time we will spend will be for naughtÂ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I disagree with waiting till the morning. This servant obviously made his way here with urgency, and the letter clearly says that this Ireena's "time is at hand". I feel it best we make haste there so as to assess her condition and determine how to save her before it is too late!Â
Created:
Posted in:
*I get down from the table and walk over to the man and see if he's alive*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
I believe thats me.
(i built my character specifically for talking to NPC's. 15 chr, persuasion, deception, performance :P, but, with the dreary atmosphere of the bar, i think some music would certainly lighten the mood and make people a bit more receptive and open to discussion.)
Might i suggest talking to the barkeep to figure out what troubles these villagers might have, while i strike up a tune my friend?
*jumps on to an empty table*Â
Ladies and Gentleman, boys and girls, its your lucky day if you enjoy good music, because before you stands one of the premiere lute players in all of the Feywild! Now, I dont know if the Kagonesti Elves ever rebelled, but thats what the song is about anyways, I give you the tune, "Smells like Kagonesti Spirit". Any donations are of course, appreciated, they dont call us starving artists for no reason!Â
*Begins playing a riff that matches Nirvanas "Smells like Teen Spirit"*
(I didnt create the song, still writing a few Original/Parody songs myself. Link to the song is here)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Lighten the mood? Perhaps some music will help?Â
Created:
Gonna start calling you Salty Smithers, actually sounds kinda pirate-esque. Salty Smithers the Shark Slayer, yeah, i like that alot.ÂI've still got some salt with you my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
The answer to both of your questions would be no. Because to hold it as having an offensive meaning, with the only evidence being provided being that they said, "you have alot of queer stuff in your house" to someone who so happens to be LGBT, would require holding that the person perceiving the language at all plays a role in what that speech means. They, again, do not play any part in that whatsoever.Â
If say DeSantis said, "voters need to not monkey this up by voting for this black guy" that would not be racist because of the usage of monkey things up, it would be racist because its directly stating that voting for a black guy would be screwing things up, policies and ideology be damned. Again, this doesnt make the phrase "monkey this up" racist in itself, its racist because the clear and direct implication is that the whole reason why it would be screwing things up, is because the person is black. There is a fine line between the two, but that line is there nonetheless, regardless of whether or not me or you may want it to be.Â
If say DeSantis said, "voters need to not monkey this up by voting for this black guy" that would not be racist because of the usage of monkey things up, it would be racist because its directly stating that voting for a black guy would be screwing things up, policies and ideology be damned. Again, this doesnt make the phrase "monkey this up" racist in itself, its racist because the clear and direct implication is that the whole reason why it would be screwing things up, is because the person is black. There is a fine line between the two, but that line is there nonetheless, regardless of whether or not me or you may want it to be.Â
Created:
Posted in:
However, even though its not a typical use, the main issues with holding the term "queer" offensive in that context and connotation are:
1) That the person might not otherwise know that person is LGBT, but beyond that
2) The meaning of language is not determined by the person perceiving it. That meaning is independent of their perception, and it is up to that person to apply the proper meaning based upon context, connotation, and the typical meaning when put into the context and connotation. "i'm offended because i'm LGBT and you used the word queer, and when that word is used in reference to me, its insulting" does not make that offense valid, and it doesnt make that persons speech wrong, because it wasn't being used in reference to them as a person. I'll state again Bench, no, words cannot mean whatever you want them to mean.Â
As stated before, the meaning of language and speech is determined by the connotation and context that speech is used in, as well as what that word predominantly means when used in that connotation and context. You keep trying to operate as if the person perceiving it at all matters as to what that speech actually means. And calling something "insensitive" is irrelevant to whether or not its wrong to say, or holds those bigoted connotations. No, taking offense over something does not actually validate a position, regardless of whoever is taking offense. "Thats insensitive" is also totally irrelevant if the person is taking offense over something they shouldnt be, at that point their offense means jack shit, point blank.Â
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
A better example would be the one I used back in post 13 that has been entirely ignored...... The word 'queer' can be used as a slur against LGBT people as a noun, and just mean weird or unconventional as an adjective form..... If you walk into a persons house and say 'you got a lot of queer shit in here', the use of the word queer in -that- context can have some homophobic undertones, if the person is saying that in a negative fashion to the owner of the house who happens to be LGBT, even though the word queer has different meanings in noun form and adjective form..... Â
perfect, this is a much better example. Now i'll point out something specific that you said,Â
and just mean weird or unconventional as an adjective form
now this is important, because the use of queer to mean weird or unconventional, is not a typical use anymore.Â
Created:
Posted in:
In the "date" example, there is a extremely rare possibility i actually am saying i like eating people, or that i have a fruit fetish. However, the possibility is so rare as to have to be considered inapplicable unless there is plenty of evidence to corroborate that it indeed what i was saying. This evidence, in this case, is just not present. All there is, is that Gillum is black. But if thats all thats being used as corroborating evidence to hold it was racist in connotation, then that necessarily means whoever is holding that as corroborating evidence, thinks "black people" when they hear the word "monkey" regardless of predominant connotation, regardless of context. Which is, again, pretty damn racist, as established by everyone saying(including you) th associating blacks with monkeys, is racist AF.Â
Again, its not anyones fault but the ones making the argument, that this is a necessary implication entailed by the position itself.Â
Again, its not anyones fault but the ones making the argument, that this is a necessary implication entailed by the position itself.Â
Created:
Welcome to Buddas Beginner Series 1.3! This game will be a themed game intended to introduce players to the concept of themes as typically used in forum mafia games. The theme for this game will be Sports! As outlined in the Beginner Series intro/sign-ups, thematic analysis offers a fun and interesting element to mafia games, and provides much more content for players to analyze and parse through. But, be careful how much you rely on thematic analysis, as that analysis can, like others, easily backfire if not thought out prudently and with caution.Â
With that being said, let the game begin!Â
Living Players
1) 1Harder
2) Rational
3) Virtuoso
4) Earth
5) XLAV
6) Greyparrot
7) Smithereens
With 7 players alive it takes 4 votes to lynch!Â
Day Phase 1 will end on 9/6 @ 9:30 pm CST.Â
Go get em typey bois and gurls!Â
Created:
Posted in:
 the problem is that you just blatantly disregard the connotations the word has under noun form just because its a noun
i assume you mean, "just because it was a verb" and uhhhhh, if a word has entirely different connotations when used as a noun as compared to a verb, and the word was being used as a verb, it doesnt make sense to hold it as it would as if used as a noun. This is how language works Bench, its how we determine the meaning of words and speech, point blank.Â
There have been other examples provided earlier in this thread that show how a derogatory noun can still carry derogatory meaning when used in a different form and framed in a certain context
If by other examples you mean, "if somebody refers to the NAACP as monkeying things up, it couldnt ever be racist?" This isn't a sufficient example bench, because again, unless the NAACP can't screw things up, which would be racist to posit, then you still go with the most common use of the term. Not to mention, your application of context is nonsensical and insipid. You are trying to attribute a racist context, just because a person is black, to the phrase, "the last thing voters need to do is monkey things up by adopting socialist policies"
according to you, a phrase directed at ideas and used as a verb(which holds non racial connotations near exclusively) because when used as a noun in reference to a black person holds entirely racial connotations, it means the usage that has near exclusively not held racial connotations, magically does. Im sorry, thats just moronic, point blank, because then, according to what you are doing, when i say "i like eating dates, they are delicious" and when i say, "i like going out with dates" then either the first phrase means i like eating people, or the second means i like going out with fruit. As absurd as this is, this is exactly what you are doing here Bench, just with a different term.
I responded, and highlighted the attempt as, at best wishful thinking, at worst, ignorant of how language operates.
the same way a different phrase than 'monkey it up' could have been used by DeSantis, hence the discussion
and i'll point out again, that just because you think "black people" when you hear the phrase "monkey things up" despite it never predominantly holding racial connotations and near exclusively holding non racial connotations, is only a reflection on you, and not anyone else. How you or anyone else perceives speech or writing, holds zero relevance on what that speech means, as much as you may wish otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
why dont you illustrate why its mental gymnastics Bench? Obviously it shouldnt be that hard if thats really whats going on. I certainly gave plenty of substantiation for why what you are trying to say makes very little sense. And as clearly can be seen by my recent post, I'm actually paying pretty close attention to your arguments.ÂThat little mental gymnastic you do where basically you just repeat "Its not racist, also, you must be racist"
So, heres what you have to cover
1) Why "monkey things up" has racist connotations when the term when used in that manner, that being as a verb, has never predominantly held racial connotations, and near exclusively has held non racial connotations.Â
2) What definition of racial insensitivity you are using, but careful, because whichever one of the common uses you pick, still ends up with your argument making no sense
3) why nouns and verbs are not different, and the meaning of words doesnt change based upon their usage as either one.Â
Else, all you have thus far is, "naw uh, im not doing mental gymnastics, you are". Btw,Â
and using fanciful languagelmao, im not even using language thats all that fanciful or complex bench. For christ sakes, i used "pile of shit" in a metaphor. If you think i'm using fanciful language, i shudder to think how fanciful the language in High School level grammar classes is to you, cause thats the level i'm speaking at.Â
Created:
Posted in:
Also, lets examine the two terms you differentiated.Â
>Racist
>Racial Insensitivity
now, here are some potential options of what racial insensitivity may mean, surprisingly, the term isnt really clearly defined. Which is usually a sign that a term is rubbish. ButÂ
1) racial insensitivity means a person is being racist, but they dont mean to be
2) racial insenstivitiy means a person isn't being racist, but somebody perceives that they are being racist
3) racial insensitivity means a person is being inconsiderate to the racial connotations a certain word or phrase typically has.(this is one of the more common definitions of racial insenstivity. But like i said, there really isn't a clear definition, because it tends to change in meaning based upon whiever meaning is most convenient to painting someone as being racist and/or wrong in their speech.Â
The first can't be true here, because DeSantis was clearly not being racist, as you just admitted by, "we're not saying its racist, we're saying its racially insensitive."Â
The second doesnt make any sense, because the meaning of language is not determined by an individuals perception, its determined independent of the individuals perceiving it, and also in part independent of the person speaking. "I feel thats racist" doesnt make it so, and nor does that mean somebody has done anything wrong in saying what they have.Â
the third makes no sense either, because the term, "to monkey things up" has never predominantly held racial connotations, and pretty much exclusively has held non racial connotations in its use.
Whichever way you pick, one still is forced to come to the conclusion that what DeSantis said was not at all wrong, or insensitive to anything that has relevance in linguistics, or isn't being insensitive at all. That is, unless when you hear the word "monkey" you think "black people" regardless of whatever connotation or part of speech(noun, verb, adjective, preposition, etc.) is being used. In which case, thats pretty racist dude...
Created:
Posted in:
Its not anyones fault that the more you argue the point that it could be racist, the more you show that you are actually racist yourself, and have to perform the mental gymnastics of trying to justify that, "oh the context totally could have meant black people" when the context was referring to the policies of the candidate, not the person themself, or the color of their skin. Gillum being black is incidental to him holding the views that he does. And unless you are going to posit that you can't criticize minorities for their views, which would be itself pretty fucking racist, then you have zero ground whatsoever to hold what DeSantis said as racist, or even racially insensitive, which is just trying to throw glitter on the pile of shit your trying to sell and acting like its not the same pile of shit you were just holding.Â
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
They seem to be stuck on the belief that we are allegedly claiming "'monkey things up' is a racist term", whereas we're actually just arguing that 'monkey things up' in the context DeSantis used it could be seen as racially insensitive.
and its already been pointed out that the context being appealed to is nonexistent, and the only way it could be viewed as racially insensitive, is if the first thought you have upon hearing the word "monkey" is "black people." Again, when used as a verb, the word "monkey" has always near exclusively had the meaning of screwing things up. "to throw a monkey wrench" in things would be communicating a similar sentiment. And when the phrase is, "the last thing voters need to do is monkey things up by adopting socialist policies" it makes literally zero sense to presume racism or racial insensitivity, as the word has never predominantly held a racial meaning when used as a verb.
That is, unless you already think, "black people" when you hear the word "monkey" at which case, you will likely view it as racially insensitive. But thats not the fault of anyone but yourself. And the same goes for not being able to differentiate between a noun and a verb in turn, its only your fault at that point,
Created:
Posted in:
It's null if they only did it a few times. It's starts becoming a scum tell once they keep redoing it. This is one the scum tells I made that FT caught me way back.Â
You linked to him disagreeing Parrot was town. Where was the extreme repetition? Again, null
But wait, didn't Virt and Smith just focused on set-up in DP2?I'm pretty sure there's more but I'm too lazy to search it.Scum will focus on set-up because it will make them look like they're analyzing the game, thus scum tell.So I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.Â
Ok, so the question becomes, why didnt you focus on Virt and Smith then? Obviously they were doing exactly what you would think scum would do, and yet... you go after Harder. Obviously even you dont actually think scum naturally will focus on set up. And i can point to multiple instances in this game of townies analyzing set-up. Set-up analysis isnt in itself a scum tell, its null. Its becomes a scum tell when that player starts acting as if that analysis is fact and/or that analysis doesnt quite jive with what they are trying to posit. For example, smithers saying a 7 player game would be best balanced by using 1 tp/ 1 mafia. When again, that doesnt make sense considering TP win cons had to be fundamentally altered to balance.
That's why they're called slips  for a reason.Â
Analyzing set up is not the slip, analysis predicated upon knowledge a towny would not otherwise have, or predicated upon irrational premises, is what is the slip
The 'null tells' you're saying are null tells to you because you're the mod who already knows the affiliations of his players. That's confirmation bias..Â
no, the null tells are null tells because mafia and town are equally likely to do so. Again, you point out smithers and virt analyzed set up, therefore mafia analyzes set up more. But multiple townies in this game also analyzed set-up. So how can it be wholly indicative of being scum again? Particularly if townies are doing it just as much if not more?Â
Scum-tell = behavior that makes sense as most likely derived from being scum
Town-tell = behavior that makes sense as most likely derived from being town
null-tell = behavior that doesnt make sense as most likely derived from either of the above.Â
i've been pretty clear and concise in pointing out why these presented tells dont make sense as majoritively being derived from scum, rather, both town or scum are equally, or near equally likely to be doing it. A towny is not likely to present something as true unless absolutely sure. A scum is also not likely to present something as true unless they are sure it is true, or, alternatively, they feel they can get away with lying. But as you pointed out, analyzing set-up is alluring to mafia, because they can present analysis that makes it appear as if they are offering valuable analysis. But analyzing set-up is also alluring to town, because deducing likely set-ups helps narrow down potential truth of claims. The tell isnt in the action itself, the tell is in how the action is presented.Â
For example, Virt automatically assumed RM's inno was legit, despite a paranoid cop flipping, and rational himself stating he very easily could be naive. This was both assuming RM was town(which a towny wouldnt know), he even went so far as to say Rational was "confirmed" along with him. But also, this was belying knowledge of RM being town and thusly being truthful, which a towny would not otherwise know. RM completely lying as to being cop because of the paranoid flip, was also a distinct possibility that otherwise is hard to ignore.Â
For example, Virt automatically assumed RM's inno was legit, despite a paranoid cop flipping, and rational himself stating he very easily could be naive. This was both assuming RM was town(which a towny wouldnt know), he even went so far as to say Rational was "confirmed" along with him. But also, this was belying knowledge of RM being town and thusly being truthful, which a towny would not otherwise know. RM completely lying as to being cop because of the paranoid flip, was also a distinct possibility that otherwise is hard to ignore.Â
I think i see the disconnect here. You are holding actions as tells. When actions in and of themselves are not tells. The tells are in what those actions mean, how those actions are presented, how consistent those actions are with both past behavior and reasoning, but also consistent to reasoning supplied in game. For example in your FT example, i have little doubt he also pointed out that your rationale for refuting those reads was likely inconsistent across those refuations. For example holding A means someone is scum, but holding the opposite as not meaning they are town. This is inconsistency in application of rationale metrics, and belies that the person is solely looking to refute the TR's, and not actually analyse behaviors with consistent metrics so as to deduce potential scum, and potential town.Â
If (A) = mafia, and assuming (B) is the inverse of (A), then B must = town. However, if a player decides B =/= town. They just made themselves look super scummy, because they ignored what should otherwise be information that generates a TR. its not the refutation of TR's that is scummy in and of itself, its whether or not those metrics used to deduce, are being applied consistently so as to deduce not just whether or not someone is scum/not town, but also whether players are town. If (A) = scum tell, then there must be an inverse action that would generate a TR. For example:Â
Assume fluff posting is a scum-tell. Non fluff-posting therefore has to be a town tell. (in actuality fluff posting is only scummy if thats majoritively whats being done and the player is otherwise lacking analysis with substance, but this was more to illustrate the whole "consistency" thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I never said you did, but just because someone disagrees with you doesnt make them scum for doing so. It was correct that Virts behavior didnt match with a pursuit of win-con as a jester. But, if a towny disagrees, they will be just as vehement in preventing that lynch as a mafia would be, because lynching jester = everyone loses. Again, you play to win the game, and this is one of the foundations of behavioral analysis. That would you make use of analyzing pursuit of win con, but then choose to disregard that such a lens of analysis would necessitate that Harders defense of Virt was null, is just inconsistent in application of metrics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@XLAV
no, XLAV, you have part of the blame because you trumped up a case on someone that was predicated upon null tells or possible scum teams without any concrete scum tells to hold both players as independently scummy. Again, just because you thought Virt wasn't Jester, doesnt automatically mean thinking he was Jester is scummy. A towny and mafia would be equally likely to argue against a lynch of someone they think might be jester, because, again, that means they lose.
Im just over here wondering how much longer you are going to keep operating as if it makes sense that players would operate against what is conducive to achieving their win con xDÂ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
XLAV's case against Harder was predicated on assuming his guilty result on him was true. His case in itself was weak AF and presented null tells as scum tells despite that not making sense.Â
Lets examine his post that made the case for harder:Â
Lets examine his post that made the case for harder:Â
I'd rather vote harder.Âdestroying a town read. scum tell
It was a bunk ass TR to begin with and Harder was right to point that out. Being a bodyguard, especially in a game where the mod specifically warned against role confirmation =/= affiliation confirmation is right to be pointed out. Not to mention, disagreeing with a read is something a town or mafia would be equally liable to do. A towny because they disagree with it, and if they do, arguing against it is arguing against what will in their view lead to a loss. Mafia would do so because they want to obfuscate and destroy TR's. ITS NULL
In a game where the possibility of TP's, particularly Jester was outright stated, TP paranoia is like, totally merited? Why the fuck would it not be? This is, again, a null tell. Both Mafia, and Town, in a game where it is outright stated TP's can be included, is not in itself, a scum tell. Maybe in combination with other more concrete scumtells, but so far none has been presented. Ergo, it has to be null
Plus the fact that he's trying to keep Virt alive and not scum hunting at all.Â
He's trying to keep Virt alive because he thought he was Jester. If he is lynched, town loses, mafia loses. This is again, a null tell. Both mafia and town, would want to avoid lynching a jester, because it means they both lose. Seriously? This is some wtf shit
TP paranoia and defending VirtI don't think a Harder-RM is scum team is a possibility due to their interaction, but a Virt-harder is.Â
Sure, but possible scum teams, only matter, if you have scum tells to back up that both may be scum. Or else you are throwing out unsubstantiated assumptions. This is exactly what it was, an unsubstantiated assumption, based upon things that are null tells. I mean jesus, i had to point out to XLAV in 1.1 endgame, that no, mafia are not going to focus on set-up, BECAUSE THEY KNOW MORE AND THAT WILL GIVE THEM AWAY AS MAFIA.Â
Like, for real, thats assuming mafia will behave in a way that is unconducive to winning. Which is absurd to posit, because you play to win the game...
Basically, what we have here, is absolute rubbish as a case. Plain and simply put. It was null tells trumped up as scum tells, because XLAV had a guilty on 1harder. This is quite obvious, because as was just illustrated, its not too hard to point out that every behavioral read, is predicated on null tells. And the only way null tells start looking scummy, is if there is something causing oneself to view them as scummy... like idk, maybe a guilty result? That definitely would create confirmation bias.Â
and on the note of XLAV saying that wasn't what was happening here, sure buddy, you can say that, but your actions tell a wholly different story.Â
and on the note of XLAV saying that wasn't what was happening here, sure buddy, you can say that, but your actions tell a wholly different story.Â
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really dont think worry of a Jester is necessarily scummy. He was defending Virt because Jester was a possibility. And though i agree with you that Virts behavior didnt quite make sense as town, to others that may not be true. And that disagreeance, does not in itself = mafia. If that disagreeance was inconsistent with another read of similar variety, maybe. But standalone, hardly the case fmpov
and the thing about Jesters is, if someone thinks a person may be Jester, and they are town, they are going to be pretty firm in not lynching them, because that loses town the game. Vehemence in defense of Virt wasnt indicative of town or scum, it was null. Because a towny and mafia would be equally vehement in their defense because a Jester lynch = loss for both. And last i checked, you play to win the game, not to lose it...Â
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What is Bitcoin pegged to?
Actual currency, which is itself pegged to wealth.Â
What commodity is the Mona Lisa representative of?
no, the mona lisa is a commodity. Its a commodity that stems from the service of painting. Nobody ever said there wasnt a subjective aspect to wealth. For example, the mona lisa itself is a unique piece that is highly desire, its considered near priceless in its value. Copies of the mona lisa however, are near worthless, because they are not the original. When it comes to art, this is one of the areas where duplication has little effect on the value of the original. Unlike say, with computers, where the original, when duplicated, drops in value as the supply of it increases.Â
Where is the wealth represented by a green card to a Somali?
a green card in itself is not representative of any wealth, however, that green card can represent access to better economic conditions and opportunities. For example, as a plumber union membership dues might be in themselves worthless and not representative of any wealth, HOWEVER, the membership within that Union grants you access to the benefits being in a strong union provides, benefits that often equate to an increase of wealth for those that are a part of it, by consequence of having more negotiation power in compensation agreements.Â
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
tbh Harder was right that you were wishy washy in ur reads, the motive was obviously knowing you are town, that you wanted to lynch scum and were willing to compromise. But sometimes, as illustrated in 1.1, you dont compromise, you stick to ur guns. if anything, 1Harders post should have been a wake up call that you werent remaining consistent. Lack of consistency is, i think we can agree, slightly scummy, and i probably would have called you out for it.Â
Though being honest, man, Virt and Smithers let on so hardcore they knew more than a towny otherwise should lol. Endgame for 1.1 i pointed this out as a HUGE scum tell, and this game was perfectly illustrative of that. It almost looks like the game was scripted to reinforce that point xD.Â
Though being honest, man, Virt and Smithers let on so hardcore they knew more than a towny otherwise should lol. Endgame for 1.1 i pointed this out as a HUGE scum tell, and this game was perfectly illustrative of that. It almost looks like the game was scripted to reinforce that point xD.Â
Created: