Total posts: 1,950
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Explain yourself. To my "untrained eye" it just looks like you're throwing accusations in hopes for a lynch. You need to go in more depth. Keeping a FOS on you
Explain in detail your thought process behind this post.
Created:
Posted in:
And Vince Flynn's insight into the war on terror is incredible.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The belief that government is unavoidably going to screw health care up isn't well founded, but its common. It seems that the fact that things have largely been different here is the reason for its prevalence. Most can't even conceive of an alternative world, like Germany.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
A lot of them are afraid of the government screwing things up. And they think the private model is less likely to screw things up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
haha I'm almost enjoying the new and creative ways he comes up with to argue that everything I do is scum.
So it turns out that, by the fact I'm in the game, I am scum according to RM.
But not TP. Nope, he's hunting those in another set of efforts.
Only scum.
Yep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
It's enough that I'm more than willing to lynch him today.
Created:
You might be surprised to know the number of Trump supporters who support universal health care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Not lynching Earth today. We both know why.
The games are going to get you in trouble here. People expect that mischief on DDO. Here they don't know what to do with it.
Not quite in "lynch all liars" territory, but that move is going to complicate.
I see some utility, but this is the shit Tim used to do that pissed everyone off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
I'm a day cop with a guilty on Earth. Supa just reported this info to me.
Well this is going to complicate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Let me ask you this: name one person who you want to full claim right now. Cause Me, WF, RM, and Earth cannot be all scum.
Let's do something else to help me better understand your perspective.
Are you willing to lynch Oro this DP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Note for the record I have considered your argument as to why I should be caring about MC, and find it unavailing.
I literally just want you to post the list of players and indicate beside their name whether they are town or scum.
You don't even have to explain. Just post what your reads are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
So again, are you just flat out not going to post actual reads?
Created:
Posted in:
The whole "please excuse my lurking in the background while town players tear each other apart thing" is scum as fuck, but it's so over the top that I don't think any scum would do it.
It's just ill-considered lazyness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
lol ... if he was scum though, would he really be so brazen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
So are you unwilling to provide actual reads for the players in this game?
I asked you to do so at 124, after you clarified your prior scheme was illusory.
To understand where you're coming from, I need to know where your head is at. You're not providing that information. I do not understand why.
Do you feel you don't have enough information to form reads on players that have posted so far?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
We are not lynching whiteflame. He's not online on Facebook and he isn't active elsewhere. He isn't hiding. He's doing other things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Pie also wanted to waste our time with MC's role.
So did Oro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
RM hunting third party is scummy as hell, though. That's how scum thinks.
On RM, I agree with this, from the perspective of what town objectively should and should not be doing. There is no basis why Town would be hunting third parties at this time.
But subjectively, I'm not so sure. I don't think he understands what he's doing. He has contributed less than nothing to the game so far. But he seems to think he's scum hunting. His intentions seem to align with the town, though his actions do not.
This is my issue with Oro: the circumstances around his willingness to "trade" characters with me suggests an informed perspective.
I'm fine with lynching oro, pie or RM (in that order).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Not a lot to go on. I am content to test MC and pressure absentees for the moment. I can't see lynching Pie without evidence or even a positive suspicion on table.
I appreciate your clarifications, mainly because it tells me you're giving non-reads. So let's try this again.
- List every player in this game that has posted so far.
- Beside their name, identify whether you think they're town or scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
And you are building rapport with him to get him on your side, which is your scum meta. Actually, I don't know if you also do that as town to be fair but I am sure you do that as scum.I read one of your games recently and you didn't do this particularly much with anyone D1 and you were town, I admit one game isn't much to go on especially as you 'switch it up' a lot.
Is this garbage going to be the extent of what you are capable of offering in this game?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Coal's refusal to join my wagon on Pie is concerning, that's true.
Your read on Oro is at least premature if not wrong. The goal in this exercise is to get Oro's thoughts on Pie, before a wagon forms.
I scum read Pie and I am willing to lynch him. My vote is presently on Oro for the reasons I just said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I am responding to oromagi's post 83.
My TOWN pile is above the TOWN demarcation.My SCUM pile is below the SCUM demarcation.
So, at 25 you scum read all of these players you listed below the "TOWN" demarcation? That doesn't make any sense. Explain.
That doesn't make any sense. Explain your basis for those reads.
At present, I am my only TOWN read.
So you scum read me, along with whiteflame, misterchris, RM and pie at 25. Has anything changed since then?
I was willing to swap character claims back when I believed Supa's rule that there was no character justification for ROLE.
I don't understand this either. How could you have believed that there was no character justification for roles? Did you fail to read your role PM before posting? There are some people who do that (e.g., tim) but you're not one of them.
Now it seems that justification is closer to standard and at least possibly linked if not likely. I claimed my character in my first post but now I don't think we should hard claim characters until folks familiar with this theme advise on how closely connected character is to theme.
Evaluate your willingness to lynch pie. Provide your thoughts on his actions so far, and whether others should be or should not be lynching him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Y’all probably played with FT on DDO back in the day. Anything unusual about his play so far from what y’all can remember?
I understand you have not played with him before. Everything about what he's done here indicates he's town; both objectively, as to how he's moving the ball forward, and subjectively, as to how he's playing his town meta.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Coal, why aren't you voting Pie?
I am more interested in seeing how two specific other players (one who has been active, another who hasn't) respond to it before I involve myself.
Assume this post's silence on the Pie issue is the answer to your post 74.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Created:
Posted in:
I do not understand any of post 10, where RM wrote:
VTL CoalHe knew that PMs are well thought out, he should only know his own PM. That is not a 'figure of speech' it is a freudian slip.He also says 'let's not fuck it up' (unless the duck is some kind of breadcrumb but idk any ducks on this series off the top of my head)."let's" is implying 'us' which is also what skilled mafia do when they keep talking 'we' instead of just 'town'. It's a way of appearing to leak towntells.
This kind of thing is unhelpful.
Post 16, where Pie writes:
I want Oro's character and a paraphrase of the justification.Any specific reason?
Random.
Post 20:
- Why me?
You got the luck of the draw. No specific reason.
- I have already claimed more than you have
You said that at 20. I have seen no claim from you, hard or soft. Perhaps I missed it?
- I will trade my character claim for your character claim
What is the utility in doing that?
- MOD said no roles would be given justifications related to character
- but I see a line drawn between my ROLE and one aspect of charachter
- Please advise whether you have a justification
I have a justification and the fact that you said that makes me want your claim considerably more.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
The PMs seem to be well thought out, though the theme is something I have no familiarity with.
DP1 is what it is. We all know why.
Let's try not to duck it up.
I want Oro's character and a paraphrase of the justification.
VTL ORO
Created:
Here's the bottom line:
- To claim that comments on a debate posted before an open challenge debate is accepted, or arguments have been posted, prejudices either debater is absurd.
- Even if those comments are relevant to potential arguments/evidence, each debater (potential or actual) has ample notice of them in any case; and more than enough time to adjust their strategy accordingly.
- Imposing a blanket-ban in no way changes the position for either debater. It just vindicates people's irrational, emotional responses to things.
- This so called pre-MEEP is itself improper. When we write rules for our conduct, that has to start from some identifiable harm to someone we're seeking to prevent. No such demonstration has been made here. An emotional response to something is not now, and will never be, evidence that someone has actually been treated unfairly. People just need to learn to be good sports about things and play nicely with others.
- Danielle's objections to what I wrote in her debate are unavailing where (a) she saw them, (b) she hadn't posted her round yet, (c) she had more than ten days to strategize around them, and (d) any idiot reading her "resolution" could have come up with the same thing in about five seconds. It's hardly like I gave Guigur some kind of silver bullet, wooden stake or even a chain of garlic cloves to ward off vampires here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I've been wondering lately why I'm right wing.
To read, put this: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1627292
In here: https://sci-hub.do/
Created:
I think not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
We can talk about it on Discord if you want.
Created:
I agree with essentially everything whiteflame said.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I totally agree.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Well said
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
If people accept my activity will be limited, fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Note for the record my post 105 is replying to your post 103, not 104.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
When we're talking about "preferences," we're implying that there's a question of agency involved in sexual orientation.
Up until the late 1990s-2000s, a common argument was that gay people weren't denied equal treatment under the law because they had the same marital options as straight people: to marry, or not to marry (women). Or that gay people just chose to have sex with other men. Etc. So no gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws were somehow ok.
This argument is, of course, absurd; for reasons that we now more or less take for granted in society now.
But the history is not so far gone that I've forgotten it. I've seen families torn apart over their misguided belief that somehow their son who came out "chose to be gay," or their daughter was "inflicting" the fact that she was a lesbian on them.
As for your points on race, I don't pass judgment on what other people do with their lives so long as it's between consenting persons and doesn't intrude on anyone else's liberty. On that, I think we mostly agree.
I also agree excluding people from even consideration based on race is a lamentable behavior. While I make room that some people just aren't attracted to some races (just like some people aren't attracted to some body types), saying something like "no latinos" or "no asians" or "no blacks" is cruel.
On the flip side, race-fetish play is something I strongly oppose. It's become more of an issue among gay guys than you might think, as well. Probably not proper to discuss in detail here, but saying you only want "big black dick" or want to be a "slave to master" based on "master's race" is a whole mess of fucked up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Here's my issue. I'm not sure I agree with many of the evidentiary rulings that have been made in this case.
It's possible the case would have gone a different way, in an alternative world where the correct evidentiary rulings were made.
I'll accept the verdict, though I can also appreciate why some people might be skeptical of the process.
Despite those rulings, though, I still see reasonable doubt.
I do not envy the jury.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Do you think it's reasonable for people whose familiarity with the facts is limited by what they have heard in the media is superior to the jury's?
Created:
Posted in:
I need to update my list, but I've almost finished the Mitch Rapp series. I have changed my mind. The origin story books weren't that great, but the ones from 1999-when Vince Flynn died; and after Kile Mills took over are exceptional. A bit different than Brad Thor, but equally as good.
Mitch Rapp is much edgier than Scot Harvath, and Brad Thor's writing style is more about action and adventure; whereas Rapp's series focuses a lot more of the nuances behind being in the CIA and in Washington.
Kyle Mills is a really talented writer. Mitch Rapp may even be my spirit animal. His contempt for bureaucracy and results-oriented focus channels my inner sympathies on many levels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The only way I can think of to 'not accept it, would be to either kidnap or jailbreak Derek Chauvin, depending on result of courts decision.
I was thinking more on a personal level, whether you'll accept that the jury made the right decision based on having gone through the process.
A lot of people think that if Floyd isn't convicted, justice will not have been done.
Many others think the opposite.
The question I have is whether, at the end of this, people will accept that the jury did the right thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't know. I'd like to think that the decision to broadcast the trial may reduce the probability for violence, no matter the result. I object to that on moral and procedural levels. But at the same time, I recognize the utility.
The verdict is going to be whatever it is. My opinion hasn't changed. I think murder 3 is the correct charge. There's been a lot of talk about hypoxia and what it means. Whether it's consistent with a drug overdose, or other stupid theories the defense seems to have been permitted to introduce.
The tox report obviates the OD theory. End of story. But the jury has heard evidence that drugs in some way played a role. The prosecution's medical examiner said it was "consistent" with drug overdose (which is a stupid, misleading question that the prosecution should have and failed to clean up).
I am not invested in the outcome of this trial, beyond my contempt for how bastardized the rule of law has become by a scientifically illiterate, alarmist media whose self-appointed role is to agitate social conflict in this country.
Created:
I'd add that Danielle's indignation can't be taken seriously, where she brought this on herself. So, her unclean hands preclude any right she may have had to complain about any minimal "assistance" (lol) I may have provided the kid who accepted.
People act like somehow I'm a puppet master pulling strings from behind the scenes. This doesn't even rise to the level of frivolity.
Created:
Oh good grief . . . . . .
For those unaware, I posted a two comments that RM believes "assisted" a debate participant.
Note for the record:
1. The debate has not begun, as no arguments have yet been posted.
2. Danielle had ample notice of my comments as they were posted for all to see. To claim that she was prejudiced by them is frivolous, where indeed she could shape her entire case around preparing to oppose.
3. The extent of what I said was limited to the obvious tactic that anyone paying attention would have thought of.
Danielle's debate focuses on whether Donald Trump was a good president. I speculated on how someone might oppose, given the oppressive nature of constraints she placed on CON. But again, this was the substance of what I said:
Further, all should consider that Danielle's "debate" isn't even challenged in good faith. By her own admission, it was for "some comic relief" after she was "demoralized" by my corporal punishment debate that she did not even understand. By her own admission, the terms I wrote went over her head.
But based on RM's opinion and Danielle's response to my two very simple comments, you'd think I'd handed CON some kind of silver bullet.
Was this the silver bullet for CON? Read the terms of Danielle's debate, and judge for yourself:
Absent from this list are: China, Trade Deficit, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and dozens of others.Though the description is funny, it doesn't analogize to my corporal punishment debate.
I also said:
I would also add that CON would be well advised to consider what it means to be a "good" president. I assume Danielle is going to argue that Trump's limited successes (ignoring the universe of the issues she lists) indicate that he is a "good" president.That being said, the advisable strategy (if CON were so inclined) to actually sweep the leg out from underneath this would be to argue, at least:1. No way to measure.a. Presidencies are too complex.b. "Good" is subjective.c. Biases can't be discounted.2. To the extent you can measure what makes a president "good":a. That would be unreliable, because you'd fail to account for everything.b. No objective way to weigh successes against failures.c. It's too early, given the impacts of Trump's presidency are still unfolding.
Gee . . . . . . . I really handed CON the keys to the city; garlic to the vampire, or whatever. Whatever, I guess . . . .
Created: