Total posts: 5,653
-->
@fauxlaw
I have only ever been talking about the banning of users.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Interesting because he's been answering my questions about how my role interacts with others.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
This has nothing to do with Section 230. If I sign up for a service that says I am not allowed to use the word "blue" and I use the word "blue", they can ban me.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well, you'd best do better research, because the freedom of association does not have a 100% SCOTUS success rate in favor of your claim.
Perhaps, but in this specific context, the favor is in Twitter being able to ban people.
It goes both ways. Start with https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of-association, but continue from there. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Section 230 does not stipulate that an internet service provider, such as Twitter, can unilaterally ban a user from posting anything, but only their objectionable content, determined "in good faith." As it is, Trump posting "Roses are red, violets are blue." is banned, when that content is not at all objectionable "in good faith." Same goes for Parler being banned from having a platform at all.
Show me
Created:
It's interesting and telling that the sad state of this game on this site is that Mikal gets more tolerance for his behavior than I. He rage quits three times in a row in response to legitimate mafia behavior. He just simply can't stand being pressured at all and he rage quits, getting himself lynched or breaking rules and getting mod killed and people are like, "meh."
Yet I propose we lynch a person with this history of behavior to mitigate its potential effects on this game and all of a sudden I'm this terrible person who is going to ruin this game.
This double standard is bullshit.
This is the last I am going to mention Elminster's history or Elminster himself. My vote will stay on him the rest of the game and all future games until he is no longer in them.
Lynch me if you want but you're just rewarding his shit.
Created:
I'm actually going to but Lunatic in my town pile. I don't buy him going through all of these shenanigans of claiming 1x vig but then clarifying it with this stuff about how it works if he's targeted by the mafia.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
You are changing how your role works. YOU.
In as much as I have clarified how my role works, it is in exactly the same manner that you have clarified. My calling yours a lie was out of line, I will admit. But as I stated, the end result is the same in that the original parameters of the agreement cannot be met, therefore it is void.
Your role is literally designed around mechanics like in mine.
No it isn't. It is literally designed around roleblockers, drivers, redirectors, and protective roles.
Whatever reason you have changed you stance on the role, the end result is the same: you can't guarantee a kill on Elminster so you have voided the original agreement.You are right, I can't kill elminster. Not by myself. The plan always included you motivating my role. If you are changing the mechanics of your own role, your are the one lying.
In the original agreement you stipulated that the only way to stop your role was through roleblocking. Is that or is that not the case currently? If it is not the case, then the original agrement is voided.
The same point in lynching anyone: to remove them from the game.You wanted to remove the game to prevent him from quitting. We have since talked him out of quitting, and he is playing normally. Your objective was accomplished, and you are still trying to lynch him.
I'm less interested in preventing him from quitting than mitigating the end result of him quitting. I consider his exit from the game to be a nigh certainty and as I stated earlier on, him being removed from the game earlier is better than latter, regardless of his affiliation.
Well, he's progressing the game in the sense he has agreed to sheep your vote, so I can see how you would want to keep him in the game. As it is, I believe actions have consequences. I don't think it is "out of whack" to not wish a person who acts like Elminster does to be in the same game.You aren't just punishing mikal here, you are punishing the entire team by not even trying to consider his affiliation. Also if anything you are doing mikal a favor with your "punishment" he doesn't like playing here.
Then he should be on board with it. I win. He wins. We all win by not having a player that doesn't want to be here. Win-win-win.
The fact that he is trying to play and you are still trying to lynch him demonstrates your motives are for personal gain, not in the effort of winning, or solving who scum is. More likely you are just scum wanting a mislynch you think is consequence free, but in the off chance you aren't, then you are still a net detriment to your team, even more so now than mikal ever was.Well, he's progressing the game in the sense he has agreed to sheep your vote, so I can see how you would want to keep him in the game. As it is, I believe actions have consequences. I don't think it is "out of whack" to not wish a person who acts like Elminster does to be in the same game.A person who acts like elminster, you mean a person who is trying to play a normal game and adding pressure to inactives and questioning other players? He is doing more for the town right now than you are.
By sheeping you? I'm sure it's in your interest to spin sheeping you as being beneficial to town. But I don't think that bears objective scrutiny.
I didn't back out of the agreement: you did. If you can vouch for your original agreement, I'm in.Nothing has changed if your role functions the way you said it did in post 10.
And nothing has changed if your rules functions the way you said it did in post 103.
It's certainly interesting that, after I mention that this might be a scheme by scum you magically reveal that you misunderstood your role and it can be stopped by something other than a roleblock.The only drawback that can happen is if you are roleblocked, I am night killed, and Mikal is the scum who isn't carrying the night kill. In which case my role also operates as an investigative one and we would know for a fact that mikal is scum and end up lynchinh him anyway.
Since you just contemplated how this plan might fail, does that make you scum now, since it apparently makes me scum?
I think it is an entirely reasonable interpretation of my role to suggest that the ability cannot be stopped and I will agree that having the mafia night kill also include a free roleblock is out of line and pretty much makes both you and my roles rather weakened.Your role literally counters how weak my role is.
There is nothing about my role that suggests it was put in to count yours.
Even permitting the free roleblock, I agree that my role should by pass it and allow the ability to work, but Pie has ruled that is not the case.Where?
In our PM.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Inherent in the freedom to do something is the freedom to choose not to do something as well. The first amendment also contains an implicit freedom of association that has been upheld by the courts.
The sum result of these two is groups and organizations and voluntarily associate with each other and also decline to associate with each other.
Forcing Twitter to accept a member to its user base would violate this.
Note that the lawsuit against Trump blocking people on Twitter was a lawsuit against Trump, specifically, not Twitter the platform.
There have been attempts to sue Twitter (and others) for being blocked, and none have succeeded. Notably Laura Loomer, Charles Johnson, Jared Taylor, Craig Brittain, Robert Wilson. So far no attempts to claim First Amendment protection against Twitter (a non-government agency) have succeeded.
Created:
Though given my character, maybe that's the joke. I have a lot of power in theory, but none in actuality. Galaxy brain shit right there.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I can only assume that mafia has a roleblocker or driver or something otherwise I'm completely useless. I'm also asking about how my role interacts with misinformation roles.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Ask the mod this:
"Would the STRENGTHENER role allow other roles to succeed even if that player is killed that night?"
Created:
To be clear, my role can protect other abilities from the following:
- Role block
- Redirection
- Protective roles (e.g. if I strengthen a vig it will pierce doctors/bulletproof)
He says these are examples and includes "etc" but given that mafia can just kill the person I'm strengthening to stop their ability, I'm not sure what the "etc" could possibly mean.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
If you think me and elminster are scum buddies there is no hope for you lol. You had a clear way to make sure mikal was going to die. If you were really town, and genuinely thought mikal was scum, you would go through with that method to make sure he will die.
We did have a way, yes. Then you changed it. Now we no longer have a way.
If you think I lied about my role, rather than actually mis-understood pie, why would I tell you and everyone else publicly that instead of just stick with the orignal narrative? What benefit does that yield me as scum?
Whatever reason you have changed you stance on the role, the end result is the same: you can't guarantee a kill on Elminster so you have voided the original agreement.
Also what's the point of lynching elminster anymore?
The same point in lynching anyone: to remove them from the game.
The original point was because you thought he was going to throw and just rage quit. He is now helping progress the game and has been playing, and you are still trying to wagon him. If you are town the only explanation is that you are just so stubborn and unwilling to admit that your tunneling is extremely out of whack here.
Well, he's progressing the game in the sense he has agreed to sheep your vote, so I can see how you would want to keep him in the game. As it is, I believe actions have consequences. I don't think it is "out of whack" to not wish a person who acts like Elminster does to be in the same game.
At the moment, it seems pretty scummy that you were so eager to back out of proving your role which in a way that literally results in the thing you want; Mikal dying.
I didn't back out of the agreement: you did. If you can vouch for your original agreement, I'm in.
You are trying to make the argument that a role that says "If I target you and you have an action, that action can't be stopped." If you weren't lying about that, nothing should prevent the vig frmo going through. However you were setting in the seeds that this wasn't going to work before I even acknowledged mis-understanding pie (which again doesn't effect the wording of your own role in post 10)."But I predict either I'll be dead or Lunatic will concoct some story about why it didn't happen, most likely involving me being scum."It's almost like your setting up for the plan to fail because you aren't actually the role you said you are and know it will fail.
It's certainly interesting that, after I mention that this might be a scheme by scum you magically reveal that you misunderstood your role and it can be stopped by something other than a roleblock.
As it is, when I said that it could not be stop, I did not consider that Pie was giving mafia a free roleblock along with their kill. That's not a normal thing to have and I don't think it should be expected that I would assume they have it, or consider that they have it to the point I would have asked Pie about it before it was mentioned in the game.
I think it is an entirely reasonable interpretation of my role to suggest that the ability cannot be stopped and I will agree that having the mafia night kill also include a free roleblock is out of line and pretty much makes both you and my roles rather weakened.
Even permitting the free roleblock, I agree that my role should by pass it and allow the ability to work, but Pie has ruled that is not the case.
If you don't like it, you can take it up with him in the End Game, but it is what it is and I'm not going to argue with the mod about his rulings or game design in the middle of the game.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
I am 100% on board with the original plan as provided by you, where you are a 1x vig who has guaranteed success unless he is roleblocked.
It is you who changed the parameters of the plan. You voided it, not me. And since my not voting Mikal was contingent on that plan, this is on you.
If you can vouch for the original plan as stated here:
Then I am back on board.
Can you vouch for your original plan?
If not, why would you expect me to still be on board?
Created:
-->
@Bullish
I meant for any B, Lunatic dies.
Created:
It's also amusing that It's lunatic who changed how his role works yet I'm the one that gets sussed for it. Anything I think it's increasingly clear that Lunatic and Elminster are scum buddies. I just don't buy their interactions as town. It reads like scum planning things in plain view.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In what way would scum buddies prevent someone from quitting if someone wanted to quit?
Created:
-->
@Bullish
If I'm killed my ability doesn't go through. Not sure why, but that's how Pie is playing it this game.
So for C and D, my ability doesn't go through mkeaning for CW/CX/DW/DX, I die and in CY/CZ/DY/DZ Mikal and I die.
So basically maf have a free kill-roleblock ability somehow.
Created:
-->
@Bullish
For any A, both Luna and Mikal die. For any B, Mikal dies.
For C and D, I am asking Pie if my ability still goes through if I am killed.
Created:
Pie confirms that killing will still stop roles from going through.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
You’re voting me because you lied about how your role works? Lol.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
What you asked pie and he told you that?
It's my role in my role PM. It prevents other roles from being interfered with.
When I first claimed I explained that you should be able to strengthen and you didn't say anything then. If my kill wouldn't normally go through, it should now go through if you enable me. I don't understand how that wasn't the idea from the get go...
I read that you were 1x vig. I didn't read all of these contingencies. All I can do is prevent mafia from interfering with the operation of your role. I can't override the restrictions of your role itself and I never claimed I could.
lol at drafter looking for an excuse for his role not to work
For the record, this is what I agreed to:
So here's my compromise: I am Lauren Boebert, the 1x vig. I was initially probably going to just waive my kill every night phase unless we had results that guaranteed a scum or something. But I will promise to use it on elminster tonight, since he says he is not a power role. My kill will go through no matter what unless role blocked, or killed by the scum carrying the night kill, according to pie. Pie hasn't answered my question about whether a strengthener would allow the kill to go through though, and I doubt he will since doing so might be considered bastard modding. But it stands to reason that if you strengthen me it should go through. If mafia roleblock you, I would assume my kill should be free of being blocked obviously, and go through. If it doesn't, then mikal was the mafia carrying out the night kill and you guys know to lynch him next day phase.
You didn't say anything about your target needing to target you as well for your kill to go through.
You've changed your role from "my kill will go through no matter what unless role blocked" to "my kill only goes through if my target also targets me."
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Three games. Not one. Three.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
My strengthening means your action is immune to interference. It can't be roleblocked, protected against, redirected, etc. If it is contingent on maf targeting you, I can't make maf target you.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Actually I got that part wrong from my communication with pie. I can kill mafia only if they target me. Shouldn't make a huge difference
Oh... so you can't actually vig Elminster.
VTL Elminster
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Because this is a game where it is a matter of course that we will pressure other people. If a person cannot handle a single person voting them and is threatening to rage quit, this isn't a person anyone should want in a game. And Elminster has done this three times and has already threatened to do it this game.
So what's the solution? If anyone votes Elminster he'll throw a fit and rage quit. So we just don't vote him? Ever? He get's a free pass because his skin is approximately 1 mm thick?
Meta-wise it's a fairly neat strategy. Establish a reputation for being a baby and, instead of everyone treating you like any other player (a veteran player, at that) they treat you with kid gloves, to the extend other vets are willing to give you free lynches just to appease you.
But on the other side of the fence, I just don't see the option where anyone tolerates it and I surely won't. I only back off because of the promise to vig him. And if tomorrow arises and Elminster is still alive, I'm voting him until he's dead, then Lunatic for lying.
But I predict either I'll be dead or Lunatic will concoct some story about why it didn't happen, most likely involving me being scum.
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
drafter, why didn't you just leave elminster alone so he wouldn't feel like he's getting "tunneled" or whatever, welp too late now...
You looking for answers or is this rhetorical?
Created:
I know Pie leans right, but he can't buy into that QAnon bullshit, can he?
Created:
VTL Speed
The Lunatic/Elm buddying rubs me the wrong way, and I can only wonder if this was some scum gambit to keep their partner from tantrum quiting again. I'll note that the last time Mikal was mildly pressured as scum he also got personal with the insults.
I'm fairly certain he won't end up dead tomorrow, regardless of what I die, and that'll probably be used as some sort of argument against me to lynch me. After all, if Lunatic is fine vigging him tonight, it servers just as well to lynch him today, especially if things look like they are heading to a NL.
But I agreed to lay off and I will hold to that for today.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
That works for me. Unvote
Created:
And this just proves my point. You have exactly one person pressuring you and that's it. That's your level of tolerance. A single person can't apply pressure to you and you just want to exit the game.
Created:
-->
@Elminster
Try? What is there to "try"? Getting yourself lynched or mod killed is a positive action. The only thing you need to do to avoid it is literally not do it.
As it is, I'm perfectly fine with you leaving this site playing Mafia elsewhere and being replaced.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I always feel DP1's are pointless, games should just start NP1. As it is I have two goals this phase: see if there is a person I feel comfortable using my role on and getting Elminster lynched.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Its because of your vote. How dead set on you about lynching elminster? Is it gonna be ome of those things where you will tunnel him all game until he dies or are you flexible? If its the latter I may have a plan to compromise but it will have blow backs in the way of POE for scum, though I suppose it could help town in POE too depending if mafia call bluffs.
Well, given his most recent posts it seems he's on the fence as to whether or not he's going to go that route, which makes me inclined to just lynch him and be done with it.
Frankly, this shit shouldn't be tolerated. Contemplating it shouldn't be tolerated. He's done it three times and now he's considering doing it again and people are just like "meh" when, as a community, it should be "play the fucking game or don't play at all."
I get Mafia activity in general is low here, but it is what it is. No mafia is better than shitty mafia and I will absolutely rid this game of a shitty player to improve the game than tolerate it.
So my vote is staying where it is.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Ok, fair you didn't ping me, but you are voting me. What do you expect to get out of it?
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
I am not gonna do the "policy lynch mikal" thing.
Ok. I am.
If it's just to teach him a lesson, I already know he doesn't care lol.
Yes, throwing tantrums and rage quitting. The hallmark signs of someone that doesn't care.
He's been slapped on the wrist enough to know people aren't a fan of that playstyle.
And yet he did it what, three times in a row?
Also Mikal doesn't always do that, and I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt this go around until he does it again. He seems to have mostly signed up for this as a favor to pie, so auto lynching him probably isn't doing us or him a favor. As soon as he does the self sabotoging antics, I will vote him so not to distract the dp, but until he does Im give him the benefit of the doubt.
Good for you. I'm not so forgiving. I've already role claimed and I'm pushing for a policy lynch on Mikal. I have nothing else to provide to you this phase.
Created:
Vote Elminster and get the rage quit out of the way now when it hurts town less.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Which means the person will still be able to user their action unmolested. Win-win.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
There's always an element of WIFOM there. No risk, no reward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm more concerned about your behavior toward me. As you should be.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Yeah, but they'd be unstoppable.
Created:
Posted in:
For the umpteenth time, this is why atheists get an attitude. Get it, yet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Another false attribution. FLRW is not "my boy." I don't know this person. I am not in any way associated with this person. I am neither responsible nor knowledgeable of their actions or words or thoughts.
Created:
Oh. Mikal is here. Let's get this out of the way then.
VTL Elminster
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Look, I didn't set up this dialogue to further perpetuate hostility, rather the opposite. I'm sure some atheists have good reason to be irritated by theists (which I've already admitted) and vise versa. My main point is that I don't want to be inhibited by presumptions that don't apply to me in a discussion,
I get that, but yet when I point out the presumptions you applied to me that don't apply to me, you don't acknowledge it or seem to care. It's a two-way street, unless the only thing you care about is when it is done to you, and you don't care about when you do it to others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Whether or not a sitting President can be charged with a crime is an open area of Constitutional Law, probably one that no one wants to get into at the moment (especially due to existing DoJ policy to not indict sitting presidents). At least impeachment is a known way of dealing with a President and, once removed from office, there will be no issues to any criminal charges unless Trump attempts to pardon himself.
Created:
If no one convinces me that they're town, I'll just waive.
Created:
-->
@Bullish
No. I'd say the descriptions are rather even-handed.
That said I am going to role claim. I'm the STRENGTHENER. If I target you and you have an action, that action can't be stopped.
Convince me that you're town and I'll use it on you.
I am not going to character claim to keep it for possible CC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I presented a number of presumptions and false attributions you made to me as a source of why I might develop an attitude and you just... blew by them.
So again, and in conclusion, this is why people develop and nurse attitudes. You clearly don't really care, or at least don't care to do anything about it, or at least deny that how you reply to others has any part to play.
If we're going to talk intellectual honesty, let's start there.
Created: