Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not a scumslip. Presuming that the caroler results contain only one scum, then either Speed or Ragnar is scum by POE. Since Speed knows his own affiliation, he can be 90% certain of Ragnar's.
Created:
Posted in:
Singularity: Press Restless Spirit
Town:
SirAnonymous: I know I'm town.
Greyparrot Shab MASON: He's confirmed town because he is the other mason, which was confirmed by Water.
Lean Town:
SupaDudz Drafter BULLETPROOF: He seems to be playing according to his usual M.O. His claim is strong and is the best explanation for the lack of an NP1 NK.
Lean Scum:
ILikePie and Zaradi: I'm listing these two together because of the caroler results. I don't know whether Pie's inactivity or Zaradi's poor logic is more scummy. Since I know I'm town, one of these two is scum.
Ragnar Warren VANILLA
And Speedrace: I'm listing these two together because of the caroler results. Presuming that there is only one scum in the caroler results and that Supa is town, which I'm fairly sure he is, POE dictates that either Speed or Ragnar is the last scum. I'm leaning more toward Ragnar being scum based on behavior, but I'm not certain of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I could go along with a Ragnar lynch, although I want to wait for him and Pie to get active before voting. You do seem to have your mind set on a Ragnar lynch, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Caroler/Comedian are the same role.
Actually they aren't. Carolers send a message about 3 people, of whom at least 1 is scum. Comedians send a message about a player who is one of three roles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There is a lynch wagon on you and good reason to suspect it's right. What is your defense?
Created:
Posted in:
I think Supa is telling the truth about the caroler results. Firstly, we can be sure that he did receive them. If he's scum and made them up, he would be caught when it was discovered that there was no caroler. Of course, if he's scum, he could be lying about what he received. However, I think it's rather unlikely that he's scum. His BP claim is still the best explanation for the no kill in NP1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If the media was honest, a firearm's capability would indeed be more relevant. However, the media persists in calling firearms such as the AR-15 assault rifles even though they're not, inventing made-up categories like "assault weapons" to demonize guns for the sole reason that they look scary, and falsely claims that various guns were designed to kill people, even though that isn't the case. The point of arguing against such things is to expose it for the fearmongering it is. In the OP, I linked to a video showing the results of legislation based on such propaganda. I'm aware that this sort of argument is almost totally disconnected from what the guns actually do. However, so is the propaganda, and that is the point I was trying to make with this thread.Why do you think it is at all relevant what a weapon is designed for? Don't you think that what a weapon is capable of should be more relevant? That is what you seem to imply in the OP but the quote above appears to contradict this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Disgusting (or should I say disgusted?), and where would you find that many cannibals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
A 30 round mag has no purpose other than to kill people. It is completely unnecessary.
Firstly, that's wrong. Thirty round mags are also good for sporting. But again, what do you mean by "kill people"? Self-defense can involve "killing people". Against multiple assailants, a 30-round mag is very useful. You can continue to use charged terms like "kill people", but that is just obfuscating the fact that killing people is not always murder and is sometimes required in self-defense.
If you don't need a 30 round mag to shoot at anything in the real world, then why would you need one in a "sporting" environment?
Because reloading is an inconvenience, and convenience is more fun. However, what many people who support bans on standard-capacity magazines (note that I say standard, because that's what they actually are) don't realize is that it's just an inconvenience. It only takes a few seconds to reload. Simply put, a ban on such magazines would just annoy mass shooters and not do much to stop them. Furthermore, mass shootings are incredibly rare. Fewer than 1000 people have died in a mass shooting over the last 20 years. People are more likely to die by being struck by lightning.
as for self defense, we are right back to the primary purpose of the mag, killing people. but your point is kind of dumb. If the assailants have guns and the person engaging in self defense have guns, you get a blood bath.
Honestly, I have no sympathy if criminals die in a bloodbath. As I pointed out to TRN, there are 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses annually according to a CDC study. There are only 10,000-11,000 gun homicides annually. Overall, guns save lives.
Everyone is much, much safer and better off guns are not part of the equation at all.
The criminals are safer, that is. The victims? Not so much.
They are designed for shooting people.
Again, you are obfuscating with "people." There is a world of difference between being designed for killing innocent people, killing enemy soldiers, and killing assailants. And once again, you are ignoring that these "assault weapons" can be and are used for hunting and sporting and are designed for those purposes. The principal targets of assault weapons bans - AR-15s - were specifically designed for civilians. They were not designed for the battlefield. They were not designed for murder. They were designed for civilian purposes, i.e. hunting, sporting, and self-defense. This is an objective fact.
Whether the shooter is military or civilian is irrelevant for the people designing the gun. They just want to sell their guns.
That's true, but irrelevant. Yes, the manufacturers would be fine with it if militaries (The stupid spellchecker thinks that isn't a word) bought their "assault weapons." However, that doesn't change the fact that the functions and features of these "assault weapons" are designed for civilians and not militaries. No military in their right mind would choose to buy semi-auto AK-47s and AR-15s when they can get selective fire AK-47s and M4s. That's because the former weapons are designed for civilians. In fact, they are actually less dangerous than many typical deer-hunting rifles, to the point where it is actually illegal in 6-7 states to hunt deer with guns of the AR-15s caliber because it frequently isn't powerful enough to kill them and just leaves them to suffer.
Not true. A many guns are designed for hunting and that is perfectly fine.
Guns are designed for multiple purposes. A gun that can be used for hunting can also be used for self-defense. A gun designed for self-defense can also be used for sporting. A gun designed for sporting can also be used for hunting. Guns are not designed only for hunting or only for "killing people". That just isn't reality.
But a handgun, an AR15 etc are exclusively designed for killing people.
Again, you are obfuscating with "killing people". See above. And again, this is objectively false. AR-15s are designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense. There are all sorts of handguns designed for all sorts of things. Some are for law enforcement and militaries. All of them are for self-defense and sporting. Guns are designed for multiple purposes.
What there is a problem with is the millions of killing machines being sold and used in america under the guise of "self defense" when the majority of them never, ever get used for that purpose. Guns cause far more problems than they solve.
See my reply to TRN and the evidence involving the defensive uses of guns and the ineffectiveness of gun control. Simply put, gun control does not save lives. When guns are banned, criminals use illegally obtained guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons.
Would she? Statistically, if she has a gun she is much more likely to be killed.
That is a debunked myth based on a study using highly questionable methods.
https://guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html (Read section 15)
She would be much better off if neither she, nor the criminals had easy access to guns.
Actually, a majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, so I don't see how making it even more illegal for them to get those guns would help.
https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/
And again, see the sources I provided to TRN showing that gun control doesn't reduce murder, showing that the single mother would not be any better off with an "assault weapons" ban.
Semi automatic weapons have the ability to kill a large number of people in rapid succession if they can fire 30 round mags. I mean they can fire a significant number of bullets in a matter of seconds. If they only had, for example, 5 round mags, then their ability to kill people would be drastically reduced by the added need to reload.
This actually isn't true. "what many people who support bans on standard-capacity magazines (note that I say standard, because that's what they actually are) don't realize is that it's just an inconvenience. It only takes a few seconds to reload. Simply put, a ban on such magazines would just annoy mass shooters and not do much to stop them. Furthermore, mass shootings are incredibly rare. Fewer than 1000 people have died in a mass shooting over the last 20 years. People are more likely to die by being struck by lightning."
Simply put, a ban on standard capacity mags would handicap the average citizen's ability to fight off multiple assailants, costing innocent lives, but would only succeed in slightly inconveniencing people committing crimes that are rarer than death by lightning strikes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
How do you respond to this:
Not sure about Zar, but his posts feel manufactured. In fact, when Zar was telling him that scum uses a mask and filters what they say, versus town who just says whatever, he didn't respondBesides that, I've modded a game where he was Mafia, as well as played in games where he was Mafia. Last time, I correctly predicted that he was scum, so going with my gut again this time seems wise
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Oh. Ignore my last post. I didn't refresh the page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Firstly, you said Zar when you meant Ragnar. Secondly, why did you say "Just no reason" a minute ago when I asked you why you were voting for him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
So you have no reason, but you just want to lynch him and move on? Interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
What's the motivation behind lynching Ragnar? I'm not opposed to lynching him, but I would like to hear your take on it. Also, I'm waiting to see if anyone has any results before I vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I suppose he does have significant experience as mafia. Why don't you think I should claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Thanks. That's rather interesting. I would say that it does disprove the possibility of artificial intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
You could just be looking for power roles. I'm not saying you are scum. I just have no information to the contrary and am trying to be careful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Could you explain or provide a link to an explanation of the Chinese room conundrum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
That is reasonable, but, as I've said, character claiming would make it easy to guess my role. As I've also said, if one other person asks me to claim, I will. I just want a little more surety that this push for a claim is motivated by towny reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know what POE is. There is exactly one town-confirmed person, and that's you. POE is a pipe dream with only one town-confirmed person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Quit it already! All we want is you to explain your reads. This isn't hard. Telling us to look at who we have that isn't in our town pile does not answer that question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's no comprehension fail. The only person in Zaradi's town pile other than himself is you. What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is always so frustrating. It's not that hard to write a few sentences explaining why you think what you say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is always so frustrating. It's not that hard to write a few sentences explaining why you think what you say.Instead of fighting over this you could maybe look at the people that are not in my townpile. That are also not in your townpile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Zaradi
Elaborate. I've had him as null all game long
+1. Explain your other reads as well. It doesn't help us to know what you think if you don't tell us why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would really help if you would explain why you think the things you say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
<br>Bro do I actually have to vote for you to get you to claim?
No. You just need one person to agree that I should claim. I've made that clear since page one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Do you think I should claim? Do you have any results?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
The roles are closely linked to the characters. It would be easy to guess my role from my character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
I was mafia in the Office. The last time I was mafia was a QF. Give me a bit to dig it up. I don't remember which it was.
Created:
Posted in:
Actually, why am I interrogating Grey? He's confirmed town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
That's pretty reasonable. If one more person asks me to claim, I'll gladly do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you think Supa and Zaradi are town?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
It matters because, for all I know, you're scum searching for power roles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
However, I would like to know if anyone else wants me to claim first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
I went to type on a mobile device, which is time-consuming. I do claim nerd, however. :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
I can claim. I will note that you have yet to do so, although I don't see that as much of a problem. Do you have a reason from wanting me to claim? Do you want others to claim as well? Or is this just pressure on a so far unpressured player? If the latter, I don't really blame you. However, I would like to know if anyone else wants me to claim first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Zaradi
<br>You wanna contribute to the game yet?
That would be nice. He's made about ten posts this whole game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
Firstly, when did Grey make that point? Secondly, only three living players - Grey, Supa, and Ragnar - have claimed, so no, I haven't.
Created: