Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
We should VTNL so that Singularity can change his vote
That sounds really scummy. It's LYLO. If we vtnl, town loses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Oh good. I'd forgotten that. My blood pressure must be really high right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
As Pie pointed out, Zaradi is confirmed town anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
UNVOTE THIS INSTANT! Scum will hammer if you don't!!!
Created:
Posted in:
Supra was town, so the caroler story was probably true (unless he just pulled another stupid gambit). If you are the caroler, claim now.
Created:
Posted in:
To all remaining town players: Do not VTL until we can are are as sure as possible that we've caught scum, or the mafia will blitz us and win.
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Thanks. That was my favorite part to write. My plan is to post a History Explained episode in the middle of the month between editions of the Bard.
Created:
Posted in:
It's an interesting role, but it is really swingy. Testing it in a QF would be good. For a larger game, you would definitely want to have a VP as well.
Created:
Disclaimer: This is purely for entertainment. It is not intended to parody any specific person, nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of any political movements mentioned in it. I am entirely aware that no one actually thinks like this (I hope, anyway). This is completely satirical. None of the below content necessarily reflects my own opinions and beliefs.
HISTORY EXPLAINED
Episode 1, 1/20/2020: The Fall of Rome
A production of the DART Bard
Featuring Trum Porter
Editor's Note: In our modern days, ignorance of basic history has become rampant. In this new project of the Bard, we are trying to educate the public about history in a fun but informative way. We are excited to announce the first episode in our series History Explained.
The Fall of Rome
In the early years of the fourth century, the great Roman Empire was secure under the reign of its Emperor, Constantine. His acceptance of Judeo-Christian values was a major reason he was able to reunite the Empire and protect it from invaders. After he died, however, the emperors after him relied on extortion and corruption. They paid for this deep state corruption with inflation. I probably don't have to tell you that they were Democrats. At the same time, the Roman leaders foolishly allowed illegal German immigrants to settle within their lands. This invasion of illegals was one of the major reasons the Empire collapsed. Beyond any doubt, they should have built a big, beautiful wall to keep Rome great; however, the liberals were in charge. Finally, Emperor Julian (R) began an anti-deep-state campaign in 360. He even fought a war against the Sassanids, knowing that wars are, of course, great and easy to win. Sure, he encouraged non-Christian religions, but hey, he was an emperor, not a pastor. King David wasn't perfect either. Most importantly, he sent the Roman army to deal with the illegal immigrants from Germany. Sadly, the deep state prevented him from making them pay for a wall. Less than two years later, the great Roman Empire split into two pieces once again. The official story was that it was split between the brothers Valens and Valentinian, but we know from Breitbart that the real reason was that a civil war started when the deep state tried to ban assault swords. After that, Rome began to fall harder and faster. German barbarians fleeing the Huns invaded Rome just like illegal immigrants invade America today. After that, the Huns themselves invaded. The only bright spot was when the leader of the Christian church in Rome, Leo I, was able to negotiate with one of the Vandal leaders to avoid any further death during one of the many sacks of Rome (remember when I said that Judeo-Christian values helped Constantine keep Rome together? Here they are, WINNING again). Finally, in 476, the Empire was unable to defend itself and fractured into multiple states.
The lesson to be learned here is obvious. The Romans continually failed to build a wall and allowed deep state libs to run the country into the ground. Had they chosen to Make Rome Great Again, they might have avoided their eventual collapse to the invading illegal immigrants. This is why it's so important to keep Dimocrats out of office and keep America great, so we avoid the fate of Rome.
Trum Porter is an Oklahoma-based journalist and the author of multiple books, including best-sellers Constantine: Making Rome Great Again and Orange Man Good.
Click here for this month's edition of the Bard:
I've noticed that my normal satire makes fun of the left more than the right, so I decided to switch it up with this. What parts do you think worked, and what parts didn't? I'd be glad to know how I can improve in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Do you know what else happened that year? A white, Republican male got inaugurated! How can you celebrate the progress of women's rights when the patriarchy is still in power? You're not outraged enough. Get woke!
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
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...
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Basically, Ragnar said something completely out of the ordinary, and it made me suspicious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I meant that I have never seen anyone say that in a mafia game. I meant it in the same way I would mean, "I've never heard a Monopoly player say that." I didn't notice that what I said could have multiple meanings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Dude, that was when, like, the moon landing happened. We don't, like, celebrate American accomplishments here. What do you think I am? A nationalist? No way, dude!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Well, everyone has claimed not caroler. It would seem that SupaDudz is pulling one of his gambits.
I'll trust your ability and judgement to control the DP. While I get the irony as I'm putting this on your shoulders, but please don't let people pressure you too much.
I really, really do not like this post. I have never heard of a mafia player saying something like this. Still, lynch all liars, and confirm town while doing it.
VTL Zaradi
Ok, if you're telling the truth, please redirect the lynch to Supa for lying.
Created:
Posted in:
To the caroler:
You need to claim right now. If you don't, then you will be directly responsible for the mislynch of a town player, which you could have easily prevented. At this point, it is far more important to claim and aid POE than it is to stay hidden and try to be safe. Do not cause the death of a towny and send us to LYLO. You need to claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
If someone claims caroler, it would be a mistake to redirect the lynch to you. Pie, me, Ragnar, or Speed would be better. However, if no one claims caroler, then you are the most logical option.
Created:
Posted in:
Disclaimer: This is purely for entertainment. It is not intended to parody any specific person, nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of the environmental movement. I am entirely aware that no one actually thinks like this (I hope, anyway). This is completely satirical. I do not believe any of this, nor does any of this reflect my viewpoints in any way.
Record: 28-34
Last time: 1-3
Firstly, I must apologize for my failure to predict the conference championships. What can I say to excuse my negligence? How shall I excuse my reckless disregard for the environment? I cannot. I can only seek to do better. That must be the motto of all of us. Secondly, since this is the Super Bowl, the football championship to end all football championships, the greatest sports event of the year, I must be especially careful to get this one right. This is my last chance to make up for my failures. If I can get this one right, then I will know that there is hope left.
Chiefs vs. 49ers
This truly is a despicable choice. The epitome of cultural appropriation, racism, white supremacy, political incorrectness, colonialism, and who-knows-what-all against greedy capitalist white men who colonized the West, massacred Native Americans, committed crimes, swindled, and used guns(!!!). It is a plain reflection of our failures to protect the earth that has let us fall this low. If this is the best our culture can offer, then it is no wonder Trump is president. However, for the sake of Mother Earth, we must get this right. Both the 49ers and the people who came up with the chiefs mascot used guns. Both were white. Both were racist. One committed genocide, and the other celebrates it in the KKK meetings - excuse me, RepubliKLAN meetings. Both were capitalists. The 49ers do have one distinct advantage: the higher-ups who picked the Chiefs mascot were 1%ers. Most of the miners were not. This is a huge advantage. On the other hand, those 1%ers were not involved in the rape of the natural world known as mining. This is also a huge advantage. Back to the first hand, more 49ers had guns that the 1%ers. Sure, those guys who culturally appropriated chiefs have security guards with guns, but we always ignore that fact because they do all the proper virtue signalling whenever there's a mass shooting. However, the 49ers did not control politics with their wealth, because most of them didn't have any. The "Chiefs" probably did (because that's what rich guys do, bruh!). But in the end, the final point is clear: many of the Chiefs players kneeled during the National Anthem to protest racism. While it is incredibly obvious that these millionaire athletes are the most privileged people on the planet who have as much room to talk about oppression as Harvey Weinstein does to talk about women's rights, we always overlook such things so long as the celebrities agree with progressive policies. At the very least, these guys protested racism by causing a great stench in the NFL and making it lose large numbers of viewers, thereby sabotaging there own business and influencing people against their protests. The 49ers, however, did not pander to us with such blatantly obvious shallow virtue signalling. The Chiefs will go home with the win. The 49ers will go home to Europe after being expelled by indigenous people.
Chiefs: 28. 49ers: 27.
Created:
Posted in:
1-3. I weep, not only at my failure to get a positive record, but my failure to even take the time to score this, let alone my failure to predict the conference championships. My unconscious bias against the environment is more than I can bear. Inwardly, despite my best efforts, I am still a monster who hates the environment. Worse, I am still human, the oppressive race that is destroying the earth. Oh Al Gore, forgive me!
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
If I'm allowed to specify that the immigration is legal, then I would pick opening up immigration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I'm going to vote for Zaradi eventually, but I'm waiting to hear if Ragnar is the caroler or not. Once we know, then I'll vote. If Ragnar is not the caroler, I would strongly recommend that Zaradi redirect the lynch to Supa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Exactly. That's why we should lynch Zaradi after Ragnar claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
If this caroler thing was a gambit, you need to come clean now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Speedrace
Is there a good justification for Supa being a governor?
Created:
Posted in:
Either way. However, we should wait for Ragnar to get online. If he's not the caroler, then Zaradi should redirect the lynch to Supa.
Created:
Posted in:
I just had an idea. What if we lynch Zaradi? If Zaradi is town, then he can redirect the lynch to Pie. If he flips town, then you all lynch me next DP. That way, we can deal with all three of us in only two rounds. Of course, this presumes that Supa was telling the truth, which is looking less and less likely, unless Ragnar is the caroler, which would contradict his earlier vanilla claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
Ok. That's interesting. What's your preferred lynch?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Good, you fixed it. +1
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Firstly, your link leads to your Google Drive, not to an image. You are definitely going want to fix that immediately, because some of those pics could potentially be doxxing. I don't know for sure because I didn't want to invade your privacy.
Jesus says you can bloody and bruise your child with a rod, which is better than that child going to Hell because they misbehaved!
No. There is a difference between a few thwacks with a rod and making your child "bloody and bruise[d]." The Bible also says that fathers should not provoke their children in Ephesians 6. The level of beating you're advocating definitely qualifies as provocation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
What do you mean? Can you confirm yourself, or are you referring to confirming yourself by getting lynched?
Created:
Posted in:
Someone is lying. Everyone has either claimed a role or claimed not caroler.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It isn't. However, I don't think artificial intelligence is a possibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
You, me, and Speed are the only ones who haven't claimed. Speed just claimed not caroler. I know I'm not the caroler. Are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Speedrace
I think the caroler should claim. It would form a town block. Yes, it could get the caroler NK'ed, but I honestly don't think it will matter. We should be able to figure out who's scum by POE even without any more caroler results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such tragedies. All these events occur in the context of a civil society that has millions of guns lawfully owned by citizens who use them for protection, hunting, sport, or work. There are also an unknown number of guns in the hands of criminals and others who are prohibited by law from possessing them."
I agree with this.
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)"
I also agree with this.
"The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
I'm about 95% sure I've read this study. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me to agree with here, because there are several different statements here. The first sentence I agree with. The second sentence is true but rather vague. The small number of responses in the studies they are talking about is about 4,000 to 6,000 responses per study (at least for the ones I've looked at). The third sentence seems to indicate that the study may have underestimated the total number of defensive gun uses because they didn't specifically ask about them.
Off-topic but you did bring it up. Leah is former atheist turned catholic and doesn't have a wiki. Carl is well I don't have enough information. To this I say Fox having Shepard Smith is an outlier to the right leaning organisation. Leah alone discredits this being a left leaning authored read so I reject it.
Firstly, this is a complete non sequitir. Simply because she's Catholic doesn't mean that she's on the right. Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic, but no one would say that means she isn't on the left. Secondly, even if she is on the right, that doesn't discredit the article. The Left does not have a monopoly on truth.
Read the first quote that I gave earlier and do tell me how this person doesn't lack nuance.
Firstly, even if she "lack[s] nuance," I don't see what that proves. Secondly, the answer to your question is extremely easy. Lives lost to individual homicides are just as important as lives lost to mass shootings. Yes, mass shootings cause more trauma, but they don't kill more people. Statistically speaking, mass shootings are an outlier. According to this rather anti-gun biased source, there have been 941 lives lost to mass shootings in the US since 1999. https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html
Since there have probably been a few more since the article was written, I'll do this math assuming 960 lives lost. Over 20 years, that's 48 a year. Yes, that is "a small fraction of the roughly 8,000 gun murder incidents in the U.S. each year." You are being quite disingenuous here.
If we look at this link we find out the last mass shooting was in 1996. Now this might not mean firearms act worked but something did for the UK to literally have no mass shooting in 24 years when the US had one in December 10 2019.
Actually, if we follow that link we find that there was a mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 that killed 12 and injured 11. That same source also lists several other mass murders committed with weapons other than guns. However, this focus on mass murder is misguided. The goal is to save as many lives as possible. Even if a country succeeds in eliminating mass murder, if their overall murder rate hasn't gone down, they haven't saved any lives. They've just swept the problem under the rug because the media doesn't report on instances of individual homicides as much as they do on mass murders.
Literally no one uses a counter-factual because no one can test it.The more I read the more it looks like this person doesn't know what she is talking about.
Firstly, this is an overgeneralization that you haven't supported. Secondly, the author is correct in saying that we don't know how many mass shootings there would have been otherwise. She actually shows awareness that the counter-factual can't be tested in the very sentence you're criticizing when she says "It's hard to calculate." Thirdly, this is nitpicking taken to an extreme. No one uses 100% good logic 100% of the time. Having one minor statement that you don't like does not discredit everything else in the article. Fourthly, your opinion that "she doesn't know what she's talking about" is based solely on the author "lacking nuance" and using a counter-factual. That is really, really thin.
All that Leah gave here was conjecture. Nothing to support her claims only possibilities.
Oh really? Let's examine the quoted passage.
In parts of Great Britain, there isn’t strong evidence the ban and buyback saved lives.
This is stating a conclusion that she is about to support.
After the new gun law was implemented in 1996, the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales kept rising through the 1990s, peaking in 2003 and 2004 before subsiding.
This right here is sufficient to dismiss your assertion that there is "[n]othing to support her claims only possibilities." The authors link to a CNN article that directly substantiates their claim. The article states:
According to bare statistics, the ban initially appeared to have little impact, as the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003/04.
In addition to directly contradicting one of your later claims, this is clear substantiation of the 538 authors' claims.
The post-2004 drop is hard to credit to the buyback and possibly occurred because of an increase in the number of police officers.
This sentence states a fact that can be independently verified - that there was an increase in the number of police officers. Because it is known that greater numbers of police officers leads to an decrease in crime, it is clear that "the post-2004 drop is hard to credit to the buyback" because there was another important factor that would drastically change the results.
It’s possible that any effect of the ban, positive or negative, was swamped by other factors affecting gun violence.
This is the only sentence of which your dismissal is true. It does just state a possibility without direct substantiation.
There has been one notable mass shooting in Great Britain since the law was passed, making it hard to judge whether the law has been a success in that respect.
This sentence also provides clear substantiation for its claims and is sufficient to dismiss your dismissal, as well as proving wrong your earlier assertion that there were no mass shootings in the UK since 1997. All in all, your dismissal that "All that Leah gave here was conjecture. Nothing to support her claims only possibilities." is clearly contradicted by the facts. She did in fact substantiate her claims.
Muted results? Here is a quote from the link: "In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated." 13 to 0 is a big decrease because mass shootings are small plus there has been no mass shootings. That is not muted results.
Yes, it is muted results. As I pointed out earlier, "Even if a country succeeds in eliminating mass murder, if their overall murder rate hasn't gone down, they haven't saved any lives. They've just swept the problem under the rug because the media doesn't report on instances of individual homicides as much as they do on mass murders." Australia's buyback failed to reduce the murder rate, so it didn't save any lives. Yes, that is very much muted results. Lives lost to individual homicides matter just as much as lives lost to mass murders.
Yes, there was. In 1997, there were about 11.8 homicides per million people. In the following years up to 2004, there were 11.6, 12.8, 14.4, 15.2, 17.9, and 14.6. Those numbers are directly from the graph (which does mean that all of them could be 0.1 off in either direction). That is a clear increase, followed by a return to a downward trend. Even the CNN article from earlier in this post acknowledged there was an increase.
Note: Your quote says "gun related deaths" but links to a graph showing the overall homicide rate. This could account for the discrepancy if you accidentally linked the wrong graph. The point, however, remains the same. The homicide rate increased after the gun ban. Whether or not the criminals used guns is quite irrelevant.
A medication might not work but it doesn't mean we throw out medication entirely. We just need to find one that works.
I'm aware of that. The HuffPo article was never intended as an argument. I'm sorry if including it confused you.
You can still compare. You can compare apples and oranges as both fruits with different tastes like how you can compare UK and US are both developed countries with different gun-related deaths.So we can only compare things if they are exactly the same?
No, they don't have to be exactly the same. However, because the UK's murder rate was lower than the US's even before the gun ban, the comparison is invalid. The difference in murder rates can't be attributed to the gun ban because the difference existed before the gun ban did. To use an example, it would be like arguing that Jeff Bezos is richer than I am because he played poker and I didn't (making the poker up for sake of demonstration). However, the poker can't be responsible for the difference in our net worths because he was already richer than I am before he played poker (unless I am Jeff Bezos being anonymous. I'll never say.).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Speedrace
I'd rather lynch Zaradi than Pie. I scumread Zaradi more. I'm still waiting for Ragnar to get active before I place a vote, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That could be a good idea. What does everyone else think? Should the caroler claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
What are your reads and analysis of the current situation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is totally ridiculous. Read my previous posts about the POE.Actually, anyone right now who is not 100 percent onboard with narrowing down supa's list of verifiable scum between the 3 is almost certainly scum today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am following the list. You are town. If there is one scum among myself, Pie, and Zaradi, then there must be one scum among Supa, Speed, and Ragnar. Since Supa is likely town, that leaves Speed and Ragnar. There's nothing complicated here.Follow the list, or look scummy, it's no skin off my back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's the process of elimination. There is one scum (probably) among the three names in the caroler report. We know you are town. We can be reasonably, though not by any means completely, sure that Supa is town. That only leaves Speed and Ragnar. Essentially, we got two caroler reports for the price of one.
Created: