Total posts: 3,425
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@ILikePie5
Yes, this does offer Mafia a safe claim. I'm still focused on the claims made in DP1.
I still have my suspicions of Speed as well. Going with cop is gutsy, but Avatar Roku is an odd choice, given his extremely limited appearances in the series. It sounds plausible, given that the character was an Avatar, with very little likelihood of someone else being given that name. Part of the reason I see BearMan as Town is that someone had to be Toph. That claim could have easily been challenged and almost certainly would have been if someone else had it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Yup. I was out of commission for pretty much the entire phase.
Created:
Posted in:
Because I'd rather move things along,
Unvote
VTNL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
It's all good. Brand new to this and, yep, quiet's generally how I do things until I feel I have something worthwhile to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Lunatic- hasnt done anything that scummy this seems like just town lunatic. The role does sound strange but custom roles are possible especially with atla which supa is a fan of. If his claim makes sense ill believe it.iLikePie5- townread this seems like normal pie town. Pie is way lurkier as scum an less helpful.Bearman- Top scumread rn. He wasnt reading the dp and had erratic voting.Greyparrot- lurky as usual most likely just town grey parrot.Speedrace-unsure of i disagree with him saying that the likes thing was a waste of time. Aside from that his role makes sense.Crocodile- null inactive. This is normal croc play so i townread him for now.Danielle - never had her as scum before so idk what she acts like when she is. Everything shes done so far seems fine so i lean more to the town side for her.MisterChris- too inactiveWarren- too inactive
Whiteflame: not good enough to get a read -_-
Created:
Posted in:
Avatar Roku seems like a pretty safe choice, which leaves me still suspicious. His role in the series is small enough that his being among the 11 roles given out here would be surprising - there are certainly more than enough characters who are more prominent in the series. It’s possible, but that also makes it hard to deny, which makes it an effective fake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
@Lunatic
I read and reread them before this, but I wanted to see a summary, and I appreciate your giving me one. Also appreciate Lunatic for pointing to specific posts related to my question. The reason my vote is up is largely as a placeholder, but I’ll change that. I largely voted for you because you said you would prefer that to doing nothing, and hey, I got more engaged after I did it, so I don’t regret having done it.
That being said, I will change it.
Unvote Danielle
VTL Speedrace
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I guess I'll just put this out there: for those who are voting Speed, what are your reasons? I'm open to putting my vote there if there's good reason for it.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not asking anyone to reveal their role, I'm just asking if you have a role besides vanilla. Y'all can just say YES or NO.
YES or NO
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
What led you to vote BearMan then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I agree that his role is strange, but I also think it's entirely plausible that it was an error in judgement/understanding of ATLA by Supa. I'd actually lend more credence to the latter in this case, though not by a wide margin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I might change my vote to get valid pressure, but I'm not clear that the target of that pressure should be BearMan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
No treatise, just the thoughts that I've already expressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Thoughts on pie?ILikePie5, that is. Not actual pie.
Damn, I had a whole treatise on pie...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
The claim is that you modified what you received from SupaDudz. You can claim otherwise, as I'm sure you do, but I see his point as valid.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, in general, I'm decently familiar with Avatar the Last Airbender in terms of mechanics and how certain characters work, but I haven't seen enough of the series to be anything close to expert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I don't want to harp on this too much but there are also both better roles for Toph and better fits for tracker.
I'm right there with you on this, much as I've only just familiarized myself with what a Tracker is. It's a strange choice for Toph, hence I'm still iffy on BearMan, though it's not so unlikely of a choice that I'd dismiss it outright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
No one's sus to me yet, but BearMan's moves appear pretty odd to me, and much as I do think that Danielle is mainly just trying to get things moving, I'm unsure of her other motivations for all this posting. I do think ILikePie5 is Town, but everyone else I'm uncertain about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
@Speedrace
8. whiteflame - Null, lurking
Accurate. I'm honestly just enjoying the exchanges. Btw, I'll take Danielle's advice for now:
Even someone pressuring me for rambling so much would be useful or indicative of giving af
VTL Danielle
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Largely a hunch, not too much to go on at the moment. He's not alone in that department.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Thanks! Honestly, it’s not a complaint, was just providing my perceptions, uninformed as they are.
I don’t have a strong candidate at the moment, so I’m entertaining options. Speed is one I’m considering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
End of DP1. And yes, I recognize that. If people want me to establish my behaviors ahead of that point, they’re welcome to push on me. Not likely to say much to satisfy them, but the opportunity is there. If the goal is just to see how I puzzle through behaviors, then I can be much more thorough after I’ve gotten a chance to see how people vote and not just how they portray themselves in this forum. Any information we get will be suspect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
@Lunatic
I have some suspicions, though nothing solid just yet. And to your question, Danielle, I think I’ll learn more from seeing how this round plays out than from trying to dissect each individual interaction. I haven’t had much experience in this, but I plan to develop it quickly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Largely what I expected: a lot of accusations with little evidence. Enjoy watching it play out, though.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Hey, no spoiling the strategy!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I've tried some minor variations, but mostly, yes, it's the vanilla version to which I've been accustomed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Little experience. I have the basic concept and I’ve played the basic form of mafia before, though certainly not in this context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Well, I'm certainly on board for giving it a shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Only on a different site. Had a couple of rounds that went well over that limit.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
You're right on peer review. Regarding whether a study is good or bad, you can say that a study is more likely to be good based on the degree of scrutiny applied, but that is not enough by itself to decide whether a study is good or bad. However, I don't see it as purely subjective. There's little absolute certainty, but there are gold standard techniques and ways to show that you've covered all or most of the techniques to demonstrate something. The problem largely stems from limiting the strategies used or pushing conclusions that poorly translate from the results generated. The bigger problem, however, is not interpretation; it's replicability. We can all find any number of possible errors in a study, but they need to be tested in order to determine that there are problems, and there are scant few who actually do that because there's very little incentive. Far too few studies are actually replicated, and that leads to a lot of contradictory data that takes a while to get sorted out. It's a frustratingly persistent problem across all fields.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Pleasure's all mine, best debate I've read in a long time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Hey, as one of the voters on this debate, I'd be happy to do the write up for this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Don't know how I'd rate it in terms of quality, but it is a logical fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, I'll post some votes for threads.
DART Bard
DART: Honest Trailers
I will stereotype debaters properly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@Vader
@oromagi
Congrats to all of you!
Debates:
Congressional Limits
Legalized Abortion
Is Jesus the Messiah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Not to nitpick because I love the idea, but... human genetic clothing?
Created:
Posted in:
I haven't decided on a third yet, but I do nominate both Ragnar and Bsh1 for the user category.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll just focus on debates for now, come back to users later:
Resolved: The US should institute congressional term limits
bsh1 vs. blamonkey
Abortion should be illegal
SkepticalOne vs. PGA2.0
Ethics of cloning and genetic engineering in humans
nvmarco vs. fauxlaw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Like I said on your debate, feeling strongly about a topic tends to work against you in live debates when you don't have a choice of side, which is most of competitive debate. There was a time I would have agreed with you and seen the prospect of debating on something I knew nothing about nor had any strong feelings about, but I actually find those to be the more rewarding experiences these days. They force you to dig down into a topic and build an informed opinion from the ground up, and my best debates, whether written or spoken, were always on topics where I didn't feel strongly about the issue going into it.
Like MisterChris said, though, live debating is not something everyone loves. It requires putting yourself out there in a way that written debates don't. I personally think it's a lot more fun than written debates, partly because you don't have a lot of time to put together responses or rebuild your arguments, and partly because there's just so much more I gain from hearing a debate rather than reading it. It's worth giving it a shot and seeing if it's something you enjoy, but I respect your reservations on the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
NSDA definitely features, though this has morphed a bit as I turned to British Parli.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@That1User
@MisterChris
@seldiora
I'll follow Ragnar's lead. I've been nominated to judge your debates, so you should have some idea of what I'll be using as my paradigm.
Generally, I tend to award points based solely on arguments. Conduct and S&G have to be egregious to earn points from me, but each follows the usual: I need to see some pretty obvious insults to award conduct, and S&G only comes with some pretty severe difficulties involved in either reading or understanding of your argument.
Sources are rare for me to award, but will happen if one side is providing significantly more effective sourcing to their arguments. Note I say effective and not more - having more sources will not necessarily get you this point. If the debate over a single source results in a win for one side, that might be sufficient reason for me to award this.
As for arguments, I could take a while to explain this, but I'll keep it brief.
To start, I understand technical arguments. If you want to present things like topicality or kritiks in a debate, so long as they are within the rules the debaters themselves establish, I'm good with that. That being said, since I know how these arguments work, I expect that those of you who choose to use them will as well. Pointing out that your opponent doesn't understand or address one of these points correctly won't work well for you if the points don't stand well themselves. If I see a kritik without a violation, for example, it's not much of a kritik.
I don't like the term "Tabula Rasa" to describe judges and voters. None of us are clean slates; we come in with biases and those can and will affect how we see certain arguments. That being said, no matter how problematic I see certain arguments as being, I will not make arguments for the debaters. If I don't see it in the debate, it's not going to factor in the debate. That being said, I do not subscribe to the notion that a dropped argument is effectively held as perfect. I will compare points based on their merits, and while those merits can be reduced by responses, a well-warranted, well-explained point with a lot of debate over it may still stand out over a weakly examined point that goes cold dropped. All this being said, I will call out debaters on falsehoods or faulty analyses that go unaddressed, even if they do not feature as part of my actual decision.
I will go through the arguments presented by both sides and try to cover them all in my analyses. You can expect that I will at least give attention to as many points as I feel have merit, and will at least provide reasons why I'm not considering other points. I will talk about who wins a point, but, in line with what I just said, someone outright winning an argument isn't necessarily going to have more strength than a slight win on a different argument, depending on the impact and analysis.
I'm from a microbiology background, just finished my PhD. While I, like Ragnar, appreciate brevity as well, I'm more focused on organization and clarity (not that he doesn't, I'm just saying I favor these). If it takes longer to explain something in order to achieve those aims, don't hesitate to go long. I'm far more appreciative of a few thoroughly explained arguments than a dozen rushed points with limited analysis. Headings help, use them, and if/when you do change those headings, provide the means to track both why you're doing it and make it possible for me to trace it back.
Finally, I'll bookend what I think is most important in the debate with things I expect at the beginning and end: clear burdens and weighing analysis. I can't tell you how many debates have been made so much more difficult for me to judge due to a lack of one or both of these things. Those without the former will force me to establish the burdens myself, and chances are, you won't like what I come up with. Those without the latter will force me to apply weigh each of their points based on my perception, which, again, you won't like. In particular, when it comes to weighing analysis, you're going to come off far stronger to me if you build in some assumptions regarding what your opponent may be winning. You shouldn't assume they're winning any point, but you're going to have a far harder time winning your debates against good opponents if you can't engage in that basic "even if" analysis of your opponents' arguments.
If you have any questions, feel free to let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
I’ll offer to judge. If there ends up being a run on judges I might participate, but given that Ragnar is the only judge, I can’t have him feeling too lonely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Glad you enjoyed it! Tried to make it not too technical, though that's hard to do with a PhD talk.
Created: