Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think we should test RM's role. There doesn't seem to be any downside to doing so, and I think we have enough time to do it and still organize a DP1 lynch. It would normally take 6 votes to lynch someone, so that's how many votes we will need to test it. That being said, we absolutely should not hammer. If anyone hammers RM while his role is being tested, they will be lynched.
VTL RationalMadman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Show me a game with WF as Town where he does not get panicky when people reveal things about their identity in the theme or role.
Conspiracy Theory mafia DP1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I do not comprehend how go effectively play Mafia as a lurker.
That's easy. Just don't try at all and hope your team wins anyway!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Whuteflame is normally on edge as Town, he is calmer as scum.
I don't know about that. When I looked through his previous games, the only time I noticed him really being on edge was a game when GP deliberately tried to get modkilled. I didn't look too closely, though; I was mostly looking at how he reacted to needless DP1 claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You missed badger, Austin, and Supa. To be fair, they've made maybe 12 posts between the lot of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am completely okay voting wylted here, I feel town Wylted would read it and shut his mouth about it.
Well, I would hope so. I hadn't considered that he was openly speculating about someone else's role. Not very pro-town, that. Wylted is a bit of a wild card, so it's hard to say for sure. Still, that's more reason to suspect him than I have reason to suspect anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@That2User
Wylted and that2 are right
Well, ok then. Sometimes I just feel like I have no idea what I'm doing in this game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
How is that a scumslip? Yes, RM asked people to vote for him. However, that does not ipso facto mean that he wants people to vote for him to confirm his role. My impression was that he's trying to set up a Whiteflame vs. RM DP, so he's trying to force people to pick sides. If he wants people to vote for him to confirm his role, then I would expect him to simply say so. It's not that uncommon to have a role like that, but I've never once seen anyone with such a role try to use a scumhunt to get people to vote for them rather than just explicitly ask people to vote for them to confirm their role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I'm assuming that's a joke, but it flew right over my head. Is that a vote total or something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Greyparrot claimed early and in details. To me, this seems like a town play, but I dont have a strong opinion on it.
Greyparrot almost always does that. It doesn't indicate whether he's town or mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
But why not simply say that he wants people to vote for him because of his role? Why make up a confrontation with Whiteflame? What would that accomplish?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Why do you think that RM is trying to get people to vote for him rather than genuinely targeting Whiteflame? If he wanted people to vote for him to confirm a role, why wouldn't he just say so?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm beginning to dislike Best.Korea's logic. First the statistics, now repeatedly misunderstanding Whiteflame. I'm guessing it's just noob behavior, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Barney
@Vader
What is your analysis of RM's theory about Whiteflame being mafia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, it isn't much of an indication either way. Anti-town behavior needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. In this case, revealing too much information about one's character is an indication of an inexperienced town player more than it is of scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I didn't think about mafia using it to help fake claim. That's a good point.
Created:
Posted in:
Whiteflame and DP1 claiming:
Arkhamafia: Mafia. Whiteflame was calm about the early claims, but did discourage further claiming. He did wait a bit even after there were two full claims before discouraging claiming (unless I missed something earlier). They were TP claims, so that does change the dynamics a bit.
Conspiracy Theory Mafia: Town. RM was suspicious of WF and pushing him to soft claim on Page 1 of DP1. WF was calm about the claims, but discouraged further claiming.
NFL Mafia: Town. Not much in the way of excessive DP1 claiming here. Watching town mess up a popcorn, again, for absolutely no reason, did get my blood pressure up, though.
MMA: Mafia. Remained calm in the face of a mass claim, but discouraged further claiming.
RNG: Town. Not a lot of DP1 claims, so no behavior to analyze.
Ozark: Town. Not a lot of DP1 claims.
Went through more games without a lot of DP1 claims until I was over a year in the past. Not going to look further than that.
Overall, I don't see any evidence of Whiteflame panicking as town when there are a bunch of DP1 claims. He seemed calm as both town and mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
Regarding more notable events:
Best.Korea's full claim was a bad move, but I think it is more likely to be noob town than scum.
RM is far too certain that WF is scum. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong, so I will have to look into Whiteflame's behavior in past games, which I will do after finishing this post. Also, this feels more like town RM than mafia RM. It could be that RM is mafia and he's betting that people will think he's town if he plays to his meta of tunneling, so he just picked something vaguely suspicious and went for it. That's completely possible, but I think it's more likely he's town.
Wylted's theory that RM is trying to get people to vote for him seems quite far-fetched. If so, RM's plan would be:
1. Tunnel Whiteflame.
2. Hope that Whiteflame has an extreme case of OMGUS and tries to lynch RM.
3. Hope that the town believes Whiteflame more than himself and vote for RM.
Doesn't seem very likely at all. If RM wanted people to vote for him to confirm his role, it seems far simpler to just say, "I can be role-confirmed if you vote for me." I'm not sure whether this theory is more likely to come from a town Wylted or a mafia Wylted.
Created:
Posted in:
I see no downside to claiming gender and party. The only thing that helps mafia is information that would allow them to guess roles, and I can't see how gender and party would help them do that.
My governor is a Republican woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
your interactions seem to be to reply 1 message to each person as the day progresses, as in the fundamental aim seems to be to be active towards people for the sake of activity, is that how you normally approach mafia dp1? I don't really know you well in mafia.
Yes, actually. I am bad at developing scum reads, but better at working through logic. So I often do activity for activity's sake until people start arguing about their scumreads. At that point I can contribute more substantially by analyzing the logic. It's definitely not ideal strategy, but I am not an ideal player.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
the decision to sus inactivity from Supa and me but not from Badger, who chose to start by giving an excuse and nothing else, is a bit scummy.
I try to be more lenient to people with a real life excuse.
Created:
Posted in:
Now, maybe mafia knows there's no theme, for instance, so giving away character information doesn't matter.
Reread the OP and there is a theme.
Created:
Posted in:
I have no idea how to read BestKorea.
Barney hasn't said anything.
Badger claims he has an IRL excuse for inactivity.
Created:
Posted in:
Austin: Austin feels towny to me. The amount of information he gave about his governor doesn't seem like something mafia would do. Now, maybe mafia knows there's no theme, for instance, so giving away character information doesn't matter. Still, it seems more likely to come from town than from mafia.
That2: Leans town, but I've never seen her as scum that I remember, so I don't know what that looks like.
Supa: The fact that he said hello doesn't bother me. The fact that he hasn't said anything else does.
Whiteflame: Mostly inactive. Could be nothing, but I don't like it.
Nothing unusual from GP, RM, or Wylted yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
WyIted's math is correct. You were using the gambler's fallacy in your calculations. Anyone's probability of being scum is independent of whether they were scum in the past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
It's a soft claim anyway, and I do need to give out some info because I don't want to get lynched for lurking.
You don't have to give out info to avoid that. You just need to not lurk.
Plus, even if scum figures it out, there's still a large leap from my governor to my role (idk what pie was thinking).
Yeah, it's probably not a big deal with this theme.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
I wouldn't give out that much information if you want to keep your character secret. There are only 50 US governors. Any information that would distinguish your governor from the others can also be used to identify who it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
But you are completely correct that I normally read first, then post. Now that I think about it, I probably do that over 90% of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sir anonymous starts off making an excuse for inactivity and then reads and replies to Wylted, I feel Town SA would do this in reverse order.So I am happy to vote SA as is.
I'm too busy finding this bizarre situation to be absolutely hilarious to behave normally.
Created:
Posted in:
I switched off the VPN after logging in and refreshed the page, and I'm still logged in. Now I can troll the mods by switching countries every 5 minutes!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I was guessing that it might be something along those lines, but one can never be too sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am pretty much confirmed town after the stunt I pulled in the sign up thread. GP is confirmed town so this is a good start.
No pre-game activity is confirming of anything, unless the mod directly says so.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm having problems logging in to my account, so my activity will be very limited until that gets sorted out. The website thinks I am a bot if I log in from home, so I can only log in when I am either not at home or using a VPN, which I only have on one of my devices. I can still read the DPs to keep up, but I won't be able to say much. Hopefully this gets resolved quickly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
What, no last-minute rebalancing act? Those always go well!
Created:
Posted in:
It was sad to watch her descend into that level of vitriol. She was always aggressive, but that was something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I said IQ not EQ, everyone is going crazy here.There is no way at all a person with an IQ above 105 makes this reply to SirAnonymous after reading the posts he made.
That depends. Given that he eventually admitted that he uses "poor", "white trash", and "gay" as insults just to get under people's skin, it's quite possible that his goal is simply to get people riled up for the fun of it. If so, he's doing a pretty good job, and he probably doesn't actually believe half the things he says.
Of course, if he actually believes it, that's quite a different story.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you're still doing these, I'd like one. These are always entertaining.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There were some protests in that time period, but you make a good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Yes, it is. Sometimes my better judgment is overcome by my desire to see how trolls react when proven utterly wrong. The results, however, are invariably disappointing, as they simply change the subject and continue their ridicule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You are the kind of person who would have been silent during the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 30s
As you can see from the above, that is total rubbish.
Created:
Posted in:
No, he had 3. 3 out of 4 budgets. FY 2021, 2020, and 2019(rounding 985 billion)If you round 2019, sure. However, he was only half responsible for 2021's budget, so he was only fully responsible for one unrounded trillion dollar budget.
Long post, so I edited out the non-Trump parts. Does not criticize Trump.
As an aside, if you expect me to defend how much money Trump and the Republicans spent before Covid, you're not going to succeed. The Republicans have become very fiscally irresponsible.
Criticizes Trump for being fiscally irresponsible.
You mean Trump’s trillion dollar deficits?Trillion dollar deficit, singular. He only passed a trillion dollars in 2020. Three point one trillion, actually. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170And yes, I do mean that one. I also mean Biden's $2.8 trillion deficit in 2021. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58268And also Biden's $1.4 trillion deficit this year. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58592Those are the three deficits I meant. The first two had around $2 trillion in excess spending each, and the last had about half a trillion in excess.* There's a good argument that the first couple stimulus packages were justified, but they contributed to inflation justified or not.*By excess, I mean more than usual. We've had $0.5 - $1 trillion deficits regularly for a decade and a half.
Does not criticize Trump.
Oh, Trump had a trillion dollar deficit long before anyone ever heard the word Covid. So what caused his massive deficit?Actually he didn't. It didn't pass $1 trillion until 2020. But that's nitpicking. It was a trillion if we round up. So let's take a look at the federal budget in 2018.
Long post. I included only the part that mentioned Trump. No criticism here.
If you have Democratic executives in places like WI and PA changing the law singlehandedly, without any consultation or law change of the state legislatures, how unfair and contradictory to the concept of separation of powers is that?To the separation of powers, quite unfair. To the election? Unfair, but not to a huge degree. Again, there would have to be evidence that it would be enough to change the results. However, regarding the national election, not unfair at all. Flipping PA and WI isn't enough to make Trump win.I never said Trump is the best speaker. He’s notorious for his hyperbolic speech."This was the most unfair election ever" is hyperbole. "Venezuela hacked voting machines" is an insane conspiracy theory.You can ask for evidence all day. You can ask for hard numbers all day,And I will. If Trump claims the election was rigged, then he better have evidence proving it. The bar for evidence does not get lower due to an inability to meet it.
Another long post with non-Trump parts edited out. Criticizes Trump for "insane conspiracy theor[ies]" and not having evidence for his fraud claims.
See the problem here is that everyone argues that the election was perfect. It had numerous flaws.Well, I'm not part of everyone. Once you get past a certain size, no election is perfect. However, imperfect does not mean unfair or illegitimate or rigged.Hell State Supreme courts across the nation have found Democratic rule changes that benefited not them unconstitutional. The system was rigged against Trump. It’s like finding out the lottery is rigged to give one guy all the moneyThe claim in the first sentence does not support the claim in the following sentences. You can say, "There were bad laws." Probably. There probably have been bad laws in most or all elections. You can say, "The bad laws favored one side over another." Maybe so. Again, probably not uncommon. But unless you can say, "There were bad laws, and here is the evidence showing that they had enough impact to flip the election," you can't conclude that it was rigged. And that is a case that I haven't seen anyone even attempt to make.But more pertinently, claiming that there were bad laws does absolutely nothing to justify Trump's behavior. He hasn't been limiting himself to rational, defensible claims. He and his lawyers have been spouting off one insane conspiracy theory after another. He also didn't limit himself to legal means to challenge the results. He tried to pressure the vice president to illegally overturn the election. That behavior is indefensible and unacceptable. And if that continues and becomes more mainstream, it will eventually destroy our constitutional system.
More criticism for insane conspiracy theories, and calls Trump's actions illegal, indefensible, and unacceptable.
19. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8242-is-this-the-democracy-we-saved?page=1&post_number=10
Do you hate Mitch McConnell more or Donald Trump? I’m curiousAs a Christian, I believe it is my duty to love everyone, although I confess that politicians make that difficult. More to the point, I think Trump is worse than McConnell. I have a lot of disagreements with McConnell, but I agree with him more than I agree with Trump. I also have more respect for McConnell. Not because of his personality (I have no idea what his personality is like), or because of his integrity (I doubt he has any), but because of how good he is at his job. I've read a lot of history about the US government. I think McConnell will be remembered as one of the most effective Congressional leaders.
Mild criticism saying that Trump is worse than McConnell.
I think your argument revolves around an emotional argument and personality differences, which is fine.It doesn't revolve around emotions or personality, and it never did.But at the end of the day, does the media and Democrats’ opinion about you matter?It doesn't, and it never did.How will Trump ruin the country? Everyone said that in 2016. Nothing happened.Something did happen. A sitting president refused to accept the results of a legitimate election. Millions believed him. Some resorted to violence. Trump attempted to overturn an election. Yes, the Democrat's policies are bad for America. So are election denialism and attempted coups. A democracy relies on the willingness of both sides to acknowledge defeat. Without that, it will collapse.I do not, however, buy into the Democrat's hysterical claims that the Republicans winning even one more election would be the END OF DEMOCRACY. I think our constitutional system is stronger than that. However, if election denialism continues to grow, it will eventually fail. And before you can say, "But Stacey Abrams and Al Gore," I entirely agree. That's one (out of many) reasons that I won't vote for the Democrats either.
Accuses Trump of trying to overturn an election.
Results:
Moderate/Strong criticism: 10/20 or 50%
Mild Criticism: 3/20 or 15%
Backhanded or indirect criticism (the "stretch" posts): 4/20 or 20%
No criticism: 3/20 or 15%
Overall: 65% critical, 35% not critical.
I did not lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Bullshit. Your Gallup citation says 61% of women are pro-choice. You’re AFU
I am now thoroughly annoyed with Gallup. Last time I checked that page, you could scroll down and see the full results from previous years. Now it is extremely difficult to find the results from previous years. After some searching, I found proof that my numbers were correct at the time of my post. However, it will take a bit of work. Go to this page:
Scroll down to the graph titled "Women's Self-ID on Abortion, 1995-2022". Hover your mouse pointer over a point on the graph. You will see some text pop up saying the position (pro-life or pro-choice), the year, and the percent. Now move your mouse over the last point at which the pro-life line is higher than the pro-choice line. The pop-up will say this (if you're looking at the right graph and the the right point on that graph):
% Pro life
2019
51
At the time I made that post in 2019, the last gallup poll on abortion found that 51% of women identified as pro-life. That number has gone down since, as you noticed. However, at the time I made that post, my numbers were exactly correct.
Show me. You lie
You underestimate my level of insanity when it comes to digging through my own post history. Here is a compilation of my last 20 posts mentioning Trump (before this thread). Note: I am not counting posts in which the person I was replying to mentioned Trump and I did not.
My guess is that the Republican nomination is a rerun of 2016. The main event will be Trump vs. DeSantis, but there will be a bunch of (delusional, egotistical, narcissistic, self-above-both-party-and-country) other candidates who will split the not-Trump vote, allowing Trump to be nominated with a plurality of the votes. The Democrats will likely re-nominate Biden (maybe Harris or Newsome). Instead of focusing on an actual message, Trump will spend his entire campaign relitigating 2020, failing to take advantage of Biden's weaknesses and amplifying his own. Despite being deeply unpopular, Biden will still be less hated than Trump and will bury him in a landslide. When the dust settles, we'll be pretty much right where we are now, except that we'll hate each other even more.Am I optimistic, or what?
Includes mild criticism of Trump for having bad campaign strategy and an inability to move on from 2020.
In response to a thread titled "Why Trump should go to jail for his attempted coup"
Should? Absolutely. Will? I'll believe it when I see it.
Saying Trump "absolutely" should go to jail is criticism.
The Democrats lived down the Civil War. So, 150 years from now, the Republicans might live down Trump.More likely 30 years, though, because that's about how long it actually took the Democrats to live down the Civil War. That makes sense, too, since that's about a generation of voters.
Mentions Trump without criticism. I suppose implying that Trump needs to be lived down is a sort of backhanded criticism, but let's not stretch it.
Trump has got to go. His loss to Biden permanently broke him. I couldn't vote for him again and if he has lost me of all people I don't see how he could win again. Ron DeSantis may not be perfect but right now I think he's the only person who can beat Trump 1 on 1--the field must be cleared for him immediately.You're quite correct, but clearing the field would require politicians to not have egos.
Agrees that Trump has got to go. Mild Criticism.
Your context is wrong. He is referring to laws and rules with regard to elections and voting in the constitution. Not the entire document.I will grant that there is a theoretical difference between terminating the entire Constitution and only terminating part of it. Practically, however, if the parts of the Constitution that govern elections are terminated, the rest will soon follow.He is saying the 2020 election violated the constitution with regard to laws and rules stated with in it. Namely certifying fraudulent elections.He is saying much more than that those parts of the Constitution were violated. He is saying that those parts of the Constitution can be terminated.
Argues that Trump advocated for terminating parts of the Constitution, which seems pretty critical in a country that treats its Constitution as practically Scripture.
They set themselves firmly against conservative values when they nominated him to begin with.True, but had they rejected him at some point along the way, they might have regained the slightest shred of credibility. If they nominate him in 2024, it will be a clear statement that there is no line they are unwilling to cross, and that they will support him even in the face of certain defeat. Not that that isn't pretty clear already...But at least they did them democratically, unlike the DNC.That has the odd implication that the Republican Party is more democratic that the Democratic Party. Meaningless, but funny.tl;dr: both major parties suck.I doubt you could find a single person who would disagree.
Includes backhanded criticism, but let's not stretch it.
If the Republican Party nominates him after this, not to mention all the things before it, then it is truly lost. There is no conservative party in America.
More backhanded criticism, more comments about not stretching.
I don't think he thought that far ahead.
Criticizes Trump for not thinking ahead.
Full quote:So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!Trump is saying, clearly and unequivocally, that he thinks that the Constitution can be terminated due to election fraud. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Accuses Trump of saying the Constitution can be terminated. Definitely critical.
It's not a question of watching the news 24/7. It's a question of 30 seconds on the internet for each of them. If Trump and his team can't be bothered to do that, then they are totally incompetent. And where is Trump's condemnation of Fuentes' views?
Criticizes Trump for not condemning his dinner guest Nick Fuentes' racism.
The defense that Trump and his team were too incompetent to do even a 30-second google search to learn who Fuentes was or pay attention to the news about Ye being an anti-Semite or do another 30-second google search to learn who Yiannopolous was does not seem like much of a defense. "He's not deliberately palling about with racists. He and everyone around him are just idiots!"Furthermore, if he disapproves of the things Fuentes says, why hasn't he said so? His silence is deafening.
Also criticizing Trump for not condemning Fuentes.
Well, Trump is a genius at fooling people into thinking he's a genius.
A joke that is kind of critical, but let's not stretch it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I have never seen you speak out against Trump. Why is that? You don’t support him but you are too timid to condemn him also. Kind of like Nikki Haley.
That is mainly because I haven't been very active on this site since before you joined. I haven't said much of anything. I have condemned him quite strongly in the past. I don't talk much about controversial topics like Trump anymore because I find it to be largely pointless. Everyone's opinions are pretty set in stone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ok, first, a person with bad ideas is bad, especially when they act on those bad ideas or those bad ideas inform their decisions on who to support politically.
Everyone has bad ideas. Although, since I believe in the Christian doctrine of total depravity, I am quite open to the idea that everyone is naturally bad.
Second, I don’t know if it was an honest mistake or not, but Gallup in your link shows 61% of women as pro-choice and only 33% as pro-life. So you are way off on your facts. And considering Kansas recently voted to keep abortion legal in the state, you might say that pro-lifers are pretty far out of the mainstream public opinion.
My numbers were exactly correct - for 2019 when I made the post. If you scroll down, you should see the results from previous years.
Third, I’m glad you don’t support Trump. Now the question is what are you willing to do to stop him, save your party and defend the country from Trump and Trumpism.
It's not my party, and I doubt it can be saved. I don't think the Democrats are an improvement, though.
Can you find any examples of him speaking out against Trump or Trumpism? Other than posting someone else’s article about rejecting Trump.
Probably about half the time when I mention him.
Created:
Posted in:
Contrary to popular belief, George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter, although he did help popularize in his bulletin How to Grow the Peanut and 105 Ways of Preparing it For Human Consumption. Even so, he was a very smart man who found many applications for peanuts and sweet potatoes, which restore nutrients to the soil that had been used up by cotton. He also had an excellent mustache.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ya, we are finally seeing more and more of that now. I’m pretty sure you were once a Trumper, but now that he’s selling baseball cards and has transformed into a perennial defendant, people are saying they never supported or voted for him.We have had this exact conversation before. I never supported Trump. I opposed him from the beginning. Go look through my entire post history if you don't believe me.
Here is a post from November 14, 2019, less than a month after I joined the website, in which I explicitly said, "I don't support Trump."
Created: