Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I don't want to be rude but the number of questions that you are asking me that have already been addressed is frustrating. I am forced to ignore any further inquiries until I see a post from you that says "okay I have read post 220" or something along those lines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
<br>Why do you town read GP? And if you don't town read him why are you not voting him?
Post 220 answers these questions. I have asked you twice to read it, let this be the third... Please read post 220.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
@SirAnonymous
That's the wrong play because you're implying that all possibilities are equally likely, when there is 1 obvious possibility that is far more likely than all the other possibilities.Cap vs. Iron Man was highly likely. No theme at all was highly likely. There was no one theme that was far more likely than all the others.
Okay you two that is enough fluffing the DP with general arguments about strategy. If it does not concern this game specifically then please take it to another thread so as to avoid filling this one with irrelevant nonsense.
In the meantime todays lynch lynch should be between bullish and pie (please see post 258) so let's shift the conversation to that topic, or you know... Litterally any topic that actually has something to do with this game specifically would be great.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Why would you town read him dude? It is far more than 30% likely.
I said 'just based off of balance analysis it is less than 30%'. I am aware that other factors are in play.
Again, please review post 220.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Even if my reason ing is imperfect it does not change that he is scum.
Please review post 220.
How many mafia games have you played anyway? If the answer is anything other than "So many that I stopped counting years ago" then no, you have not 'played a lot more games' than me.
But like I said the number of games one has played is irrelevant. What is relevant is that your flawed balance analysis has GP as less than 30% chance of being scum and your tunneling of him is detrimental to town because it prevents us from taking this time to look for the real scum or, in the unlikely scenario that GP is scum, looking for his partners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I have played in more games than you.
This is incredibly unlikely and also incredibly irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That leaves Pie and Sir and Pie is just first on the list.
Well I have a pretty strong town read on siranon right now but still would prefer to lynch Bullish over pie. Tell ya what, how about you and I try to convince the rest of town to choose between pie and bullish and agree to vote for whichever of those two lynches seems more likely to go through?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
Because what grey claimed was objectively scummy,
The whole point is that this is a dumb thing to say. It is litterally saying that GP - as scum - claiming his real character under no pressure whatsoever is a reasonable expectation. Just handing that to town on a silver platter. Well you are wrong, that isn't a reasonable expectation. It is an unreasonable one and I am more inclined to think that this is you as scum trying to convince town that GP somehow scum slipped than I am to think that this is you as town making such a blatant error in judgement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
Why would you say this:No, antagonist doesn't have to be scum.???
He had to say that because there were some people that were too thick headed to realize that on their own.
Oh wait, you are asking why he said it because you disagree that it was a reasonable thing to say? SMH. Come on man, you are better than this.
Created:
Posted in:
we should have people inviting GP
Should say unvoting.
can lunch him under the 'lynch all liars' policy.
LYNCH! LYNCH GODDAMNIT!
Okay that is the last fucking straw. I am turning my autocorrect off. This bullshit has gone far enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Singularity
Here is what singularity and supadudz are saying:
There is only one possible scenario here, that being that the game is balanced and that GP is scum due to the fact that a pair of town lovers cannot exist side-by-side with a town suicidal in a balanced game.
Here is what I am saying:
There are three possibilities.1) The game is balanced and GP is scum (in other words Supa and singularity are correct).2) GP, Supa, and singularity are all town but the game is still balanced due to some feature that we are not aware of (In other words town doesn't know everything about the game... by the way, isn't town not knowing everything about the game pretty much the whole point of this he in the first place? uninformed majority vs informed minority? Just saying).3) The game is unbalanced (Like drafter said it is pretty stupid to discount this as a possibility considering how often people bitch about balance in the endgames).
Okay so already we should have people inviting GP just based off of the fact that if all the three possibilities above have equal likelihoods then GP has a 33% chance of being scum whereas simply sheeping my vote has a 46% chance of catching scum (see post one in the first link below). Think of it as comparing a medications effects to the effects of a placebo in medical trials. Sheeping DD is the placebo and lynching GP is the proposed medication. If lynching GP is less likely to hit scum than sheeping DD (as demonstrated above) then the proposed medication of 'lynch GP' has failed it's trial.
Still not enough? Okay, let me tell you all a story.
Once upon a time there was a game modded by speed called MCU Heroes mafia (second link below). Before starting this game Speedrace asked DD to look over his setup. DD did so and noticed that speed had included a vig and a mafia governor in the setup which meant that there was the possibility, that the game would end in a mafia win even with decent town play. Speed said "thanks for the advice DD, I will change the setup a bit. Can you look over this new proposal?" But DD was too busy to look over the new proposal so he just told speed "hey as long as there isn't a town vig and a mafia governor in the same game it is an improvement from before."
The moral of this story is that out of the three possibilities above possibility three (one of the ones that has GP as town) has some precedent for it while both other possibilities are completely unfounded, therefore if we go purely off of balance analysis to find scum (as opposed to using behavior analysis like fucking sane people would do) then there is a much less than 30% chance of GP being scum.
Still not enough? Still unreasonably convinced that GP must be scum? Okay let's say that he is somehow scum despite everything I just said. In the scenario where GP is mafia there are still two other mafia players in the game. What you should do is focus on trying to figure out who those players are and wait for GPs suicide timer to run out. Then if he doesn't off himself we can lunch him under the 'lynch all liars' policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
There is definitely scum on Grey's wagon.
Agree. What posts specifically make you think it is more likely to be pie than Bullish? I am pretty null on pie at the moment though I have not yet done my second re-read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
It doesn't matter his suicide day. He is lying g. There would not be a suicide and lovers in the same game with the game being this small.
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe there is a tchalla out there to prevent me from killing myself?
Maybe. Seems pointless to speculate, the important thing for now is that you are town. If you are alive in DP 3... We can cross that bridge if we get there.
Oh, the other important thing is that Bullish is scum. Vote Bullish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mod said precisely that I will ATTEMPT to kill myself NP3.
Thank you for the precise time.
I have no clue what that word "attempt" means, possibly there is a town out there that can prevent it.
Possibly. I think that would be reading too much into it just based on the word attempt. If you are still alive at the start of DP 3 you will be at the top of my scum list barring some very good and specific excuse for your survival.
Created:
Posted in:
Okay so now to explain my read on Bullish as promised. I will keep it short and sweet though as many of you know I could go into excruciating detail if I wanted to, I have a bit of a rep for doing so when I am town and trying to explain a scum read.
Basically there are two possibilities, Bullish is either town or scum. I will go into detail regarding each possibility and explain why I find the former to be less likely.
Possibility One - Town Bullish comes in on post 61 and sees GP claimed a character that is an antagonist then votes for GP after thinking to himself "Yes, it makes sense that scum would claim their actual character under no pressure whatsoever and GP claimed an antagonist character so GP must be scum." This seems unlikely due to the fact that this line of thinking is retarded and Bullish is quite well known as a decent mafia player. Notice also how post 61 advocates for the DP to be as short as possible. Again, unlikely to come from someone known as a decent town player.
Possibility Two - Scum Bullish comes in and sees Supa having some doubts about GP. He sees this as an opportunity to cause a lynch on town GP without taking the heat of pushing for it himself by having Supa do it for him. He does this by simply going with some nonsense justification for why GP is town and voting for him. He is worried that if he leaves right away to avoid suspicion then the wagon may not catch on, however, so he instills a sense of urgency within the town by advocating that the lynch of GP happen as soon as possible. After this he leaves right away to avoid suspicion. This scenario makes sense to me because it seems like something I would do.
So anyway that is the short version of my explanation for my following action:
VTL Bullish
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@oromagi
but pie is not retarded
Non-retards can still be wrong. Point is that GP should claim his day.
Look at balancing though, hella bastard if there is sing and I's role plus Gp role.
That's retarded. There are several reasonable possible explanations where GP is not scum. Possibility one: There is some unknown factor that balances the game despite this town disadvantage. Possibility two: The game is unbalanced. That is just off the top of my head and if all three possibilities are given equal weight - they should not be by the way, remind me when you read this to tell you all about the game I reviewed for speed - but if they are then there is a 67% chance of GP being town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
<br>this was discussed and ended with Pie advising against.
That's retarded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
When is your suicide DP? Do you die at the beginning or end of your suicide DP? Ask speed via PM to clarify if you do not already know the second answer.
Created:
Posted in:
Okay just finished page 3... Couple thoughts...
1) Why has nobody asked GP to claim what day he will commit suicide on? This should have been the very first question after a suicidal claim. Do I have to do everything myself?
2) GP obv town
3) Supa prob town
4) Bullish obv scum ("Question - Disc, why do you scum read Bullish? Answer - At least give me some time to fucking catch up, I will explain my read shortly. Damn.)
5) SirAnon poss town
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
But fucking why?
Damnit. Guess I will find out soon enough. My guess is that the answer involves someone breaking rule number one of being a townie, which reads: 'Never try to convince your scum reads that they are scum'.
Created:
Posted in:
I am not going to claim iny very first post (obviously) but I will mention right away that my role is not a particularly common one.
Now to read the DP.
Created:
Posted in:
But, perhaps the most frustrating part was the exchange starting with this:" look at the people that are not in my townpile. That are also not in your townpile." - GreyParrot
That was pretty frustrating for me while watching too, mostly due to the fact that the misunderstanding was primarily caused by the fact that GP used two-year-old grammar by randomly putting a period in the middle of the sentence for no reason (I am glad you copied the quote of what he actually said instead of just typing out what GP was trying to say so I didn't have to dig through the game to show what I mean) and never correcting the mistake after noticing it.
People may give me shit for being a 'grammar nazi' but if you mean to convey a certain message and you actually end up conveying some other message because you didn't bother to actually say what you mean and instead say something else then... I mean, how is that not a problem? The whole point of having conversations is to convey meaning to another person. If you are not going to do that then why waste your time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
So we agree now that it is possible to be wrong about things and that nothing can be 'true for one person and false for another'.
So, you were talking earlier about reasons someone might be wrong about something. What do you think I am wrong about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Out brain is chemical reactions that dictate what we do. We are really just slaves to the brains firings.
Yeah that is probably true. If that is incompatible with the idea that our brains are conscious then my guess would be that we have two different conceptions of what the word means, which is fine by me. Philosophers have wasted enough time talking about what consciousness is over the last several thousand years that expecting everyone to be on the same page on that point by default seems a bit unreasonable.
By the way when I said "you don't really explain why" in the above post I was referring to your claim that the Chinese room experiment disproves consciousness, I was not referring to your claim that consciousness is an illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
unless your plans are to somehow get rid of alcohol...
Oh god let's please not go down that road again.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
What parts do you think worked, and what parts didn't? I'd be glad to know how I can improve in the future.
I fully expected you to mention that the west fell first then shove a 'west will rise again' reference in somehow.
As it was I think it turned out pretty well. Looking forward to you doing other time periods and I am sure that everyone is unavoidably thinking "oh dear, chapter one ended only about a century prior to the rise of Islam..."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
There was something about this thought experiments conclusion that bothered me but I could not quite put it into words. I think your explanation is pretty close to describing my thoughts despite being unable to myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
The Chinese room disproves consciousness, it does not disprove our ability to create AI that resembles consciousness the way we do
You don't really explain why you draw this conclusion but I assume it is based on the fact that any analogy between the guy in the room and a computer can also be drawn between said guy and a human brain and therefore any conclusion reached in one analogy can be applied to the other and therefore both the brain and computer must have equal levels of consciousness.
I think it is more logical to say that this simply means AI consciousness is possible rather than that biological consciousness is not. Cognito ergo sum is pretty hard to get around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
About 20 minutes down the Detroit River from said rivers namesake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
LMAO I reckon having them look out the window would do the trick.
But if it didn't what does that matter? If a person is wrong then a person is wrong... How is that a hard concept to understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
So basically by necissarily existing you mean some hypothetical thing that is eternal and came before everything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Annie_ESocialBookworm
I didn't even know there was a second.
Almost makes me want to go see the first some time to see what all the fuss is about. Eh, almost.
Created:
Posted in:
Lmao I am too sober for this shit. I concede defeat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
The only way any member of this causal chain can have existence is if the chain of existence borrowers terminates with someone who didn't borrow existence. This being that exists self sufficiently must have existence in and of Himself
I would say I don't know why the universe began to exist but you are claiming here that you do know and furthermore that it was definitely a being of some kind. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Did this actually happen?
Yes. Someone decided it would be a good idea to let two chat bots talk to each other, which in my experience is something that always leads to hilarious outcomes particularly with the more advanced ones.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh my secular-conception-of-a-mother-nature I was obviously referring to 1869 because
January 20 – Elizabeth Cady Stanton is the first woman to [blah blah blah something very important I am sure]
Which is totally not just a copy paste of the first thing that caught my eye from this link...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't believe that most people think that way. I know Christians don't.
The Bible does say that it is immoral to want things that are not yours for example but I doubt most people would actually agree with that (yes I am aware that most people are Christians in our part of the world).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
First, Bob can be harmed without him knowing he has been harmed.
I see nothing in any of my posts that would explain why you seem to think I would disagree with this statement.
Intent can be malicious.
Yes, in other words it is possible to intend to cause harm. And it is generally considered immoral to act upon such intentions, though most agree that just wanting to hurt someone is not immoral if said desire is not acted upon.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
What is or is not legal is determined by the government so yes in this hypothetical scenario choosing government policies to increase immigration probably starts with making more of it legal...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
We demonstrate it is possible by showing there is nothing incoherent about an MGB. If an MGB is not incoherent it is logically possible and can be instantiated in a possible world
I am talking specifically about the property of necessary existance. How do we know this is a property that is actually possible to posses? Sure if it is possible to posses this property then a hypothetical max level thinggy will posses it, but I don't see it demonstrated that this is the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
By claiming it is intent you are technically right but not getting to the core of the issue. What is it about the intent that affects the morality of an action? The answer is obvious.
In scenario one Alex intends to do something they believe will harm Bob. This is immoral according to you. Intent to harm = immoral. Your words not mine.
In scenario two Alex intends to do something they believe will not harm Bob. This is not immoral according to you. No intent to harm = not immoral. Your words not mine.
The underlined portion of the two above segments is the only difference between the two scenarios and therefore the only possible reason for you giving a different judgement to each scenario.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Another pretty big if. How do we demonstrate that it is possible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I can imagine a world with square circles, and two plus two being seven. That world, though imaginable, cannot be instantiated because they contain logical contradictions, which by definition are not parts of or even potential parts of existence.
Okay.
an MGB is metaphysically necessary (cannot fail to exist in any possible world) if it does exist. That's the whole point of the argument, to get us a being which cannot fail across worlds, but has trans world necessity.
"If"... So if a necessary being exists then a world without said necessary being is logically contradictory and if such a world is logically contradictory then this counter to the Ontalogical Argument fails, therefore a necessary being might exist. Okay. I see what you meant before about circular arguments.
So how do we go about demonstrating that the concept of 'necessary existance' is a useful one outside the realm of thought experimentation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
I think that is less pro-Prime-Directive and more anti-nuke-a-bunch-of-people-for-the-lulz but I get your point and as you can likely tell from earlier posts I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't know what to say. What difference does Bob's feeling have to do with Alex's morality?
What difference would changing the scenario make?
According to you it makes a difference. I asked two questions:
1) If Alex believes Bob is going to be hurt by this is it immoral?
You answered yes (post 73).
2) If Alex believes Bob is not hurt by this is it immoral?
You answered no (post 80).
You may suspect Bob is scared, but so what? Will you haul Alex in on your suspicion?
Clear non-sequitor. We are talking about morality not legality. Please respond to the above.
Created: