Total posts: 2,897
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@LikeMagic
I apologize folks, we had a scum lynch in the BAG if I had just caught up to the rest of the DP earlier (unfortunately I only got to like page 10 before the DP ended)
Here Water claimed Tracker.
“i'm elf on the shelf and i'm a tracker, the justifcation is relatively self explanatory. elf on the shelf sees stuff and tells santa about them, making me a tracker. please don't be stupid and lynch me while i'm gone.”
Water is lying.
I am Yukon Cornelius. In the Rudolph movie, I spend my life looking for ”silver & gold” (in reality it was peppermint, but this isn't revealed until later in the movie). I’m a kind man, and I do not mind using my skills to help navigate others & save Christmas. I am a tracker & win with town.
It’s not the greatest justification, but it’s the one Danielle gave.
I promise if we lynch WP he will flip as being anything but a tracker. If he doesn’t, you can lynch me. Similarly, you can lynch me for counter-claiming so late. When I flip town, you’ll know to lynch WP.
As for my tracker results... well, DP1 results are not very helpful: Lunatic visited Magic. Lunatic, if you could confirm that you did indeed visit Magic, that confirms my identity.
Created:
Posted in:
OK, this DP ends in a few mins.
VTL SupaDudz.
I'm not finished reading the DP, but this is my best scumread atm.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you know how many games i have been in where scum said, in response to a valid role claim of an otherwise non suspicious townie, "oh but could be X twist to the role, or could be TP, or could be totally random game mechanic," just to undermine the townread in hopes of a mislynch.
True but as I said before, That1 is not that big-brained as scum. When I played with her as scum she was pretty much going with the flow and became erratic whenever town put pressure on her. She wasn't really scheming or anything, just trying to stay under the radar.
That1, as scum, claiming I am TP with White would really be a brilliant move. Don't know enough about That1 to know if they are experienced enough to think of that .
She isn't. I think it was just a shot in the dark tbh
Created:
Posted in:
You'll find that their experience has been pretty similar to this one: I don't tend to get too involved in DP1, and where I do, I tend to follow others' leads. My behavior, and again you can ask anyone this, is ALWAYS introspective. I'm rather self-conscious about my playstyle regardless of the game I'm in, so thank you for pointing that out. Really appreciate leaning on that insecurity.
Yeah, as I said before, WF seems to play kinda like me in this regard.
Not convinced he is scum yet.
Created:
Posted in:
How do you not know about this, hunting for 3rd parties is classic classic scum tell that goes all the way back.When you're scum and you can't fake a scum read on town and you don't want to scum read a buddy, you try to hunt for TPs because it looks genuine.
No offense to That1, but when I played with her on a scum team, she wasn't that big brained perse. Like she's smart, but clearly a bit more on the noob side. I don't think she would do this for that reason as scum.
Created:
Posted in:
What's your deal. First you want Supa's claim, and say you were willing to jump on any bandwagon to get more claims (though lots of claims were already out for scum to see). your defense of this tactic is "not playing passively?" Then when I push back on you a little more with that strategy you complete 180, are in "perfect agreement" and VTNL, the epitome of passivity.
WF isn't always the most consistent as town. I feel that he's sorta like me, I think his mind changes and his opinion evolves as more args are presented in the DP, and he's not so stubborn that he holds onto one view of things like certain people who shall not be named.
That said, yeah I'll agree that a complete 180 with little pressure needs explaining.
Created:
Posted in:
I think one of Whiteflam or Bullish is likely scum, but not both. White because he's contributing regularly in a non-contributory way. It feels forced, like he's playing narrator without actually hunting scum. He echos obvious observations or statements and anything remotely novel he says he seems willing to backdown from immediately as almost a gut reaction to realizing he's drawn attention to himself.
Whiteflame has stayed pretty close to his town meta so far this game.
Created:
Posted in:
Not sure I understand why ppl were pushing for a no lynch 7 pages into the DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
To be clear I'm not Santa Claus, I'm Santa CLAUSE from the movie The Santa Clause
Literally the same right?
Created:
Posted in:
I was at 4/7, which I feel is sufficient amount of pressure to give a character claim. I will not reveal my role in DP1 and I will stick by that notion. In general, only if there is sufficient pressure should you give a claim. I hate the new direction of popcorning character claims, yes, but if Whiteflame and drafter were to town and mafia was not on my vote, if ideally it was 3 person mafia, I could be lynched.Again, I am opposed to mass char claims in DP1, I think it helps mafia more than anything, but if pressured to do so, I will
Yeah no, I don't buy this shit.
If Supa were against popcorning claims he'd argue against it vehemently. And with a role like SANTA CLAUS he sure as hell wouldn't throw it out there haphazardly without a care in the world. Not to mention 2/4 votes he had on him were just activity votes from Oromagi and Pie. Supa is smart, he could AT LEAST fake character claim something random to prevent mafia from thinking anything of him.
I feel this is 1 of three things:
- him playing horribly as town
- him being mafia aligned as Santa
- him being mafia aligned and fake claiming.
Leaning towards the latter end of things.
Created:
Posted in:
That1 is sus for bring up jester. Bringing up 3rd parties is a classic scum tell.i mean, we already have an anti town role (innocent child) the chances of having a 3rd party right now aren't as low as the chances of having a two anti town roles.
Uhhhh no.
That1 isn't sus for bringing up Jester necessarily. It's very well a possibility for town to keep in mind. What, are we supposed to assume there are no 3rd parties ever?
Nor is Water right here that innocent child is anti-town. Seems very pro town to me.
Created:
Posted in:
If you lynch hated TOWN it's mechanically the same.But Magic's affiliation isn't for sure town. So it's not mechanically the same. I should know cause I put a hated scum in one of my games once.
This is true. I'm townreading Magic currently though, will keep reading.
Created:
Posted in:
I am Santa Clause.
uhhh...
I kinda sus this a bit. There is NO WAY Santa isn't a power role of some kind. Claiming this off the bat is anti-town in the greatest sense.
Gonna keep reading and see how the situation develops from here.
Created:
Posted in:
As I said last game: We do not need to lynch the Hated.All Hated Town does is make MYLO/LYLO happen one phase earlier than otherwise.But, guess what, when you mislynch a townie you're making MYLO/LYLO happen one phase earlier than otherwise.So lynching the Hated or letting it live is mechanically the same.
I mean ig? But if we let the hated live we must then be very careful about preventing a quick hammer by mafia.
With Croc, that's literally what we were planning to do until he got killed by Pie.
Created:
Posted in:
Today's a half day in the slammer, so I'll be able to catch up
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
OK. That's fine. Might have to do it after Xmas then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
OK. If you can't make it, may have to push it back further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@whiteflame
@Speedrace
@seldiora
I'm gonna take the absence of responses (other than WF) as consent.
We will reschedule it to sometime in the afternoon of the 24th.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This actually reminds me of a guilty secret... I may or may not have watched Heaven's Lost Property a few years back and thoroughly enjoyed it for the humor + anime tiddies.
Ecchi isn't usually my thing but I liked that one
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Haven't seen the majority of those, what's highschool DxD about?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ah, of course. Killing our children with blatant disregard for their rights as humans is OK when it's convenient because morals are make believe.
You know what else was inconvenient? Banning slavery.
Lord Mansfield declared that, "we feel the force of the inconveniences and consequences that will follow the decision [to abolish slavery]. Yet all of us are so clearly of one opinion upon the only question before us, that we think we ought to give judgment."2 He went on to declare that, "the state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of now being introduced by Courts of Justice upon mere reasoning or inferences from any principles, natural or political; it must take its rise from positive law."3 In other words, he could find no reasoned, principled justification for slavery. Its only defense was that it had positive law on its side—which he rightly understood to be no defense at all.
But of course that was for the slavemasters to decide... whether slavery was moral or not. It wasn't the place for some self-righteous bloke to say otherwise.
I think your moral philosophy needs altering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
This is just recording everything I've watched in the past... I really can't remember SAO 2 very well now that I think about it. I know there was a world with guns... thas about it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@whiteflame
@Speedrace
@seldiora
I realize the 24th is Christmas Eve, but would pushing the debate to that day work for people? We would probably make it during the afternoon so that you may engage in festivities with your families.
Created:
Posted in:
Ayyyy look I've passed Ragnar in post count now. Only a matter of time before I take over the website! Mwahahahahahahah
Created:
Posted in:
BTW, PC specs aren't really a concern. My PC is pretty much a beast
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Here is my anime watchlist, I'd recommend pretty much everything on there.
Created:
Posted in:
Is this game worth my money? There was so much hype around it, I've been very tempted to give it a whirl.
Created:
Posted in:
I feel like Magic's input is valuable enough to where we should abstain from policy lynching her for as long as possible, although I will concur that it may be prudent to policy lynch as we approach MYLO. There's a reason that the scum team advocated for Croc to live last game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LikeMagic
OK, thanks. I knew those kinds of roles existed but didn't know there was a name.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LikeMagic
I think my role is an SOP, but I am unsure.
What's an SOP?
Created:
TheUnderdog has asked me the following: “If someone told you they were pro choice because they didn’t want foster kids getting PTSD in the foster system, how would you respond?” I figured I’d share my answer publicly, because I really detest this form of argument from the Pro Choice camp.
The argument posited is that it is moral to make abortions due to concerns over conditions after birth. For the sake of argument, I will be assuming that in this hypothetical scenario the child will be certainly born into non-ideal conditions.
The very first thing to examine is the morality of the act itself. If the act is obviously amoral (that is, neither moral nor immoral) or moral, then having the abortion would be a no-brainer and we could end the discussion here.
Recall from my debate with Seldiora,
“Those in favor of abortion assert there is a difference between being a human being and being a human person. The human being is simply a member of the species Homo sapiens, but personhood is based on other qualities that are developed over time. This is how, despite abortion objectively and irrefutably killing a human being, Pro-Choice advocates can still manage to justify the practice. They say killing a human being is fine, as long as it is not a human person.However, using the Pro-Choice’s own line of reasoning, the uncertainty principle states that there are 4 potential possibilities of abortion:1. The fetus is a person, and that is known.2. The fetus is a person, but it is unknown.3. The fetus is not a person, and that is known.4. The fetus is not a person, and that is unknownThere are ramifications to each:1. You have committed brazen homicide.2. You have committed manslaughter3. You have done nothing wrong.4. You have committed criminal negligence.In 3/4ths of scenarios, the abortion is not justified.However, 2/4ths of these scenarios are impossible. No one can say with absolute certainty that abortion does not kill a human person. At best, someone can be strongly convinced that it does not, but they have no capacity to prove so....This throws out options 1 & 3, along with the only justifiable abortion scenario, leaving only unjustifiable scenarios.”
OK, so there is no way abortion as an act is not immoral in some form or fashion. So clearly, then, the matter is worth digging into deeper.
Now, even if abortion as an act is immoral, an immoral act could still be justified if it is outweighed by a positive good. This depends on three things: the degree of the immorality of the act, the degree of the positive good, & whether there are alternative options available to circumvent the immoral act and attain the positive good.
Regarding the first, I think both options 2 & 4 present a great evil.
Abort73 furthers:
“Uncertainty as to whether a building is occupied does not give an exterminator the right to fumigate. Uncertainty as to whether an overturned bassinet is empty does not give a truck driver the right to plough through it. Uncertainty as to whether a walk-in freezer has been vacated does not give a night manager the right to lock and bolt it. Uncertainty as to whether a high climber has moved to another tree does not give a lumberjack the right to fell the timber. And uncertainty over whether a person is really dead does not give a mortician the right to light the furnace. Personal conviction makes no difference. The absence of human life must be completely verified before any of these actions can take place.”
I also think it wouldn’t be inaccurate to reject the Pro-Choice differentiation between humanity and personhood altogether.
Further citing my debate with Seldiora,
“Because the Pro-Choice metrics of defining personhood are indistinct and immeasurable, the voter should prefer the objective Pro-Life standard: “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.”Under this standard, the abortion debate is instantly settled.......Indeed, it is better to draw the line at killing a human being. If we did not, what else would be the metric we use to draw it?If PRO thinks personhood begins with consciousness, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or severely developmentally handicapped are “not people” under PRO’s logic and can be freely killed with no moral repercussion.If PRO thinks life begins with the “ability to respond to stimuli,” we run into the same logical blunders: what about people in a vegetative state?The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.Maybe PRO thinks it is “viability,” that is also nonsensical. Are people on life support who are technically “unviable” less than a human person?
This would escalate the severity of the crime to blatant murder.
The other thing to consider is the circumstances that has lead to the perceived need of such an abortion, starting with the decision to have sexual intercourse in the first place. An act of evil is less severe if the actor was forced to make the decision due to circumstances out of their control (i.e. rape). Yet that’s not what we see for greater than 99.5% of abortion cases.
Abortions happen typically when a couple has sex without taking proper precautions.
A study took polls of those who had abortions and asked them if they were using condoms or contraceptives at the time of pregnancy, and they asked them if they were using these consistently.
While 42% of the condom-users reported failure, inconsistent use was reported by half of those using condoms as well. Once you consider that only 1/250 condoms breaks (0.4%), the study shows that inconsistent use was the biggest contributor to unwanted pregnancy.
The results are similar with contraceptives, which are 91%+ effective, as 3/4ths of those taking them reported inconsistent use.
Using a condom consistently, and using a contraceptive if it fails consistently is next to foolproof statistically. There is also the tried and true method of abstinence.
IEP furthers:
“when a person voluntarily engages in a behavior which can produce reasonably foreseeable consequences, and the agent is a proximate and primary cause of those consequences, then it follows that the agent has obligations with respect to those consequences. In the case of procreation, the child needs care. To fail to provide it is to allow harmful consequences to obtain. Since the agent is causally responsible for the existence of a child in need of care, then the agent is morally responsible to provide it. “
The agent should not simply forgo their responsibility by killing that child. Such an act is beyond abhorrent.
Moving to the second factor, then, abortion must reap a very large positive good in this scenario to outweigh the act itself… Unfortunately, it doesn’t. It is preferable to live in crappy conditions than to not live at all.
I addressed this some in my debate with Seldiora, when he asked: “what about disabled children, who may live an entire life of suffering?”
To which I responded:
“As you have admitted, life is a continuous process. If this is the case, why stop preventing the suffering at birth? Why not kill 80 year old disabled people so that their remaining years will be pain-free?
Hopefully you will see CON’s point. Furthermore, who are you to decide which life is or is not worth living? What level of suffering is the threshold? Where do you draw the line?”
Expanding this idea to poverty, Abort73 writes:
“Isn't it true that there are born-children, today, who are growing up in poverty? Has anyone ever heard someone argue that the mothers of these born-children should have the right to kill them, since they can't afford to raise them? No one makes such an absurd and heartless argument because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is sufficient rationale for killing another human being, particularly an innocent child. On a practical level, there are more crisis pregnancy care centers in America today than there are abortion providers. They all function to help bring women through their pregnancies by providing them the emotional and financial assistance they need to carry to term and, if need be, place for adoption (which would relieve all future financial obligation). When help is needed, help can be found.”
This form of argument additionally assumes that if you live impoverished or in crappy conditions your life is nothing but pain. That’s objectively false in every case without fail.
C. Everett Koop, who pioneered the field of pediatric surgery, points out that
"some of the most unhappy children have all of their physical and mental faculties, while some of the happiest youngsters have borne burdens which most of us would find very difficult to endure."
In every life, there is the good & there is the bad. Even if there is a little good and a lot of bad, who are we to say that life is not worth living? Additionally, who are we to say that someone’s conditions won’t improve over time?
Research shows there are 3 basic things that any person can do to be successful: finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until 21 to marry and have children.
The results speak for themselves:
“Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year).”
Addressing the foster home PTSD thing specifically, if anything the presence of foster homes and orphanages supports my argument.
Tying this into the third factor (that is, “whether there are alternative options available to circumvent the immoral act and attain the positive good”), a foster home or an orphanage is not at all a net negative existence. While it’s true that these systems are not perfect, overall they are very positive forces for society. Have you heard anyone argue to kill born orphans so that they can avoid the prospective chance of developing PTSD (Which, by the way, many people live with just fine)?
Thought not.
If those options exist, then, how then do we justify abortion? The answer is simple: we can’t.
That’s why many people argue the orphanage/foster care system will be overrun if we outlaw abortion.
Newsflash: it won’t.
Abort73 writes:
"The National Council for Adoption (NCFA) points out that "there are many couples hoping to adopt for every one adoptable infant." Their studies show that one-third of all women, aged 18-44, have considered adopting, and their coverage of the dramatic rise in international adoptions is further evidence that the demand to adopt is well ahead of the number of infants available to be adopted.
The NCFA also points out that roughly 98% of the unmarried women who give birth decide to parent their baby. Only 2% place for adoption.10 If you apply that percentage to the number of pregnancies currently being aborted each year, the abolition of abortion would require the adoption of approximately 20,000 additional babies each year.....
A second point to consider is this. If abortion were not an option, if women had to carry their children to full term and fathers couldn't bail themselves out of child support by paying for an abortion... The number of unplanned pregnancies would almost certainly go down. As it stands now, abortion is a safety net”
Finally, even if none of that were true, we could look back to what I said earlier:
“Using a condom consistently, and using a contraceptive if it fails consistently is next to foolproof statistically. There is also the tried and true method of abstinence.”
Those constitute alternatives in of themselves, do they not?
Hope this answers your question, TheUnderdog.
Created:
Posted in:
Hi all!
Wondering what sort of prospective theme splits you could have with Christmas.
Maybe Biblical Christmas vs. Christmas Tradition? Like Jesus and the Three Wise Men vs. Santa and the gang xD
Wondering what sort of prospective theme splits you could have with Christmas.
Maybe Biblical Christmas vs. Christmas Tradition? Like Jesus and the Three Wise Men vs. Santa and the gang xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I wanted to do LD just to get everyone accustomed to the format before the tournament. I also slightly adjusted the format to mesh well with team debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I'm going to make a constructive & some blocks.
I'll message you the links sometime tomorrow and you can give me your thoughts on them. In the meantime, are you familiar with how LD works? Have any questions on it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
It could be done through Discord voice chats probably
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Sounds good. We'll keep our prep ahead of time separate then.
As for in-debate prep time, do you like my idea of private voice chats for each team?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
yes. On that note, would you want to share cases for CON, or would you rather we have two different ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Probably the easiest method is for each team to have a private voice chat. They would mute themselves in whatever meet we did, and talk to eachother in the private voice chat during the prep time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@whiteflame
@Speedrace
@seldiora
Everyone has agreed to the 23rd except Armoredcat, who has dropped out. Fortunately, Speedrace has joined us which keeps our plan basically the same. I would like to get the debate going the 23rd at around 7 PM. If that time is OK with everyone, then great. If not, we can make different arrangements
Here is the official breakdown. Make sure to coordinate prep privately with each of your partners!!
Topic: "Resolved: The European Union should join the Belt and Road Initiative."
R1:
PRO Team First Speaker: David
PRO Team Second Speaker: Speedrace
CON Team First Speaker: Seldiora
CON Team Second Speaker: MisterChris
Moderator: Whiteflame
R2:
PRO Team First Speaker: Speedrace
PRO Team Second Speaker: David
CON Team First Speaker: Seldiora
CON Team Second Speaker: Whiteflame
Moderator: MisterChris
ROUND STRUCTURE:
NOTE: In order to accommodate the teams system I will be making slight changes to the traditional LD structure template.
6min - Pro Constructive (1st Speaker)
Now only 2min - Con CX's Pro (1st Speakers)
7min - Con Constructive followed by Initial Rebuttal (1st Speaker)
Now only 2min - Pro CX's Con (1st Speakers)
4min - Pro Rebuttal and Defense (2nd Speaker)
6min - Con Rebuttal and Defense (2nd Speaker)
ADDED ROUND: 2min- Final CX (2nd Speakers)
3min - Pro Final Rebuttal and Defense (2nd Speaker)
As David summarizes nicely: "each team has 4 minutes of prep time which they may use at their discretion, so long as it does not interrupt an ongoing speech or CX."
For prep: Probably the easiest method is for each team to have a private voice chat. They would mute themselves in whatever meet we did, and talk to eachother in the private voice chat during the prep time.
Handy guide on LD debate: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Lincoln-Douglas-Debate-Textbook.pdf
Demo Round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw6Nvv8UMbU
We will allow some time for group feedback & discussion after each round. I will also be taking feedback on how to improve these practice sessions, as I want to make them a more regular event on the site. Overall, I just want this to be a chill event where we can debate in a low pressure environment and improve. No need for strict moderation really, but we do need to keep things moving as each round will be like 40 mins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No town would ever have a vote thief in a game because it’s a scum role yet town was about to bandwagon the lynch on Ragnar.
It's only a scum role? Reading Drafter's wiki it looked like it could be either
Created: