Total posts: 5,653
-->
@Dr.Franklin
As Supa said, I'm pretty active on the Discord. On here you're more likely to find me in the Games forum. This forum is better for watching than participating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
If we need the extra money literally right now, why are places waiting months/years before they bring the wages up?
You have one area waiting until 2020, another area waiting until 2021, and other areas waiting until 2023 or 2025, and so on.
No you don't.
We also still haven't figured out why states are going for $15 an hour, when you've already said we would need at least $16 an hour. We might even need far more than that, just to make sure people can have money to get themselves out of their situation.
Maybe.
There is a reason Donald Trump cut taxes on the wealthy, because it allows them to have more money to invest back into their businesses, hire more employees, and pay them higher wages. There is now less unemployment, and there are also less people on food stamps.
Off topic.
There are many different solutions to helping our poor citizens. Raising the minimum wage is a solution, but it isn't the only solution, and some solutions will take longer than others.
I'm glad you agree that raising minimum wage is a solution. Are we done now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I've already listed some areas like illinois that are going to wait until as late as 2025 to raise the minimum wage, at least 6 years from now (2019).
Yeah, I know. You claimed a similar thing for Massachusetts. Except that's not true. I highly recommend claiming things that are true.
So I must ask: Why can't we work on implementing my solutions in the mean time?
Never said we couldn't. You're the one that is saying there are certain solutions we can't implement. Not me.
I'm sure we could find ways to address the rising cost within 6 years. One of my solutions was for the government to stop spending recklessly. That should be doable in 6 years before the minimum wage goes up, right?
LOL.
Shouldn't building a few more housing units and fixing our education system also be doable within that time, way before the minimum wage increase becomes necessary?
No. A minimum wage increase is necessary right now.
Wouldn't it be great if we fixed this problem within 6 years, before the minimum wage has to go up again?
There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now. When the government has implemented your magical solutions and there isn't a need for a higher minimum wage, we can readdress the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Do all families need a higher federal minimum wage, a higher state minimum wage, or both?
Federal needs to be higher. State is on a case-by-case basis.
Also, if we're going to be having minimum wages, then they have to be based on costs of living.
They've only ever been based on costs of living.
It does have something to do with minimum wage. Since not all businesses make the same profits, not all businesses will be able to afford to pay the same amount to employees.
These are issues all businesses have to tackle all of the time that has nothing to do with minimum wage itself.
Not all businesses can afford to pay a minimum wage of $15 or $16 an hour without reducing costs or raising prices.
Okay.
Like you said, there are many struggles that businesses have to face, so why give them more struggles of having to find a way to pay their employees more, on top of the struggles that they already have? Why make things harder for them than they already are?
I'm sure it was (and still is) a struggle for businesses to implement maximum hours per work week, minimum age limits on people they could hire, implementation of safety measures. I'm sure many businesses would prefer to run their shops like sweat shops of old (and indeed, many do by outsourcing their labor to places where sweatshop conditions are still permitted).
As a society we've judged those conditions to be inhumane and the general welfare of the people trumps business interests in these regards. You have yet to present a compelling reason to undo a century's worth of work on this social progress.
Is there a problem with businesses raising prices of goods or reducing hours, though?
An epidemic that would warrant not raising the minimum wage as a result? No.
They would then risk losing potentially valuable employees, since those employees could quit that job and find another business to work with that pays them a better wage.People usually favor the job that pays more, and if someone is a valuable employee, the business would pay them a good amount, so that they wouldn't want to quit.
Exactly! And that would still be the case if minimum wage is raised. Glad we're on the same page now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I didn't make that up. It's basic math calculations.
Math calculations that you made up. I can make up my own, too. 5 + 7 = 12, ergo we should have minimum wage. End of discussion.
Families with higher costs of living need higher wages than families with lower costs of living.
Correct.
Families with lower costs of living do not need higher wages.
Incorrect. The is no cost of living in the United States that it is possible to live off of the federal minimum wage without supplementary assistance. Right now, all families need a higher minimum wage, regardless of cost of living.
Not every business makes the exact same profits, and not every business is the exact same size.
Correct.
Because of this, not every business will be able to afford to pay higher and higher wages, unless they find a way to increase their profits.
Okay, sure.
Where would this extra money come from?They could reduce employee hours, raise prices of their goods, or fire employees outright, and invest in automation.
These are issues all businesses have to tackle all of the time that has nothing to do with minimum wage itself. Regardless, the inception of minimum wage 80 years ago, there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming problem with businesses employing people.
If someone works for me, they make 12 dollars an hour, they are working 2 hours a day, they are making 24 dollars a day. If the minimum wage is raised to 24 dollars an hour, I could simply reduce their hours to 1, so they're still making 24 dollars a day.
Correct. That would probably be a stupid thing to do, but correct. If you decrease their hours you decrease the amount of money you pay them.
If the minimum wage, whatever that is, gets doubled, businesses can simply cut the hours in half to avoid having to pay more...
Correct. They can do that, right now. They don't have to wait for any minimum wage law to pass. They can cut hours in half right now and double their profits!
If someone works for me, and I pay them 14 dollars an hour, and that's the minimum wage, and it gets raised to 16, and there's a robot than I can invest 15 dollars in to do that labor, I can fire that person and invest in the robot, so I save at least 1 dollar. 16 - 15 = 1.It's basic math calculations. Not made up. Any business that can invest in automation that is cheaper than what the would have to pay an employee will save money by investing in that automation.
Off topic.
If I run a businesses that sells items, and the price of the item is 1 dollar, and my employee sells 7 items a day to make 7 dollars, and the minimum wage is 3 dollars, I can pay my employee 3 dollars, while my profit margin is 4 dollars. If the wage is raised to any number that is higher than my profit margin, I would have to raise the price of the item, to maintain a profit margin, or I go out of business.It's basic deductive reasoning, which, again, is not made up.If it is all made up... if raising wages doesn't lead to any of these possible outcomes...
It doesn't. At least not in any drastic way. We've had minimum wage laws for almost a century yet there doesn't seem to be some epidemic of business sinking and people being put out on the streets. You're touting arguments that are as old as my grand parents.
then why stop at $15 dollars? Why not raise it to $150 and make everyone richer?
Because the point of minimum wage laws isn't to "make everyone richer." You made that up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
While owners are closely examining the effects of the minimum wage increases on small businesses, they have important factors to consider beyond the quick math of how much more they have to pay their hourly employees.
Exactly. Things aren't as simple as your fear mongering would suggest.
How do you know that these many small businesses with razor thin profit margins designed their business poorly? How do you know that they would have been "on the verge of collapse anyway"?
I don't know. You're making shit up (e.g. people who want minimum wage increases are lazy people who've made bad decisions and want the government to pay for luxury items) so I figured I would, too. It's a fun game. When you want to stop making shit up, I will.
Why can't I argue that it's the poor people themselves who made the poor decision to depend on low paying entry-level jobs in the first place, and make poor life choices such as having kids?
You have argued that. It's patently ridiculous, which I think I've demonstrated by doing it back. Can we stop with the silly scenarios, then?
You already admitted that not everyone will agree on what the correct minimum wage is, and said we only need 50% + 1 to agree on it. What if 25% agrees there should be no minimum wage, another 25% agrees it should be 7.25, another 25% agrees it should be 20 dollars, and the other 25% agrees it should be 100 dollars?
If you don't understand how legislation works, then I encourage you to educate yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Do we raise the minimum wage and get rid of the supplementary assistance, or do we get rid of the minimum wage and raise the supplementary assistance?
We raise the minimum wage so they don't need the supplementary assistance.
Those aren't made up. Imagine that you run a business, your profit margins are razor thin, you already pay your employees as much as you can.Then the government decides that they need more money instead of you.What do you do?
If I'm in a business whose profits are so razor thin I paying my employees as much as I can then I've designed my business poorly. I'm likely on the verge of collapse anyway. That's a problem with me, not with minimum wage.
Regardless, all of these fear-mongering scenarios are things you made up. I can make things up too: "If we don't raise minimum wage an asteroid will hit the Earth and obliterate everyone. What do you do?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
How can the government set the correct minimum wage when nobody can agree what the correct minimum wage is? How do they know if they're setting the correct minimum wage? How can we trust that they know what they're doing if nobody can agree on it?
You don't need everyone to agree on it. Just 50% + 1.
The minimum wage is already enough to afford people housing, clothing, and transportation, while the government covers food and health costs.
Exactly. The minimum wage isn't livable. It requires supplementary assistance. You concede the point, then?
Why raise the minimum wage and risk hurting those businesses with already-thin profit margins? They will have to fire employees, reduce hours, and/or raise costs. If those employees lose their jobs, they will be worse off, since they not cannot work and have to depend on others even more.
You made this up.
Many businesses are even replacing workers with automation/robots.
Off topic.
Those people won't be able to earn money to afford anything, their work won't be worth at least the minimum wage, it will be illegal for anyone to hire them, and they will be screwed.Those who still manage to keep their jobs would have their hours reduced or prices raised, in order for the business to stay in profit.If too many people get fired, or if prices are raised too much, the entire business could go out of business.
You made this up.
What does a minimum wage increase do for all those homeless people in America? They already can't get jobs since they won't get hired. Many of them are drug addicts too. https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-homeless-crisis-historic-cemetery-overrun-with-drugs-and-prostitution-amid-worsening-problem.amp
Off topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
$16? So why are people advocating for $15 an hour then, and not 16?
Because the things we are talking about aren't strictly quantifiable and not everyone agrees on what the "right" amount is.
Also, if higher minimum wages are supposed to help those struggling, why are governments waiting until 2030 to raise that wage? https://www.michamber.com/michigan-chamber-supports-senate-changes-minimum-wage-law
They aren't.
Cost of living for who? The 1 guy who lives by himself, buys only cheap stuff, saves every possible penny, lives in the cheapest apartment possible, or the family with 4 kids who needs money for a nice car, nice clothes, money to pay for those kids' college tuition, and money to live in a higher quality apartment?
No one is arguging that the minimum wage should support buying nice cars, nice clothes, children's college tutition and high quality apartments. You made that up.
Like I said, not everyone needs the exact same amount of money to survive, and "cost of living" can vary from family to family. There is no such thing as being "consistent with the cost of living" unless you either 1) make the minimum wage match the cost of living of the family with the highest cost of living, or 2) calculate the cost of living for every family in the state/country and make the minimum wage the average cost of living for all of them.
Sure, I'm fine with either of those.
But do you really need that much money to learn the necessary skills to get a better job?
Yes.
With a cheap smartphone, with internet/youtube, you can learn a wide variety of different skills for a better paying job. You don't necessarily need to go to an expensive college for all that.
I provided my numbers to show why the minimum wage isn't livable. And that didn't include Internet connection or a phone plan. Please provide your budget that shows a livable lifestyle on minimum wage alone that includes those things.
Which I've already given some solutions to, in post #86 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/529/post_links/123734
I will agree that if the need for a higher minimum wage is eliminated, then it shouldn't be raised. But that need hasn't, in fact, been eliminated and implementation of those solutions would take time. Until we actually reach that state of affairs, raise the minimum wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
@Christen,
Does that mean I can have my employer pay me the minimum wage while I "donate" some of what I'm paid back to my employer in order to circumvent the arbitrary minimum wage law?
Once the money is in your pocket it's yours to do with as you please.
You said "At $7.25, it'll take you 170 hours to match" costs for living expenses, and that, after paying for all living expenses like food, clothing, and rent, you would "get 173 - 170 = 30 * $7.25 = $21.75. A whopping $21.75 left over."That means that the minimum wage is already "survivable" and that it does not need to be raised, since that's all it needs to be. Minimum and Survivable. Except, you want it to be more "survivable" since $21.75 isn't "survivable" enough?
I provided those numbers to highlight the fact that it isn't survivable. Those numbers were cherry picked from a place reported as having a very low cost of living. Everywhere else, it's much higher.
How much more "survivable" does the minimum wage have to be?
For the US, studies put that around $16/hr.
Sure minimum wage jobs can be survivable and be enough to allow people to afford to save and have health insurance, but they should also be good for young people to start gaining work experience.
No, currently minimum wage jobs aren't survivable. That's the point.
If you raise it to try and make it "more survivable," then it will be harder for young people to work for low pay and get work experience to get to a better job where they can get paid a much better wage.That's another problem with minimum wage increases. They discourage/disincentivize people from working harder or looking for better jobs that pay more. If my current minimum wage is 10 dollars an hour, and I want to be paid 20 dollars an hour, I could see if I could work harder to earn more money, or see if there are better jobs available that pay more, but if the minimum wage gets raised to 20 dollars an hour, then there's no reason for me to work harder or find a better job since I'm already getting paid more money not because I worked harder or found a better job, but because the government randomly decided that I should be paid more, and that's assuming that I don't lose my job, have my hours reduced, or have prices raised to compensate for the wage increase.
You made this up.
Minimum wage increases should reward people for working harder and making smarter life choices, as well as encourage them to use that extra money to save up, not promote laziness.
No, minimum wage increases should implemented to keep it consistent with the cost of living. If the cost of living increases, the minimum wage should increase. It's not a reward, like a raise or bonus.
When you raise wages because people worked harder, saved up every possible penny, or made smarter life choices, that encourages them to keep doing those things. When you raise wages because the government said so, that encourages them to rely on the government to keep saying so.
And when you fail to raise minimum wage you're keeping them reliant on the government anyway, from your own link:
"People earning minimum wage are qualified for free health insurance, food stamps, free lunch at school for kids, earned income credit, and multiple other benefits."
It's also insulting to those that did work harder, and to those that demonstrated that they deserve to be paid 20 dollars instead of 10. They worked hard for their wage increase, while those that were lazy and/or making poor life choices still get a wage increase.
You made this up.
Let's say I'm in high school or college part-time, going to enter the workforce pretty soon after I graduate, and I want to start gaining work experience early on, and make a little money while I'm at it. I still have my family to take care of me, but pretty soon, I'm gonna have to take care of myself.
Minimum wage laws aren't just for jobs intended for teenagers and young people looking to get a start on their career. You just made that up.
Why does the government have to make it illegal for me to gain work experience, earn a few dollars, and be able to use that experience and money to get into a good job that pays me a decent living wage later on, simply because the amount that my employer and I agree to be paid is not equal to or greater than the random arbitrary amount that the government established?
Also the "random arbitrary amount" is something you made up.
What if $7.25 an hour is all I need to be able to get a better job,
It isn't.
and the government decides to raise it anyway because someone else needs more money since they made the poor decision to have kids they couldn't afford, putting me at risk of losing my job, having my hours reduced, or having prices go up?
That isn't how this works.
Also, if the whole purpose behind raising the minimum wage is so that people can get a better job, why can't the government bring the minimum wage back down after people get better jobs? Why does the government have to keep increasing it constantly?
Because the cost of living has continually increased.
Not only that, but, even if your minimum wage does go up so you can now afford savings and a higher education to get a better job, wouldn't other's also raise prices too, so you now still cannot afford said savings and higher education? If I am left with $21.75 after paying all my expenses, and then I get a wage increase so that I am left with $43.50, wouldn't the price of other things also go up to compensate for the wage increase, so I still wouldn't be able to save much?
No, since the implementation of minimum wages in the 1930's, this scenario hasn't panned out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
What if I want to work for someone for less than the minimum wage? What if I agree with the employer to work for a lower price just to get some work experience and build up my resume?
If it is one of the exemptions to minimum wage law, then you are allowed to do that. Nothing in stopping you. In fact, nothing is stopping you from working less than minimum wage, just employers from paying you less than minimum wage. If you want to have less money you can always donate it or throw it away.
Why does the government have to step in and make it illegal for me to acquire work experience and build up my resume?
It isn't illegal to acquire work experience and build up your resume.
Weren't minimum wage jobs like McDonalds meant for young adults to get work experience and build up their resumes, as opposed to surviving off of?Weren't minimum wage jobs like McDonalds meant to serve as a stepping stone to a much better, much higher paying job?Why should I be blocked from working someplace and gaining work experience simply because someone else can't "survive" off of it?
You said the minimum wage should be survivable. Are you retracting that claim?
What if I'm not currently concerned with survival, and only concerned with gaining work experience?
Then you die.
Why does the government have to force my employer to pay me an arbitrary minimum wage for me to gain work experience to get a better job?
Because if the government didn't do that, they wouldn't pay you enough to be able to get a better job.
Couldn't I work for whatever the employer and I agree to, and still gain work experience?
As long as that agreed amount is compliant with the law, yes.
Another major problem with minimum wages you should know about is that minimum wages needed to survive can vary from person to person, and the governments that set these minimum wages often don't take that into account.
I agree! As it is, the minimum wage right now isn't enough for anyone to survive off of.
Let's say I live by myself, working for 7.25 an hour, and I choose to delay myself gratification, and purchase the cheapest things, so I can save every possible dollar to achieve a better life later on.
Then you still wouldn't be able to survive off of minimum wage.
Now let's say my next door neighbor makes the poor decision to have some kids that they can't afford to raise.If the government raises the minimum wage, they could have that extra money to raise their kids, but I could lose my job if my employer can't afford to pay me that much, so I would suffer.People with children are going to need a higher minimum wage than those without, so you can't have a one-size-fits-all minimum wage that works for everyone.Why should I suffer because of their poor choices? Most importantly, what if they end up losing their job too, since their employer also cannot afford to pay them the minimum wage? Now we both suffer, and for what? Minimum wage that has not helped either of us?
Higher minimum wages haven't increased unemployment. Your fears are unfounded.
The best way to help these poor people is by figuring out why costs are rising so much and then figuring out how to bring costs back down, such as by increasing the supply of things.
Sure. In the mean time, until we find the source of the problems and fix them, we should increase minimum wage.
Why put people at risk of losing their jobs due to an unafforable wage increase, when you can address the root of the problem, which is the rising prices, and low supply of things like housing units?
No one is suggesting putting people out of jobs due to an unaffordable wage increase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Isn't the whole point of a minimum wage to give you the bare minimum amount of money needed to survive? Isn't that why it's called the minimum wage in the first place?
No, it isn't. The "minimum" part of "minimum wage" means that is the minimum employers are allowed to pay you.
So it makes sense that you are not left with much to invest in health care, enemergencies, amenities, savings, or schooling, after paying for the bare minimum amount to survive, doesn't it?
No, that doesn't make sense. You cannot survive without health or emergency savings, nor can you ever hope to get out of that situation without savings or schooling. The current minimum wage is not enough to survive off of, let alone attempt to work your way to a better job.
It makes sense to find better work or work more hours if you want more in return, right?
Yes, but that is impossible to do when you can't afford to better yourself by doing things like going to school.
Then if you want to just give out more money per hour so that people can afford themselves all of these extra things, why bother calling it the minimum wage?
Because it should be the minimum wage employers are allowed to pay you.
Why not start calling it the comfortable wage or something, where you get enough to live very comfortably instead of getting enough to afford the bare minimum amount of needs to survive.
I haven't said anything about people living comfortably. You're putting words in my mouth, please don't do that.
It seems like people are trying to twist the whole definition of a minimum wage now, to mean something it's not.
It seems like you don't know what the term is, its purpose or its history. It also seems like you've never had to live off of a minimum wage job, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
Also imagine the chaos if they had lynched you before the role claims. They would have seen that you were lying and I could have likely avoided a lynch D2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
Read the OP. "Podlings" was a possible character in the game. Can you imagine what chaos your claim would have caused if it actually was and I was it? What was your plan for that instance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Last game I did a point-by-point analysis of your play, with links to specific posts throughout the game and you were unphased. I'm not doing that again. You have your belief and are going to stand by it to the death. You're wrong, but you're unwilling to accept that, understand why, and change. I'm fine with that. Your fine with that. We're both fine with that.
It's mainly as an example to others about behavior not to emulate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
Right, but your fake claim didn't actually help you "find" me.
You had no way of knowing that I would claim "the Podlings" or anything that would CC that fake claim. You have to see that that was pure luck. Your claim didn't make me claim any faster and made CCing me more complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Your read on me was based on faulty reasoning (you even admitted it was faulty) and your read on Grey was basically PoE.
But it really doesn't matter how good your reads are if you can't convince anyone else of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Jailer roleblocks the person targeted AND stops actions from targeting that person as well
Typically, yes. This wording however just says that the target is "protected." I interpreted that to mean that they can't be killed, but the only killing component is the Mafia Night Kill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
@Mharman
@warren42: You're good to start whenever.
@Mharman: You can post sign-ups whenever.
Ongoing
Sign-ups
Warren-The Office Mafia
In the Hopper
Mharman - Survive the Killers Mafia
Bsh1
PressF4Respect (Just a Regular Game of Mafia, themeless)
A-R-O-S-E ~ Player's Choice of Role Madness (Powders Pow-wow -- Batman Bizarreness - GotG Gagglefrick)
SupaDudz (Big Mouth, South Park, Teen Titans, Regular Show)
drafterman (6-2-2 Semi-Open)
Speedrace (You'll Go Crazy MCU)
TUF- Recycled Roles mafia
ILikePie5 - Pick 1: Narcos, Riverdale, Bakugan Battle Brawlers
On Hold
Buddamoose, Virtuoso, Breaking, Discipulus
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I think the balance was overall Okay. The only thing I would tweak would be warren's role. Either just have it have been a fixed 3rd Party survivor or, if he chose mafia, he doesn't count towards Mafia numbers (and don't inform the Mafia).
I'm not sure I understand the point of the Jailer Role vs just having it be a straight Roleblocker, but I assume this is an artifact from the original 13p set-up.
I enjoyed the game a lot and liked the design.
Created:
Posted in:
My feedback:
@AROSE
You did well. I went in for a overly complicated claim and you caught me. Recognizing how my group claim lined up with the info iny our PM was a good catch and you deserve kudos for it. But I think you only hampered yourself with the Hup/Vanilla stuff. It didn't help your case at all and in fact undermined the very reason why you went after me in the first place. All it did was create confusion. If you had come at me with your actual claim "I'm a group too, and my PM says the other group is my Skesis counterpart" that would have been a more effective case, more likely to get me lynched first, increasing Town's odds of winning.
Other than that, it was a good play and unfortunate for Town you ended up getting lynched DP1.
@Supa
I'm not really going to go in depth here, as you really aren't open to feedback or constructive criticism. So I'll just say you need to pace yourself. Your impressions and perception of the game aren't as good as you make them out to be, and I'd very much recommend scaling things back a bit. Calling other people idiots isn't how you win this game.
@Everyone
NEVER VTL YOURSELF. Again. NEVER VTL YOURSELF. It does absolutely nothing to help your wincon. Regardless of your faction you are better off stalling and letting the Phase end in a No Lynch than contributing to your own lynch. "I'll lynch myself if you're town" does nothing except give the Mafia an excuse to get two townies lynched for the price of one, which almost happened if Pie hadn't stopped it! (And well, ended up happening anyway).
Also, in this and the previous game I see a lot of concern and hand wringing over people "confirming" themselves: a hesitancy to lynch people if they can "confirm" themselves and focusing people who are "confirmed" scum and liberally lumping people into the "confirmed" town camp. In addition the fact that most instances of the term "confirmed" are used incorrectly, a lot of people really don't understand the distinction between character, role, and affiliation confirmation. They aren't hard linked. Character and affiliation, usually. Almost never role and affiliation.
People confirming or failing to confirm their role means very little. Mafia will only usually claim a confirmable role if they can, in fact, confirm it or will otherwise make excuses as to why their role has yet to be confirmed. If you make it a habit of lynching people for failing to confirm their role, then Mafia is just going to take efforts to focus on preventing Town from doing that (as we did with Supa) since Mafia usually has a ton of ways of interfering Town roles. Whether or not a person has confirmed their role is a piece of information, but it's mostly neutral at least until the person dies and their affiliation is finally confirmed, which allows Town to reevaluate their actions in that light. Mostly in terms of CCs and informative reports.
Lastly, a lesson for myself and Mafia in general: K.I.S.S. Keep it Simple, Stupid. Both me and Grey went for overly complicated claims which ended up working against us. For me, I generally have a tendancy to try and be as truthful as possible as Mafia, as to avoid the odd Lie Detector and to keep the lies I have to remember to a minimum. Indeed, I was a group (rather than a single character), and I was a JOAT (only lying about a couple of the abilities). This claim is the primary reason why I got lynched.
I deliberately left the Jen claim for Mharman/Grey, due to Mharman's inactivity. I was banking on my own abilities to stay alive and thought that the guarnateed claim would work better for the inactive Mharman. Unfortunately, Grey doesn't like main character fake claims, so this ended up hurting us in the long run, but not fatally so ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
You didn't address a single thing I said. You are not having this conversation honestly. Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Here. I'll even do some of the work for you.
You can get an apartment for $650/month in Columbus Ohio.
Monthly pass for public transportation: $85
Let's put food at $250/month.
Clothing: $50/month.
Health (insurance averages around $200)
At $7.25, it'll take you 170 hours to match that. There are an average of 173 work hours in a month, so you get 173 - 170 = 30 * $7.25 = $21.75. A whopping $21.75 left over.
And, remember, we haven't allocated any money for emergencies or other amenities that, while not strictly necessary for living, make it a hell of a lot better (phone, entertainment, etc.)
Oh, not to mention no money for savings or schooling, the exact things we'd need if we want to improve our situation and ever get into a better job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
You previously tied minimum wage to inflation, stating that if minimum wage increases, then the prices of everything else will increase, causing inflation. What you've failed to account for is the fact that inflation happens anyway, and prices are rising anyway, but minimum wage is failing to keep up.It's called minimum wage for a reason. It's meant to be a wage that gives you with the bare minimum amount to survive. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is, and arbitrary laws and/or wage hikes won't really change that. What will change that is if you find a way to make more than the minimum wage so you can save. My problem is when people are trying to turn the minimum wage into a decent wage or an average wage like some of the wealthier workers by raising it every year.
Minimum wage had the most purchasing power at $1.60 in 1968 which would be $11.53 today if it had kept up with inflation. It's estimated that the average cost of living in the US is $16.07 and I'd be very interested to see a proposed budget, by you, of how a person can survive on minimum wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
"Or something."
And, of course, you have the highest paying job in the world, so I can only assume you're speaking from experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
get a career that pays more or something.
Of course! It's so simple! Just get a higher paying job? Why didn't anyone else think of that?
Created:
Posted in:
"You miss 100% of the games you don't /in" - Wayne Gretzky - Michael Scott - drafterman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Concur. I'd post sign-ups now and start as soon as TUF's game is over or when you are full, whichever happens later.
Created:
Posted in:
The only issue here is whether or not Town could have multiple JOATs. Given that they are one-shot abilities, there is nothing really against that. I did not turn Vanilla and the only person to blame for last phase is AROSE because of his risky gambits and, frankly, lying. He was a group himself, yet decided to cast suspicion on me that I am a group as well.
It seems that TUF has decided, mechanically, that "group = JOAT" which makes sense, and it is probably safe to say that the Mafia has a JOAT as well, representing the Skeksis
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
What exactly are you saying? What is the juxtaposition of those posts supposed to imply?
You "claimed" in post #31 at 12:39 two days ago. You knew then, that someone would claim the Podlings? Really? That's your assertion?
Created:
Posted in:
For the record, AROSE wants to lynch me because I CC'd his fake claim he lied about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
If you're Ursu then you aren't actually CCing me!
Created:
Posted in:
FWIW, his claim at "luring me out" is completely rediculous. He knew, ahead of time, that I would fake claim the Podlings so had the forethought to also fake claim a Podling so he could CC me when I did?
Created:
Posted in:
LOL. So AROSE has literally lied about everything.
He's not Hup.
He's not Vanilla.
He's saying I'm a group of people (the Skeksis) despite ADAMANTLY saying there aren't any players that are groups of people.
VTL Arose
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Right but if you think it's #1 or #2, then he's lying and we should just lynch him and be done with it. The only benefit to #2 is that he implicates someone else after death, but you admit that is unlikely.
If it's #3, then waiting doesn't buy us anything, so if there is reason to lynch him then we should just lynch him.
If you don't think there is reason enough to lynch him, then that's your stance.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not sure that this is a CC. Nor could you possibly know what anyone else's character's are. This is the second time you've spun your own opinions as some sort of fact.
In any event, I'll full claim. I'm the Podlings, a group of creatures that have been enslaved by the Skeksis and used as servants in their castle. We perform a variety of tasks, so I'm the JOAT.
I have a 1x: role blocker, watcher, tracker, and cop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
Do you not understand how pressure works? You're not supposed to claim without it (like you did).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Okay, so then you're holding out for some sort of smoking gun evidence before deciding to lynch him.
I'm saying there is enough to lynch him, even if he is telling the truth about his role.
There are three cases here:
1. He is lying about his role, no one confirms him.
2. He is lying about his role, he has his scum mate fake-confirm him.
3. He isn't lying about his role, he messages a town who (if living) confirms him.
If #1, we lynch him. But we have no way of distinguishing between #2 or #3 without just lynching him anyway. Not to mention that he is Mafia in #1 and #2 and could be either Mafia or Town in #3.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Lynching Sup makes no sense because his claim is testable and informational.Obviously, if Sup is lying about his ability then he plans to have his scum mate confirm him (although saying this out loud now makes it unlikely) anybody working for town should have waited for Sup to make a choice.anybody pressing to lynch Sup is less likely town
You're operating under the premise that if Supa is scum, then he is lying about his role. (And therefore if he is not lying about his role he is therefore not scum). You don't appear to have considered the case that he is a Mafia-sided messenger. In which case he will be able to prove his role, but still should be lynched.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, I think we have less than a day left? So we should decide soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
Okay? Nothing about why I am on him has anything to do with his role.
Created: