Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
or is tp bg not possible?
Its not a potential whatsoever. The potential TP roles were kept entirely seperate in the intent that it would be deduced potential TP's are limited to strictly what is listed.
My apologies on the confusion, ive def gotta reformat that list so its less confusing for future series 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Earth was killed in the night!
Dead Players
1) Earth- Cop(paranoid flavoring)
Living Players
1) 1Harder
2) Virtuoso
3) RM
4) XLAV
5) Greyparrot
6) Smithereens
With 6 players alive it takes 4 votes to lynch!
Day Phase 2 will end on 9/4 @ 1pm CST
Go get em typey bois! 👏👏
Created:
Posted in:
The purpose of language is to establish commonly understood meaning independent of the individuals involved in discourse. This is so those communicating do not have to minutely establish the individual meaning of every word in discourse.
Doing what you are doing, is abandoning that necessity to constructive and efficient discourse. By holding that "monkeying up" something is racist, ignores the necessary application of both the differentiation between nouns and verbs, but ignores the necessity of applying common connotative contexts in the use of those words. Its great that you want words to mean whatever you want them to, but like i said, that's not how this works 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
So if someone says that the NAACP monkeys things up, that's never racist because it's a verb
This is true, again, to "monkey up" something means to screw things up. Unless the NAACP is magically exempt from being able to screw things up, which is itself kinda racist, then you are still attributing generally negative connotations when used as a noun, to its usage as a verb, which has never predominantly at any point, held those negative connotationa.
To repeat:
"Look at those porch monkeys"
Is using it as a noun, usually in reference to blacks, ergo, racist.
"Look at how they are monkeying things up"
Is using it as a verb. It generally means to screw something up. And being able to screw things up is not exclusive to any one particular race, well unless you think it is, but that is itself highly racist 🤔
Its not anyone's fault but your own that you are failing to differentiate the connotations based upon its usage as a noun or a verb.
In breaking news, no, words cannot mean whatever you want them to mean, that's not how language works 😂😂
Created:
I mean, what you are doing here in advocacy is equivalent to wanting to scrap a 96 Toyota Supra Twin Turbo for parts, because the 02 censor occassionally malfunction. This is accurate because you are trying to scrap gun ownership(the supra) because people sometimes use those guns to commit crimes(the malfunctioning 02 sensor).
Created:
do you agree that criminals are more likely to kill if they have a gun?
I dont disagree, never did, what im pointing out is that you are using harm reduction speciously as you are only factoring in lives lost, when that is but one of many components to the metric of utility.
As well as your conclusions being wholly inconsistent to that metric. To make this clear, i dont care about your stat regurgitation, I'm attacking your underlying thought processes and predicates because they are largely irrational 😰
Created:
This not to mention, that you claim science, but you are presenting something that accounts for only 6.5million deaths out of about 1.3 billion between 1990 and 2016. That is .05%. Last time i checked, its not all scientific or common sense to present something that accounts for a fraction of a fraction of a single percent, as a serious issue.
This not to mention, that those ratios are set to seamatically decrease even further. See, starting back in the 50's we had a population explosion globally. It was in part due to increased birth ratea, but also because life expectancy skyrocketed with the advent of modernized medicine. This means not only were more people being born, but the people who were dying dropped dramatically.
But that dramatic drop is only temporary, as life expectancies are stalling out in increasing, and in certain areas, starting to decrease. So the average of 50m(its at 55m a year now btw) deaths a year between 1990 and 2016 has been increasing due to people who have been blessed to have lived far longer than at any point in history, are starting to die off because now they're hitting their 70's and 80's. Basically, that .05% is going to continue to drop to lower and lower percentages, as even the absurdly low percentage it is currently at, has been artificially bolstered and raised by there being a rapid drop in total death rates that came as a result of large increases to life expectancy 🤔.
In other words, this serious issue, that isnt all too serious, is only going to appear less and less serious as the rates balance out again as we globally are starting to exit the phase of population booms 🤔
Created:
-->
@linate
on the 'defensive gun use' point, there are many more studies that low ball the number
From the linked wikipedia article,
In that same article it cites one study for the low end estimate of 55k-80k, it cites two, independent of the one by Kleck and the CDC, which put it at at least over 1million.
Now even if we assume the low ball estimate backed up by one study instead of the four studies cited both within the article and by me in this thread, which btw makes the following nonsensical
there are many more studies that low ball the number
More? How is 4 less than 1 again? 🤔
But digressing, even if we use the lowball estimate of the minimal 55k, the average deaths to a firearm in any given year is around the 30k mark(in 2017 it was a little above that).
55k is greater than 30k 🤔. So to remain consistent with harm reduction, you still have to hold its better that guns are around. As stated, solely the metric of lives lost v lives saved, is wholly specious to the scope of utility/harm reduction
stop ignoring science. use common sense.
I'm not the one ignoring science here lol. Nor am I the one not using "common sense". First of all, "common sense" is a red herring, you might as well just say, "i cant rationally substantiate this, so im appealing to the fallacious concept of common sense. I would hold understanding that 55 is greater than 30, and 100k+ is greater than 30k is common sense. But apparently its not, because you are operating as if the opposite is true.
some people with guns are more likely to kill someone.
Yes, and this is because these people have a higher prevalency inherently to committing violence, not because the gun itself makes them more prone to violent actions. As stated in the study, the most prevalent indicator to partner homicide is a past history of IPV. As in, these individuals are already displaying a proclivity to acting violently, independent of guns. This proclivity is taken to extreme levels with a gun present, as its logical to posit that in a fit of rage, a person is liable to grab whatever is around that will cause the most damage possible.
This doesnt however, operate as justification for banning all guns, this operates as justification for making it illegal for individuals with a past history of severe violence, to own a gun.
I'll state again, just because something is more probable, does not mean that increased likelihood is actually relevant to policy proposals. As said, your odds of drowning in your backyard skyrocket upon putting a pool in your backyard. This increased risk is wholly irrelevant and rather meaningless to the overall picture. Why? Because risk can be reduced through individual preventative measures.
Ex: A person is more likely to drown in the aforementioned, but that risk is vastly minimized if they dont consume alcohol and swim, avoid leaving things lying around that can result in falling into the pool(like for example a rake. Pre-pool you step on that rake and it whaps you in the face and knocks you out, no serious harm done. Have that happen next to a pool though, and whoops, looks like you just drowned to death.
Again, you are predominantly and near exclusively using utility as a metric. But are speciously ignoring necessary components to utility such as non-lethal harm reduction, individual preventative measures, necessary consequences of the advocated course, and grossly inconsistent applications of harm reduction that wholly ignore necessary implications that result in greater harm than would otherwise happen.
I'm not the one being inconsistent in applying the rational metrics of analysis here, thats you 🤔
Created:
This also is applicable to your oft use of utility aka harm reduction in arguing for gun control, more specifically the component of lives lost v lives saved therein. Ignoring that lives lost v lives saved is just one component of utility, and therefore highly specious to be exclusively using, you come upon another absurd implication that highlights also in the same breadth, total inconsistency in rationale.
This inconsistency is created because of the necessary highly severe risk of a civil war(i would posit its pretty much guaranteed) if an attempt at banning guns wholesale, or majoritively is made.
Deaths from firearms not counting suicides is in the realm of around 10k per year, 30k if you include suicides. A civil war exacts a death toll far beyond that. For example, the most prevalent example is Syria, in which an estimated 510,000 died between 2012 and 2017.
Now, I'm no genius when it comes to math, but 10k lives yearly is far less than 100k lives yearly. This ignoring that the US has a larger population, and more guns in the hands of citizens than Syria. That death toll likely rises even higher.
Basically, you are mainly using harm reduction, but again, are only examining the surface and not examining the underlying implications and consequences of your position, and any increases to harm that are severely likely to result in the event of attempting to undertake your proposed policy.
Basically, you are using lives lost v lives saved, all the while ignoring, just like you are ignoring non lethal harm reduction, many highly potential harms.
To illustrate, I'll use another criticism of utility, lets say you have a black man accussed of rape decades ago. Now, you are the police officer, and you know very well this man didn't do it, he has an airtight alibi. However, the angry mob thats formed outside your station is demanding you turn him over, or they will riot and turn their attention to the black community as a whole.
Harm reduction would have one hold that one turns over the innocent man to be lynched, to spare the harm of a riot and the damage that will cause to scores of innocents. That is, if one carried out utility its logical end. What you are doing here, would equate to stopping your thought process at, "he's innocent, and that mob is going to assuredly kill him, therefore it is reducing harm by not turning him over to the mob."
Except, just like here, that's not actually reducing total harm, like here, its acting in a manner that will actually increase total harm by far. So its not even consistent to the rational metric being used. It facially appears as such if you don't carry out that process to its logical end. And that is precisely what you often do.
Another common example of this in everyday politics:
Saying Communism is not evil because it advocates for collective and communitarian equal distribution of wealth. All the while ignoring achieving that necessarily means genocide to eliminate anyone who would operate in a different manner, which is outright stated in the manifesto for the ideology itself. 🤔
Created:
they also say " our analysis and those of others suggest that ... restricting abusers’ access to guns can potentially reduce both overall rates of homicide and rates of intimate partner femicide
*Potentially* you nor these people are mind readers. To state someone who died, would not have died without a gun present, is both claiming knowledge you cant know. And on top of that, to include actual IPV on that and not just death makes me highly wary.
In that study as pointed out, the highest indicator for death via IPV is past history of IPV. Its flat out stated guns increase the risk of lethality. There is nothing that indicates it would reduce IPV, nor does that rationally make sense.
Somebody who is abusive is more likely to try to kill their partner. If they are more likely to try to kill their partner, obviously they'll go for the most convenient tool to that ends, a gun, if handy. This bares no reflection on the commitment of IPV independent of homicide with a gun. As again, the biggest indicator of homicide of a partner is past IPV being committed.
People dont generally abuse their partners, to state someone with a gun who has no criminal history of IPV or violence at all, is more likely to abuse their partner just because they have a gun, is just horrid logic. See this is really interesting, because on one hand, you are attribiting culpability and thus agency to am object. But on the other, you are actually making a case for why these criminals arent culpable and rather, victims themselves of the evil machinations of guns, which can apparently, independent of other personal prevalencies, cause a law abiding citizen who has zero past history of violence, to become violent, in themselves.
What you are arguing necessarily means the people who commit these crimes, are not wholly culpable for their acts, and thus should not be punished severely for their actions. See, these kinds of absurd implications of rationale, are often the result of not critically examining the underlying rationale, and just regurgiting things. You aren't thinking about what your position means in its full scope and implications, you are stopping at the surface and going, "nope, surely this is all there is to it, not anything at all beyond this to examine for absurdities in rationale"
Created:
If you attribute agency to objects, you watched too much blues clues. No, salt and pepper shakers do not talk. Objects do not have agency or culpability in crimes. If you would like that to be true, ur gonna have to rationally explain how a non sentient object can be a moral actor, let alone an actor at all. 🤔
Created:
. In 2015, women were over 100 times more likely to be murdered by a man with a gun than to use it to kill a man in self-defense.
This statistic bares no reflection on the topic of abusive relationships. This also assumes the only defensive use of firearms is of a lethal variety, when that doesnt even make rational sense. Most people shit their pants and run the other way when a gun comes out. Most defensive uses of firearms aren't going to be lethal.
Two studies have been done thus far on studying defensive uses of firearms. One by I believe a gentleman by the last name of Kleck, one by the CDC. The CDC tries burying theirs because it came up with the same result as the Klecks study, which is about 2.5m defensive uses a year.
Even if we assume half of those aren't actual defensive uses, that still leaves it at 1.25m, which is still far far far above lethal uses of firearms, which are in the tens of thousands.
Honestly, you people need to learn to analyze statistics instead of regurgitating them like they mean something rationally. "Guns make it more likely someone dies"
and owning a pool makes it more likely you drown. These kinds of probabilities are herrings as one is attributing culpability and thus agency to an object. Which is at best, insipid, at worst, cognitively deficient.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, it is racist.
in breaking news, not everything that can be classified as racist is necessarily wrong. Particularly when the alternative is forcing people to date those they otherwise are not attracted to and/or behaviorally conditioning them against their will.
Sometimes, whether or not something is racist, is irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong, and irrelevant to whether or not people should be concerned about it. This is one of those times 👍
Created:
Posted in:
It came across as super genuine, and XLAV was correct to point that out, but it's not wholly indicative of affiliation
I have a feeling you thought it was super genuine, for independent reasons than I did.
It was his biggest town tell, not necessarily because it inherently was towny, but because it was his biggest tell in terms of something that polarized his affiliation in a sense.
Based on how he acted after that he was either gonna be towny AF, or scummy AF. Not anything in between fmpov. If he doesnt come out with the whole doc strategem, instead of co-MVP and biggest town tell, he would have probably been co-awarded biggest scum-tell with you. Woulda gotten this series off to a spicy start 🔥 😂
Created:
Posted in:
people tend to go, "omg you want doc to out? You must be mafia!"
This also doubly reinforced Virtuoso's first two posts as genuine. Operating in a manner thats going to draw undue flak, isnt just something a mafioso would not be likely to do, its also something a generally unaware(or one who tends not to read OP's) towny would be likely to do 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Sometimes people are too lazy to read the open setup.
So, you cant really determine that from a post. This is forum mafia, surprise, shock, ignorance, etc. can all be feigned. If anything, Virtuoso was scummy AF to open the game with the whole, "we should follow the cop" followed by, "oh I didn't see it was a N0 start." That is, until he followed it up with,
"Doctor should out"
While pointing out that doc could self-protect. No joke, he said right there exactly what optimally should have been done. Doctor outs, either he draws a CC or you have a confirmed towny. Either way, its a win.
Even if that post can be manufactured by mafia, its hugely detrimental because it's forces them to manufacture reads immediately and gives town something to analyze, so they arent likely to suggest it, especially with cop already dead, which is who you CC immediately. Why waste thay
that advantage?
Best case scenario you have 50/50 odds, reads excluded, on one mafia, and 1/3 odds on the other. Best case scenario you have a confirmed doc who can self protect, and 2/5 odds with the other two mafia.
It's really the most solid play, but one most people will stay away from, especially mafia, because people tend to go, "omg you want doc to out? You must be mafia!" It didnt happen to Virt because everyone already took a null tell as a town tell 🤔.
But scum do focus more on the setup
This is wholly untrue. Why would mafia focus on something they, as you acknowledged,
tend to know more
Its not just tend to, mafia absolutely knows more, always. Stating something as conclusive fact, or operating in a manner predicated upon, knowledge that a towny would not otherwise know concretely, is a HUGE scum tell.
The primary goal of a mafioso is to appear as town and survive. Focusing upon something that could easily lead to "slipping" up and letting on to knowing more than you should, is antithetical to that goal. A mafioso can manufacture set-up analysis, sure, and that would make them appear more town if successfully pulled off, but its extremely risky. Acting in a manner that is unconducive to winning doesnt make much sense as something mafia does more often than not 🤔. I would at least hope not, or dear lord do i never want to be mafia unless its solo 😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Vote to not Lynch (4/4)- Rational, Earth, Greyparrot, Virtuoso
_______________
Well, at least this DP was longer than the last two DP's of the previous game 😂.
Day Phase 1 is over
Night Phase 1 will end on 9/2 @ 8:30pm CST
Created:
Posted in:
I disagree that this will blow over, this is gonna be harped on cause once Gillum starts talking about policy he puts his foot in his mouth. Watched the interview he had the other day regarding DeSantis comment, called it a "racist bullhorn" which, such stellar ability to differentiate between nouns and verbs.
Beyond that, what little policy was talked about, he backtracked on big time, particularly Medicare for all. Was like, "oh, we'd never do that as an individual state. It would raise costs, we'd get all the sick people flooding the healthcare system at once, and shortages on healthcare professionals.
Thats some major foot in the mouth, not just from backtracking, but every reason he listed why its not a good idea at a state level, equally applies at a federal level. He's a smooth talker, but lacks substance in intelligence in a major way. Any serious convo, he's gonna come across looking not too bright 🤔
So to avoid this, DeSantis being racist will be the necessary go to. This is how Dems have operated for awhile now. When policy points fail, as they often do, call the other person a racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe. Even if it means looking like a fool who never learned the difference between a noun and a verb 😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
The thing about the 'monkey this up' remark is that he could have phrased what he probably intended to say at least 50 different ways that would better and clearly state what he was saying, yet he still chose to go with THAT one
Ok? It wasnt being used as a noun, which is what the racist usage is... his quote was something like, the people of Florida need to not monkey this up and adopt socialist policies.
Clearly using it as a verb, clearly using it in reference to the heavy Socialist policies of Gillum. How is it DeSantis fault that you think "black people" upon hearing the word "monkey"? Seems like ur holding, your inability to seperate race from the thought process in critically examining speech, against DeSantis. Fail to see how thats on him 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Its not hard at all to know, all it requires is understanding the difference between a noun and a verb.
"That person is a monkey"
Is using it as a noun
"Look at how things have been monkey'd up"
Is using it as a verb. The history of monkey as a racist term is in using it as a noun, as a verb the word has always had wholly different connotations.
On another note, i wonder how that one WaPost journalist is gonna feel after writing a whole article about the racist usage of "monkey" upon realizing they spent 22 years and god knows how much money on education, just to still not be able to differentiate between nouns and verbs.
wew 😂 wew
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Flavors👏 are 👏Bastard👏 Modding 👏
Your words have no power here, Gandalf Stormcrow 😎
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Vote to not Lynch (3/4)- Rational, Earth, Greyparrot
_______________
My goodness, is this gonna be another short AF DP? 😂😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
Also note, there can be, but this does not necesssarily mean there are, duplicate roles. Ex: 2+ track, 2+ watch, 2+ doc, and so on for any and all roles 👏.
I think that about covers any potential mechanics related concerns 🤔
*goes back to the shadows*
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry about the delay in response to mechanics questions. At work for another half hour so consigned to posting when its possible.
Created:
Posted in:
Budda has not told me if jailed people know they are jailed so I will assume they are not.
They are not, the same message given to those roleblocked will be given if any action is blocked as a consequence of being jailed, ex: "Your night action has failed" or something to that effect basically 👏👏
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
"I am assuming no one is ever told their flavouring/flavoring correct?"
This is correct, flavors are undisclosed until either the persons role and affiliation are revealed after death, or endgame if that player does not die.
It is, however, incorrect that JoaT's, back-ups, role-cops, or role stealers, are provided information on flavors, they are not 👍. Flavors are as stated, only disclosed on death reveal or endgame 👍
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Yes, sane was not mentioned because it is the default and thus not a "flavoring" in the sense that it changes the role in any way from the status quo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I explained in detail why it was a co-award my dude
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@XLAV
Townies don't know the setup because they're townies but Mafia do
Now, i may not be a genius, but it was an open set up game, and your explanation of it being a confirmation seems wholly predicated upon it not being an open set-up game.
So now im even more confused 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Facism is in part totalitarian, Totalitarianism is not in itself Facism. Same goes for Nationalism and Socialism, the other primary characteristics of Facism.
Note, "racism" is excluded because racism is not an inherently necessary characteristic to Facism. Despite the exemplars of Facism such as Nazi Germany, being racist. This racism itself though, was predicated upon Marxist classsism wherein bourgeois(wealthy) = evil, proletariat(poor) = good.
Hatred of Jews was more a result of that ethnic/relgious group being the literal 1% of top income in Germany, and globally, much the same as today, a vast disproportiond of wealth and influence. Basically, when you already have the opinion that the wealthy are evil, its not gonna be too long before the dots are connected to Jews being a disproportionately successful and influential group 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Important Final Note
Third Party Survivors and Serial Killers can joint win with mafia and count towards mafia in terms of ratios needed to win.
However, if mafia is eliminated, a 1:1 ratio must be achieved still for either specific TP to win.
This is not to be taken as indication of either set role being present in game necessarily, rather to establish mechanics knowledge of *potential* endgame scenarios.
Created:
Posted in:
Important Notes
This game ia intended to impart a few crucial lessons in gameplay. These lessons are vital to accurate reads and successful gameplay.
1) Role Confirmation is not Affiliation Confirmation.
Any listed role, even if typically a mafia role can potentially, if sensible, be any affiliation. Even if those roles as town are beneficial to mafia by virtue of being town(ex: roleblocker as town).
2) Do Not Blindly Trust Results
Flavorings are often used in games as a way to obfuscate results and operate as a trap for town to fall into. Ex: A paranoid cop often leads to a D2 mislynch based upon the "guilty" result obtained. This then often leads to town ML'ing the paranoid cop as a fake cop for having inaccurate results.
As one can see in the hypothetical, rash thinking and blindly following results easily leads to 2 mislynches and likely swings the game out of town reach and squarely into the reach of mafia and/or TP.
With that being said, let the game begin!
________________________
Living Players
1) 1Harder
2) Rational
3) Virtuoso
4) Earth
5) Smithereens
6) XLAV
7) Greyparrot
With 7 players alive it takes 4 votes to lynch!
Day Phase will end on 9/2 @ 3pm CST.
Created:
Posted in:
Welcome to Buddas Beginner Series 1.2! This game will be Role Madness! This will be a closed set-up game, with the roles present in the game taken from a umbrella list of roles. It is important to note that flavors and third party inclusion is potential in this game, but not necessarily guaranteed. The potential flavornings present for specific roles will be supplied as well.
Potential Role List
- Cop- May investigate one player a night and determine their affiliation.
Potential Flavorings:
Naive- All investigations will produce innocent results
Paranoid- All investigations will produce guilty results
Insane- All investigations will produce an opposite result to actual affiliation(ex. the guilty will appear innocent and vice versa).
- Doctor- May protect one person a night from death
- Bodyguard- May protect one person a night from death, except unlike the doctor, the bodyguard dies in place of the targeted for death player.
- Watcher- May watch over one person a night and determine any players who visited that targeted player, but not what actions were taken.
Potential Flavoring:
Naive- will always produce the result of no person visiting the player
- Tracker- Can target one person a night and determine what player was visited by that target, if any player was visited at all.
Potential Flavorings
Naive- will always produce a result of the player not visiting any other
Paranoid- will always produce a result of the target player visiting the NK target.
- JOAT(Jack-of-all-trades)- A role that is afforded a variety of 1x use roles. Ex: 1x cop, 1x doc, 1x tracker. Any potential flavorings of roles apply to the 1x uses.
- Commuter- Any actions that target the commuter fail.
- Roleblocker- May target one player a night and prevent them from taking any action if any actions are able to be taken.(players will not be specifically notified their actions were blocked, a message of "your action has failed!" will be provided instead.
- Vigilante- May target one player a night to be killed.
- Bomb- If lynched, will kill the final player to vote in lynching them, if targeted for death at night, the person who kills them also dies.
- Vengeful Martyr- If lynched, may select one person to die in addition to their own death.
- Role Cop- May visit one player a determine their role, but not their affiliation.
- Bulletproof- Immune to death at night.
- Popular- Takes one extra vote to lynch
- Hated- Takes one less vote to lynch
- Backup- Inherits the role, but not affiliation, of the first player to die, even if vanilla(powerless).
- Innocent Child- Player with this role is mod confirmed as town from start of game.
Potential Flavoring
Confirmation can occur at any other time and is not exclusive to beginning of the game.
- Jailer- May target one person a night and put them in "jail". This targeted player is both protected from death, and cannot take any night action if there are any to be potentially taken.
- Miller- Always appears as guilty, even if the cop investigating is otherwise flavored to produce another result.
- Godfather- A typical mafia role that always appears innocent to affiliation investigation.
- Ninja- A typical mafia role that cannot be tracked or watched.
- Bus Driver- Switches the targets of two selected players. For example, Player A targets Player X and Player B targets Player Y. Z bus driver targets X and Y, so now X visits B, and Y visits A.(neither targeted player is notified of this switch)
- Lawyer- May target one player a night and make them appear innocent to all affiliation investigations.
- Framer- May target one player a night and make them appear guilty to all affiliation investigations.
- Vanilla/Goon- Both roles with no powers or actions. Vanilla is town sided, goon is mafia sided.
- Mason Recruiter- May recruit one player a night into a private PM. This PM stays active throughout the game and any players added stay added unless killed. If town, attempting to recruit a non-town player results in the death of the recruiter.
- Baker- May give a piece of bread to one player a night. This may or may not result in death of all breadless players after a certain point in the game.
- Gunsmith- May give a gun to one player per night. This gun can be used at any time during the DP or NP to kill another player chosen by the possessor of the gun.
- Armorsmith- May give one player a night a bulletproof vest. This vest is a 1x protection from death if targeted to be killed at night.
- Strongman- A typical mafia role that, if carrying out the nightkill, is unaffected by bulletproof vests or other forms of protection such as doctor, bodyguard, or commuter.
- Traitor- A player that counts as town until they are killed, at which point they are resurrected(unannounced) and become a part of mafia(also unannounced).
- Role Stealer- Can target one player and steal their role, but not affiliation, permanently. This can only be done once, at that point the role of the stealer becomes the role they have stolen, and will always appear as such to any role investigation.
Third Party Exclusive Roles
- Serial Killer- may target one person a night to kill. The Serial killer can potentially win either by achieving a set number of kills, or surving to endgame. This variety in won conditions is generally up to mod discretion.
- Survivor- Wins by surviving to endgame.
- Lyncher- Wins upon a pre-game specified player being lynched.
- Jester- Wins by getting themselves lynched.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Sure, but you'd also have to convince them to actually go over to that spot for whatever reason, which is where Charisma and more specifically persuasion/deception comes into play 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
the mod only made it worse by speeding me as town.
I would disagree, as i stated, this is predicated upon the assumption that you minutely understand my psychology and behavior as a mod. You simply don't, so taking any mod psych arguments as likely truth, or indicative of anything is lacking corroborating evidence to support that I differentiate how I talk with players as a mod based upon their affiliation. When i dont. Any erroneous conclusions derived are not my fault but the fault of the players for making unsupported assumptions 👏
I didn’t really contribute a whole lot.
Exactly, which is why its a co-award. Sole MVP doesn't make sense for GP cause his "towniness" was more by virtue of being un-CC'd doc, even if he jumped in and effectively swung the tables to a path of victory for town. You didn't quite make sense as sole MVP to me because, aside from making yourself look town AF, you didn't contribute much.
Combine the two together and you have an approximation of a player that would clearly be deemed MVP in the event of a town win 🤔.
The mod also spewed esrth as wolf
How so? The one message directed at him was I was annoyed he had more posts than me. As in total forum posts, as in, that bastard and his excessive spam 😤
@Earth- Boooooooooo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you had clearly intended that result, i would agree with you. But you clearly didnt as shown by, "i wouldnt have done it if there was a rule against it" "I was just correcting a typo" all indicate you edited your post for reasons not related.
I'm sorry, but awarding somebody MVP for an action that produced positive, but unintended results, just doesn't make much sense. I try to stay away from post facto revisionism when analyzing.
Created:
Posted in:
However, thats also not to say it wasn't a valuable contribution. Your mistake in editing posts in essence putter XLAV, and as Virt pointed out, him flipping Maf essentially confirmed you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Nah man, growing a pair would not be realizing not getting MVP doesn't mean your actions werent valuable contributions. As stated, making yourself the #1 ML target, an MVP does not make
Created:
Posted in:
Virt established himself as pretty likely town from the get-go, then acted in a manner that didnt detract from that initial likely town reading. His scumhunting was not exceptional per se. But there is great value to a towny who removes themselves through action from being lynched. Because that not only increases the likelihood of a true lynch, but also necessarily makes them a likely target of a NK, adding an element of predicability to potential targets mafia might have.
You overall contributed positively, never said you didnt. For once, try pulling whatever crawled up your ass, out and not take extreme offense to something that wasn't insulting. Like Christ sakes man, try growing a pair for once, you aren't 5, just hecause somebody else gets a prize and you didnt doesn't actually justify throwing a conniption fit anymore, and it never really did 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Besides, your entire vehemence in disagreeing is quite obviously predicated upon the conflation that not being "most valuable" = not making valuable contributions. When that's not at all the case. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ur being highly post facto revisionist RM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, because he did the most solid job in appearing town. This, because he was town, significantly increased the probability of town successfully lynching to a solid degree 🤔.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ur editing made you look scummy, its hard to claim MVP if you appear scummy because of ones own actions fmpov 🤔. It wasnt even a gambit, which would be the exception to that imho.
Created:
Posted in:
Town wins!
I'm pleasantly surprised that despite the Cop being killed N0, town was still able to pull out the win. well done.
Biggest Town Tell
Virtuoso's reaction to a N0 start was a pretty big town tell. It came across as super genuine, and XLAV was correct to point that out, but it's not wholly indicative of affiliation, which leads us into...
Biggest Scum Tell
XLAV would have come across town AF in observing Virt's reaction was town. However he did two things that were scum-tells in at leaast this game, even if not necessarily being universal tells.
- Tunneling RM when Earth was fmpov equally scummy
-Adding a mod psych argument upon the already clear indication Virt was town. This is a good example of manufacturing a read. Mod Psych is especially unreliable as it assumes direct knowledge of how a specific mod will act in relation to reponses to player complaints or questions.
For example, on DDO in "Under the Shade of the Sycamore Tree Mafia" Khaos_Mage was very vocal about the game being unbalanced against town. I disagreed and that was taken as confirmation of Khaos_Mage. The only problem, he was third party and "stole" the game from a town that lynched all mafia, even with all deaths being janitored.
On Game Interaction
I can understand the complaints made regarding my involvement as a mod. I'll cut back on the amount of interaction with players, even if I disagree that any such actions indicate affiliation, it does still get used as such regardless.
As a mod, i'll still publically announce requests of information regarding mechanics, as that is information pertinent to all involved players. Balance concerns can however, reasonably be held till Endgame.
MVP
It's a hard choice, but im gonna go with a tie between Virt and Greyparrot. Virt because, balance complaint aside, came across as towny AF in most of his actions. Greyparrot because he joined the game and suddenly DP2 and DP3 were over in less than an hour each, which is very fast. Fmpov GP's entry created the accelerated DP's because he made it wholly clear his scum team was XLAV/Earth and he wasnt gonna change his mind.
Big Mistake
Not cc'ing doc. This would have been a solid move from Earth. Being Doc would have given Earth the perfect cover for not really scumhunting and laying low despite still being active.
Whether or not the games outcome would have changed is in the air, however in my humble opinion, it would have at least significantly increased the likelihood of pulling off the single mislynch needed to win 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Vote Count
Earth (2/2)- Greyparrot, Rational
________________
Earth was lynched, he was guilty!
Endgame will be up shortly, roles for the second game in the series will be sent out as well.
Created:
Posted in:
Antifa aren't Facists, that is erroneous to posit. It however, would also be erroneous to posit that they *are not* fruit borne from the same tree 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Official Termination of VA Benefits
Earth (1/2)- Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I disagree, Antifa is predominantly Anarchists and Communist/Socialists. They are consistent on that often the advocacy of such groups calls for an ending to the state. There are many similarities, but the differentiator of total state control sets them at odds necessarily with Facism.
I see it as similar to Shia and Sunni sects of Islam. Despite being similar in all but a few relatively minor details, this vast similarity in beliefs hasn't prevented them from being at each other's throats for quite a long time and being mortal enemies of one another 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
The town awakens to find its most virtuous member missing.
Virtuoso has died!
Dead Players
Smithers- Cop
1Harder- Vanilla
XLAV- Goon
Virtuoso- Vanilla
Living Players
1) Greyparrot
2) Earth
3) Rational
With 3 players alive it takes 2 votes to lynch!
DP will end on 8/31 @ 11am CST
Created:
Posted in:
But most lefty's these days have more in common with Facists given there is a general tendency in both leftism today and Facism, to elevate the State to the position of God and hold the state as the ultimate arbiter of pretty much everything 🤔
Created: