Total posts: 5,754
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
pm me on number 2, so we can discuss why you feel that way. I would like some sort of explanation on why you think there should not be some sort of democratic leadership on the site.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
a veto can be overridden
What would that process be like. It isn't going to be one of those things where, any veto you don't like (which would be all of them, because they would contradict your opinion), would be subject to your whimsical overturning of it?
To a certain. Degree, I think you just need to trust the communities judgement in picking a representing they feel will do well for them.
Created:
Yes to 1, 2 and 3
Also
Rm, I wouldn't refused to overturn bans based on any preferential treatment. I would basically just overturn bans that airmax would not have approved of on ddo, no matter what clique that person belongs to. I urge you to alter your vote on number 2, and I can maybe even work on bringing you into my administration and putting you in charge of decisions to overturn or not overturn bans, with me having veto power on the latter but not the former.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Broadly speaking, sure I can. Free speech means the government cannot silence you, it does not mean everyone else in society has to sit back and listen. Just as you have a right to say whatever you want I have the right to criticize it, and if enough people feel the same way then people will not want you on their platforms.
I am actually differentiating here between free speech as a cultural thing and free speech as a law. When I say we should have a cultural acceptance of free speech, I still think platforms should be allowed to regulate it.
So I'm not really disagreeing with you here. . The scary thing is you do seem to advocate for eliminating an opinion if enough people disagree with it, which seems like a shitty reason to do so. However, platforms should have the right, it just contradicts their ethical duty. Like I said before. We risk marginalized groups being affected more by this sort of thing, and marginalized groups with unique perspectives who may advance our collective knowledge if given the opportunity to engage in public debate.
That’s fine. You can be concerned about the opening this creates, it’s a legitimate concern. But an opening for wrong doing and actual wrong doing are not the same thing.
Obviously, and I think if you were being honest here, you would realize that popular attacks on freedom, will always precede the more unpopular methods, it's called the foot in the door method, or slippery slope, which is not usually a fallacy when mentioned.
I also think if you were being honest you can thi k of where these powers have already been abused. More than likely you'd agree if I showed you they also come down on leftists as well, albeit more quietly because it is the same group they pander to.
For months social media companies sat back and allowed their platforms to be used as vessels to spread violent propaganda culminating in an attack of the US Capitol by our own citizens. So now when these companies react in the only responsible way they could have possibly reacted and the rest of us proceed with a greater awareness of the danger this issue creates, the political right says “they”, and not the speech that everyone is reacting to, are the real targets.
So what is the correct response? How does the left push back against the climate that made this happen without conservatives claiming they are being targeted for being conservatives? I’m all ears.
I think a good way to mitigate it, is by posting disclaimers like they do. However I think ultimately we need to realize that living in a free and open society comes with certain risks that won't be eliminated. Risks such as the ability to propagandist the people.
It's funny though that when the establishment does it we approve, but God forbid people we hate do the exact same thing
Created:
Posted in:
I took a 30 mg of timed release Adderall and have been up for about 36 hours and have to go to work. Should I take another one to get through the day or just be tired all day?
Created:
Posted in:
A nurse is helping a woman deliver her baby in the hospital. After hours of labour pains the nurse is finally holding the baby in her hands. After cutting the umbilical cord, the nurse throws the baby against a wall, picks it up,smashes its face and then dumps it in the bin.The mother, terrified, screams "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY BABY?"The nurse smiles and says: "Joking! It was already dead."
Created:
Posted in:
Since we are doing jokes.
Why are jewish men circumcised?
Because their women will not touch anything unless it is 20% off.
Created:
Posted in:
This is honestly, and mostly because police in America are too fat. Like seriously, between the fat male cops and weak female officers, I feel like they can't defend me, if I ever need them to.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
the religion forum has always gotten a free pass. It has a different culture than the rest of the site, and treating it the same would be harmful to the religious section as well as the site as a whole.
The religion section is an odd mix of proselytizing Christians, very odd and repetitive trolls and militant atheists.
All people who I would almost consider sub human. This is a debate site, so proselytizing is dumb. The militant atheists are wierd, just because they almost treat atheism as a type of religion and are somehow passionate about not believing I. Something.
The trolls are really, really over dedicated. Like they can't be right in the head. I won't name names, but anyone with that much dedication to playing a character, has to be wacky some how
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
good post
This narrative is of course false. The left is not trying to silence conservatives. No one is getting banned from Twitter over disputes about tax policy. This is about cracking down on hate speech and in particular, speech that can lead to or incite violence, or misinformation that is literally killing people. It just so happens to be the case that the vast majority of hate speech in our political discourse these days is coming from the right, to the point where the FBI has even taken notice.
I think maybe I can explain the conservative take on this, but if you look at history, conservatives had a habit of attacking free speech when it suited them to do so. I do think it's just the pendulum swinging to make it popular on the left. Free speech is as much a cultural thing as a political thing. At first I thought only the political free speech mattered, but now I see we also need a free speech culture.
Obviously social media sites like Facebook and Twitter should be allowed to censor whatever speech they want, but you can't say the left does not attack free speech. (Not everyone or most in the left, but a large swath) .
The left attack it through cancel culture, through tech oligarchs and through control of financial institutions that do things like stop accepting credit card payments for people like Alex Jones. The left isn't necessarily in charge if these institutions, they just bend to the largest political pressure. Companies also bent to right wing pressure to stop funding wikileaks.
I personally had the FBI visit my house, because I was checking out a lot of books on national security related issues from the library, particularly ones about how the NSA deals with Muslim extremists.
You point out misinformation that kills and hate speech being banned. That's not necessarily bad, depending on how you define it. The problem is those things are very ambiguous and the right just sees an opening for the left to exploit the ambiguity of those terms. Hell if the right regains control of institutions and government, and they will because the pendulum is always swinging, than they can exploit those things.
Misinformation kills. Sure, it sucks. Especially if you have a loved one who died because of misinformation. It's one of those prices of freedom
We want ideals debated on a public forum, not subject to people who decide what the truth is and eliminate anything that contradicts their truth from being publicly viewable. I think some of these sites are using a good balance, by posting disclaimers under what they find to be misinformation. It allows people to see both sides and make an intelligent decision, about which side was presented better.
Freedom is inherently dangerous. If an alien invasion happened tomorrow and we need every man woman and child to fight to save us from extinction, the liberal would require compulsory service to protect mankind. The conservative would just allow our extinction, because freedom is more important than life. Miainformation killing is the sacrifice we make for freedom.
I feel like misinformation is scarier in the dark, because when it is shared in pms and not in the open, it can't be attacked. It's premises stand, because the misinformation is hidden from the eyes of people able to offer good rebuttals.
There is a dual problem though. We do see it playing out, it's the belief that minority opinion is wrong, and that only the majority belief system is right. Sometimes the masses are wrong and the lone nut is right and can save us, but we don't hear their voice and don't give them a chance to advance the scientific paradigm.
Unpopular ideals are sometimes right, even ones that seem disgusting to the majority of people, are sometimes right. Certainly if an unpopular opinion is right, it should be allowed on the intellectual battlefield.
I would say though, that if a bad ideal is wrong, it still deserves a good purpose. I bet you would learn a lot more by debunking big foot by researching data, than you would learn by having all people who claim Bigfoot is real, muzzled. Even wrong opinions advance the collective opinion of the human race.
Here is the kicker though. We have silicon valley, the media and large corporations working together to silence dissent. Rich white men who run Twitter, get to decide what everyone thinks, and any opinion they deem misinformation or hate, gets erased. The rich white men who control media, get to tell you what to think and can shut off the mike of the president, if they don't like what he is saying. The rich white billionaires who control corporations, get to use their influence to punish or silence people through denying them payment processing or other manipulative mechanisms.
The internet was an equalizer among all people, and sure it comes with weaknesses, like the anonymity creating more sociopaths or it being easy to subject to foreign propaganda, but it also allows everyone a platform. It's truly democratic. A democracy of ideals. Now though we see wealthy white billionaires taking control and deciding what is misinformation and hate speech.
They may be using woke culture to size control, and by using woke culture it actually makes it easier to hide the fact that rich white men are crushing the democratic nature of the internet. The only reason it doesn't bother liberals, is they think these people are allies, and don't realize that these wealthy white men, don't give a shit about homosexuals or blacks or covid19. They only care about taking more power and found convenient excuses to do so.
Trust me, power grabs are always reasonable in the moment. Hell Rome was falling apart when Julius Caesar took control. He had good reasons to be declared dictator, but he didn't give back power when the good reasons disappeared. These rich white men, will not give back power when covid 19 and reactionary right wing trolls are gone.
The problem the right wing has, is the same problem the left had when George Bush was making power grabs after 9/11. They see the ability to abuse the power and in fact the inevitability of it. George Bush had good reasons also. George Bush created a new branch of government because his orders were to "never allow another 9/11 to happen".
A free countries top priority should not be safety though. We should accept more personal risk, to enjoy freedom in fact. The internet can be made safer, but at what cost?
The cost of it's inherent democratic nature? There was a point when the internet was destroying traditional media (rich white men), making it possible for everyone to become entrepreneurs. And destroying big business (rich white men).
What did we see happen though. We have rich white men creating monopolies through Google, and Google even directs you to mainstream media usually, destroying the democratization of media for the benefit of traditional media controlled by white men.
I am white. I have no problem with white men having power, but what happens when every avenue is taken away from non white males and females, to take some form of power?
You know what's sick. These rich white men, know you need a person's permission to take their power. So they point out that Russian propaganda got Trump elected, in order to appear allied with blacks or gays or whoever thinks Trump or Republicans hate them. The minorities than enthusiastically support the rich white men in Google, filtering results in a way that removes any possibility of coming into contact with ideals these minorities typically disagree with.
Basically rich white men at Google, took more power and avenues to power away from non whites, by just allowing mainstream media outlets ran by whites, to take up most of the search results.
Rich white men in social media companies, claimed to help the weak or people who feel hated by removing speech labeled as "hate speech" and removing "disinformation" (information they disagree with), and like a thief in the night, more power goes to rich whites who can now have more control over the thoughts of others, and they got away with it, because they pretended it was for the benefit of marginalized groups, that they were taking more power that should be democratic.
The BLM riots, will get worse if we don't attack these sorts of power grabs. When these rich white sociopaths in the halls of power get sick of pandering to people they are taking power from, the marginalized will notice. The Civil unrest will grow worse and worse until something really bad happens.
So in short, maybe the left is not trying to silence the right, but they sure as hell are allowing rich white people to use their woke narrative to make power grabs that only benefit the rich white men making them.
"Derp a syrup company removes a beautiful black woman as an image, now they give a shit about blacks"
Blacks, don't be stupid. Stop allowing rich whites to make these power grabs. Stop believing their bullahit that they like you, because they took away aunt Jemima.
In fact, stop patronizing these fucks. Visit small black businesses exclusively, and if they aren't offering you good service than find a small business of some other sort. Us poor whites are your allies, not pretend ones who give a shit about woke culture, or hurting your feelings, but actual allies who know society is better when it is democratize and marginalized people have a bigger voice.
When you see a conservative alarmed by power grabs and fighting against them, it is always power grabs by other whites that make you lose power. It might be self preservation because us normal whites hate rich whites also, but it benefits you.
Always remember. There is always an extremely good reason to take power away from you, and give rich white men more power, but those same men will not be giving that power back.
Don't think the instrument of the state which is ran by rich whites is any better. If you give the state power, you give rich white men who control it more power, and they'll also pander to you, while discreetly accumulating more power, and it won't benefit you.
Welfare programs have destroyed the black family unit, this benefits rich whites by making it impossible for you to compete with them. A black man raised by a father and a mother is powerful. Meanwhile one raised in a single family home turns into a criminal.
You are being attacked on the left and the right. The war on drugs simultaneously got large swarms of black men arrested, while welfare programs created a bunch of people dependant on the state. A perfect combination of things to destroy rivals to rich white men, and ensure a base of people who can be pondered to with free shit, as bribes to voluntarily hand over power.
I am mostly speaking to blacks, but all marginalized groups need to start seeing that the people making power grabs "in defense of you", are really o ly out for themselves and I hate to even call them white. They are some sort of parasites on society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Evilgenius
you are still on my scum pile though...
That's perfectly fine. I know you are still new, but don't be afraid to go after people. None of us take this personally. So Don't hold back and participate less, because you are afraid to doggedly go after scum.
Hey Wylted , I’m always working
I know the struggle.
you are flip flopping on who you want to lynch without any good reasons
Despite what you saw earlier this dp, I normally scum hunt by POE since my town reads are more reliable. Yeah, I'll definitely flip flop on anybody who isn't in my town pile. Sometimes I do vote for people in my town pile as well, just because I am willing to lynch town to move the game forward.
Personally I think flip flopping is a town tell, but a lot of people disagree. I find scum move their votes around less and also seem to refrain from voting for longer periods of time.
People think my analysis is shit though, so take it for whatever it's worth.
this DP hasn’t really taken off and everybody is just all over the place and trying to figure out a good strategy to fish out scum.
Good observational skills and correct. This phase of the game is usually called RVS, meaning the random voting stage. It's pretty typical. I disagree with randomizing votes. I think there is always a good reason to favor one person, if you are first to vote.
Maybe you think noob are more likely to scum slip, so you avoid rvs by pressuring noobs early. I tend to think noobs make town slips that look like scum slips, so I pretty much try to avoid any pressure on them at all.
My strategy is to usually avoid RVS by attempting to vote for somebody I personally have a hard time getting accurate reads on.
Created:
Posted in:
I will also consider an evil genius lynch until he proves useful
Created:
Posted in:
Lunatic, start next dp by personally doing a stand up routine
Created:
Posted in:
GP is different than players like speed and evil genius, because his affiliation is usually an open book. He is quite obviously town. He also is always ready to go along with whatever town wants to do, with no fuss.
It's easy, if GP is scum, everyone knows before the end of DP1. If he isn't than he is basically a double vote for whoever he town reads. GP is fine.
Created:
Posted in:
GP, I got you buddy once we get some feedback from other players. We have a bunch of inactive now and we might as well focus on them, because we can't win if they don't get motivated to post.
Created:
Posted in:
Seems like it.
If nothing else, we lynch an inactive today and move on. Let the most town read player pick the inactive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Evilgenius
reads please. Sorted most town to least town
Created:
-->
@Castin
When they banned you this place was like South Park without Cartman.
I feel like you contribute a lot here as well. Glad to see you are active right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I took my vote off of you to encourage discussion, but should it happen that a wagon forms on you, I don’t think you should count on my vote being a bluff.
Ultimately I don't care. Even if I was scum I just wouldn't care. I felt it was a bluff, but I could be wrong. It happens. Rarely, but it happens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Well, I'd be interested to hear what made you so certain of me last game when I'm town confirmed in this game.
I don't know where you get town confirmed. You have some conflicting tells that are unreliable at the moment.
If this is town you, I've never seen it.
It would take too much effort to track down games with similar behavior for myself, but just remember it here, because I never do it as scum. When I flip you'll have that you can add to your arsenal to read me with in the rare future games where I display the behavior.
what I still believe is nitpicky reasoning.
It's not nit picking because it isn't a personal criticism. I am not criticizing jim in any way. There is nothing wrong with writing that way, I just believe it is a scum tell.
That kind of distraction is not beneficial to town. Even if you end up being right, the fact that you've been so focused on it to the exclusion of all else up to post #122 stands out to me as well.
I realized that my play is harmful to town, even if correct in this instance, so I am trying to strike a balance between responding so I can give you information you seek, and simultaneously moving on from my tunneling so I can be beneficial.
I read several guides this morning before leaving for work on how to vet people to come around when I believe my reads are solid, and nearly all guides tell me to do the opposite of what I'm doing here. It's a struggle, because I see four trouble be similarly aggressive and people follow him.
That's fine. Apparently it is a style that works for him, but does not work for most people, or possibly I am just implementing his approach in a shitty way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Evilgenius
My biggest sus is Wylted ..him pointing fingers so early like this is trying to get the bounty off his head.That’s my take ..
Wrong, but thanks for your analysis. I want to see more of this. It's wrong because there is literally no pressure on me and whiteflame would withdraw that bluff if I got to L1
Created:
Posted in:
Grey Parrot is always town, so he is fine but speed and evilgenius need to give some analysis
Created:
Posted in:
Please is right. There are a lot of players flying under the radar, because you are nit picking about my reads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
You also jumped off that lynch and onto Pie on the same page.
Well pie and Chris were both scum that game, and I said they were both scum with 100% confidence. Note the only other vote after that point was on supa and the vote was merely to gain compliance.
So I switched my vote from chris who was scum to pie who was also scum. I don't see that as any sort of failure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Also, I'll note that emphasizing your reads after you were NK'd is something I did as scum in the last game
You were pretty transparent there as well, which is why I pmed him that it was extremely obvious you were the last scum, right after I was NKed. I won't exain why I knew that with 100% certainty, in case you are scum and make the same mistake here, but it was obvious from my angle, and given lunatic's frustration in sign up, he likely knew as well. Though his reasoning was analytical of the wagon and I was using linguistic analysis to determine it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I didn't exactly examine the read here, but this sort of thing is common for me, and is almost always ignored
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I’d like to see those games so that I can compare your behaviors in them to what you’re doing now.
I'll do my best to find them. the first game mentioned should be easiest to find.
Just because you figured out who scum was in a different game early on with a clearly different set of circumstances clearly doesn’t mean that you’ve done that here,
You said you never seen me tunnel like this as town, which is why I brought up those examples. To a certain extent I think people should trust the reads of confirmed townies who have demonstrated an ability to be right a lot. For example I lynched pie based on a lunatic read I did not understand last game. He was dead, I didn't get his read, but I knew I could trust his read and his record of doing pretty well.
At least if I get NKed at some point, do the same here.
that if you had, you were any better at conveying that to town and leading lynches to that effect.
Yes.my ability to lead lynches is not that well, despite being shockingly accurate (though far from perfect).
I feel compelled to work on that now. I downloaded about 50 complete guides to mafia from good players and constantly review them. That is one part I have been ignoring because I always think reality is better than perception. To the point of discounting anything that is not reality altogether.
I guess that how I come across to others is apparently important, despite that being stupid. So I'll try to more collaboratively catch scum here instead of forcing a lynch down anyone's throat, even when I have a pretty good read on somebody based on the evidence (even if you can't comprehend the reasons behind that read).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polyglot
You are over analyzing a sentence and it’s definitely a waste of time for the day phase. Try to get better reads.
Maybe harping on it is a waste of time, but I am not over analyzing it.
If anything I haven't analyzed it enough. That is more likely the case if I am wrong and have been unable to come up with alternative explanations.
Judging from the fact you really don't contribute much in terms of reads, I don't think you should be telling me to get better reads. My reads are pretty good.
Your defensiveness here also doesn't bode well. Defensiveness is usually a scum trait. If you are legitimately town here, than you should be focused on finding out who is scum. The simplest way to get pressure of of yourself as town, is to find scum, so we can lynch that player instead. This also benefits town by helping us avoid mislynches.
Created:
Posted in:
I forget my user name but the first game mentioned had David and pie as scum
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I was doing it before my last account was banned dp1. I called out both scum and everyone ignored me and a 2 dp game actually went to lylo because I was ignored.
There was a game where Danielle and magic were caught DP1 through similar analysis as that. I pushed them hard all game, starting at dp1. Everyone ignored me. They said similar shit about my reasoning. I was kept alive until the very end because Danielle is a sadist who likes torturing people and town lost that game.
I can recall games where I pushed this hard dp1. I can't remember games where I am wrong when pushing this hard.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Well, I was sort of joking, but obviously representation of women in the Bible is not five stars. It was written thousands of years ago.
Representation is a stupid concept. The only black mentioned in the Bible is Cain, and the only white is Caesar.
Yet women were heroes in many bi le stories. We have the redeemed prostitute that let the jews into her window so they could conquer an enemy city that was surrounded by walls. I'm not going to mention all of them, because the names are lost to me at the moment and it would require Google.
They are there though. The first story, eve played a major part in. She was Adam's companion and equal in every way. She is made superior to him after the "fall of man", because she his made his servant.
Jesus constantly brought up that there is nothing greater than serving. Those who serve will be highest in heaven.
Proverbs talks a lot about how a man cannot be successful, unless he has the support of a good woman.
The o ly negative shit you can say about women in the Bible is that they are supposed to serve man, and it isn't even a negative. Did you see man's punishment? It isn't to serve the person you love, which is actually awesome and something men feel inclined and love to do, but it is to live off of your blood and sweat. He is sentenced to a life of hard manual labor. This was a Jewish man. You know how much jews hate manual labor.
Created:
At first I thought you were honestly perplexed by some of these things. This is so stupid though, that there is no way you aren't trolling. There is no possible way that you are this low IQ, to think this is an honest criticism.
Jesus is the king of the jews and will physically sit on the throne after the beast loses the final battle. He was also constantly mentioning his imminent death. Mary knew.
Also Jesus did not fail his mission. Every extra day it takes him to return, you should be thankful, because it gives you an opportunity to accept his non gay, and also fatherly love of you and the sacrifice he made so you can have eternal life
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No because you inherit reasoning is flawed
Nope, it isn't. Behavioral tells are derived from textual analysis for the most part, especially in dp1.
is distracting from town due to tunnel visioning poly
Tunneling is only bad if you are wrong. You can usually tell when you went overboard with tunneling, because you start to engage in confirmation bias. Seeing every action as a scum tell. I'm focusing on one piece of evidence that everyone has either failed to grasp or has grasped it and thinks that sort of self conscious behavior is somehow not indicative of scum, even though nobody can show one instance of poly exhibiting the behavior as town.
Have your opinion, but you are flooding the DP with this shit and it's distracting from actual behavioral analysis.
That is behavioral analysis. You look at behaviors and attribute motives to them. He is displaying a behavior and you can't provide a reason as to why he would have that behavior, beyond the obvious.
You sus poly 1/2 the time and led to their mislynch off a redirect I made to frame him.
The last 2 games I played with him, he was literally scum. I don't recall a redirected guilty on him. Perhaps there was and it was prior to Mylo and he was on my list of potential scum, so I needed it narrowed down. If you framed somebody prior to Mylo and it worked, good it should. If you think when we shift from the portion of the game where we narrow our list, to the portion of the game where we need to get it right, that I would have lynched him based off of an investigation, you are wrong. It hasn't nor ever will happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Just to clarify, I’m not saying that Poly isn’t scum. I haven’t seen enough from him to know. All I know is that this, as a reason for sussing him at all but especially as a reason for saying that you are absolutely certain that he is scum, doesn’t make sense to me. You’re clearly not recruiting people to your view on this. I think it’s a waste of time, and I’m done addressing it
That's plain stupid. It is an attribute he has only used as scum, beyond that it is a universal scum tell. That means when you see it, it is almost certain a particular person is scum.
I have literally never seen somebody use it, who wasn't scum. It's an unconscious tell. I can imagine you sitting at a poker table now and you see somebody forcefully shove their chips in the center and stare at you hard, daring you to call, and your response be to fold. Your reasoning being that "trying to intimidate somebody out of a pot, might mean he actually has a hand".
Look some things are universal. When somebody tries to intimidate you out of a hand in poker, it means they have a shit hand. If their hand was good, the last thing they would want to do, is intimidate you into not giving them more money.
When somebody is fluffing, by double speak particularly, it is a scum tell. You can try to equate fluff like
"I am really worried that, if we hammered the person could turn out to be town. That would suck a lot"
And fluff like poly is doing like
"Hammering a town player here, would leave us with one less town player, so we shouldn't risk it"
If you can't see the difference in the stretched out sentences above than I can't help you. It isn't a grammar lesson, it isn't about hedging which is also a scum tell, but a less reliable one. It isn't about over explaining. It isn't about being detailed or rambling on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
until you actually show you are comprehending what I am actually trying to get across, I am not going to allow you to dismiss it.
I'm not merely talking about hedging or verbosity or confidence. Lack of confidence in a post is not the same as self conscious behavior.
Both people with high and low confidence can display self conscious behavior of this variety and so can people who hedge and don't hedge. You are conflating a few things, and it's upsetting.
I hate when people cannot grasp the point I am trying to make. I am trying to bridge the gap between thought and words here. I have a deep inner monologue, but I also have a type of inner vision that connects a lot of things.
I am open to the possibility of being wrong, but you are still arguing against a strawman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
this is the second time you have just plain lied about me or spoke something wrong for some reason, this game.
I am not falling victim to my theory and my theory is correct. Maybe I need to work on how I word it, but poly is scum. This is not one of those weaker scum tells, but one highly indicative of being scum.
Seriously what happened to behavioral analysis. Tells exist. You can catch scum through knowing some basic psychology, and yet this is like one of those logic games to you guys. Poly is scum
Pressure poly and the seems will start coming apart
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think Bron is town. What is the case against him? That he didn’t character claim but otherwise does exactly what he always does as town,
I don't get it.
I think poly is scum and I am considering it with whiteflame. I just have a hard time believing whiteflame would defend poly here if they were scum buddies. So the defense of scum seems town, but some of whiteflames other behaviors seem slightly scummy. For example his nastiness towards gp and telling me I earned time off in a smart ass statement.
I'm not offended, the statement is harmless, but it is out of character for whiteflame, and I know that sometimes attaching a label to yourself such as "scum" could make a lot of people just behaviorally more mean.
I have to either think something is going g on with whiteflame personally to make him nastier right now or that whiteflame has a ton of balls and is doing what the opposite of most scum do, and fiercely defend his scum buddy.
Created:
Posted in:
the two verbose statements you provided are still to the point t and I feel like don't have any fluff in them. They don't do the "first time ever in life" thing.
Created:
Posted in:
the fuck up, does prove that concise statements, do not make somebody town, but they do not prove the opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
I still feel like you are ignoring what I am saying. The town posts don't have the dou ling of statements. One statement, followed by the next that means the same exact thing. Hedging is not what I am picking up on. Hedging done above is accounting for why he may be wrong. It does make his statements more verbose, but not for the same reasons.
They are verbose from uncertainty. Not verbose from maki g extra sure he is understood
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
no,because you are saying "hedging" and I am talking about a particular type of fluff that is not hedging. I fucked up and compared two scum games. My bad. Until I see those double statements made as town, I scum read him. I have never seen a member of town, choose their words that way.
I assume by hedging you mean statements that give him an out. If the definition itinerary of hedging is wrong, let me know, but that is what I take it to mean
Created:
Posted in:
It let me post the whole thing wow. Okay, you guys can skip the doc
Created: