Total posts: 4,276
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
The gambit doesn't work if you don't give scum any time to try and hammer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you guys wanna lynch me, fine.
You realize we're at MYLO
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'd be fine going after Barney or WF. Should be pretty self-evident why at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Are your actions roleblockable?
Pretty sure mine isn't.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Is this a viable bipartisan healthcare plan compromise?
No.
Now let's read the plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sunshineboy217
Well, if you win WW2 and create a lot of welfare programs that remain popular today, that can overshadow a lot of other stuff. Here's how Sienna ranks him by category:
Background: #5
Party leadership: #1
Communication ability: #1
Relations with Congress: #2
Court appointments: #2
Handling of economy: #1
Luck: #5
Ability to compromise: #2
Willing to take risks: #3
Executive appointments: #3
Overall ability: #2
Imagination: #4
Domestic accomplishments: #3
Integrity: #16
Executive ability: #3
Foreign policy accomplishments: #1
Leadership ability: #3
Intelligence: #10
Avoiding crucial mistakes: #4
Experts' view: #2
Overall: #1
Court appointments seems vastly overrated given the court packing scandal, but the fact that it failed plus looking at who was appointed in isolation may explain the score. Integrity is his lowest ranking, which probably does a lot of heavy lifting for the internment camps. Should probably be counted as a crucial mistake, though. But then they put an abolitionist and a slave owner as #1 and #2 for integrity, so who knows what these scores even mean. If they're factoring in things like "imagination," that leaves a lot of room for bias. Hitler had a ton of imagination. Also easy to have a good relationship with Congress when your party has a strong majority. But again, court packing to try and get around Congress should probably make that score lower.
Another interesting thing is that the presidents ranked as luckiest tend to be ranked high everywhere else too. Just sort it by "overall" and look at the "luck" column or vice versa. It's like the rankers are noting a potential source of bias or conflating skill with outside factors and should account for it, but it still skews how the presidents are ranked. If you were around when good things happened, you get a high score. Though, tbf, I don't know how WW2 or the Depression make FDR "lucky." Like it's good news because you get to take credit for solving them? I don't know.
Created:
-->
@Sunshineboy217
If betting odds are accurate, it will probably be overturned. If not, well, there's an opportunity to go make some money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Austin has something going for him. Lunatic does as well.
Fair. I expect at least one of them to be town, so it's Barney or WF.
Created:
-->
@Sunshineboy217
He was a utopian buffoon.
Maybe that's too harsh. I'd probably classify him as a good philosopher but a bad economist, which would match the reception he gets in each respective field. You can be a good philosopher and still wrong almost all the time.
But at least most people who follow the work of Socrates, Plato, Keynes, or Newton admit that the field has advanced past them. Occasionally you get someone like Marx with a cult of personality that insists all modern research that contradicts them is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
How so?
It came after WF said his scum reads were Luna and JoeBob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Luna jumping on JoeBob seemed kind of opportunistic. WF seemed to be on JB faster, but WF is townie every game so it's not always easy to tell.
Created:
Posted in:
Has GP been confirmed? Somehow I vaguely remember that happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You and Mharman and have been somewhat confirmed already, no? That means 3 out of GP/Luna/Austin/Barney/WF are scum. I'm most inclined to town read WF and scum read Luna, but Luna might have saved you last night, so I'm not sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
rises again harder
Okay, they knew what they were doing with that line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
his role claim is net negative to town
Doesn't matter. If we lynch town we're dead since we're at LYLO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd expect 2 third parties in a game as large as this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Poor reasoning here. You're assuming I don't have multiple things going on.
Ok, I buy this. Wanted to see your response though before I started giving potential outs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Scum can definitely work around it. They can observe while logged out, or scum could urge me to unvote. But if they're lazy, it allows us to trap them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Barney was last online 6 minutes ago. I find it suspicious that he didn't say anything when I voted, despite us likely being at LYLO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
It almost worked once. I caught scum and unvoted, but with third party they had enough votes to lynch me even without my vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
That was a test. I was going to wait for another vote and then unvote, exposing scum. Based on your reaction, I'm pretty sure you are town.
Created:
Posted in:
Wait just realized something. Think I have the game solved.
VTL Whiteflame
Created:
Posted in:
I was initially planning to wait for a likely MYLO day phase and wait to see if scum outed themselves. Come to think of it, I probably should have done that this day phase, but when WyIted messaged me and recommended he out me, I just went with that.
But we are likely at LYLO, so no one vote unless you are 110% sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@ILikePie5
@Mharman
@AustinL0926
May as well full claim at this point. My character is "Israel's suspicious activity during 9-11" and my role is crisis actor. When I die I will come back to life but it's up to me when to announce I'm not dead. WyIted warned me last night that if I didn't reveal myself today, the town would lose. I'm guessing that means there are four scum left, or three scum plus a third party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Why not change the constitution?
Most of the concern I've seen (legit or not) is that Trump would go around the constitution. Since amending it at this point would be impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Your only argument is status quo ism.
If leaders don't respecting the laws of a country, you get civil war.
Your ideal policy for Canada should be the same as the US.
My ideal policy is no term limits, but I don't support violating the constitution to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Left wingers: How DARE Trump want a 3rd term! This is TYRANNY!!!
Because it violates the US constitution, and Trump is president of the US. The US constitution does not put term limits on members of Congress, so it's not tyranny for members of Congress to run for more than two terms.
Me: Thoughts on term limit free Canada?
Canada is not bound by the US constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Kings get to take their cut from the top unlike welfare which starts at the bottom.
Hardly relevant. It's all money from the same pot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Exactly. If welfare is shameful, then so is being a king who gets their salary from taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The taxes are the sum total of taxes collected from his people.
Yeah, that's where welfare comes from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
The Jew conspiracy
I mean, they definitely control the weather. Otherwise how do you explain the seven plagues of Egypt?
But other than that, what's the conspiracy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
As for me, the Jewish question changed my perspective in terms of differentiating between Whites & Jews, their motives & beliefs. A lot makes a lot more sense to me now.
Dare I ask for elaboration?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
better than living on welfare handouts.
How do you think the king makes a living?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Even today people who live on welfare are ashamed to be on it.
Still better than pooping in a bucket.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
No king would give up his kingdom to live on modern welfare.
Yeah because someone that involved in politics is obviously willing to risk a lot to rule a kingdom. But I'm betting most people if given the option would rather have today's living standards. Maybe they think they'd rather be king, but give them a taste of both lifestyles and I'm betting they'd rather get handouts than spend their life pooping in a bucket.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
their position is much more precarious, their relationships are less secure
Kings got assassinated by family members all the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Right now Earth lynch is better than no lynch imo. He could betray town easily at the end, or he could be scum and lying.
Created:
Posted in:
Honestly, I think it's unlikely third party wouldn't be allowed to joint win. Otherwise it makes much of the game feel wasted. And hindsight bias means Earth would be more inclined to see his claim as believable if he knows it was true (interesting article on that here, see page 4). So he probably can win with town. But there's always that chance he can't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Explain why a person who doesn't read their role pm isn't scummy. She didn't say at first her role and justification was seperate, so from my POV she didn't know the most basic thing a townie should know about their role if pressured, if she was scum thats a convienent excuse to avoid pressure.
You know what, fine. This argumentativeness is reminding me of games when you were town.
VTL Earth
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Great we have an outted TP to lynch
Maybe. I keep going back and forth on this, but I'd like to go after scum first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@ILikePie5
I can joint win with Town.
I don't know if I trust this. How would be even confirm it?
Created: