Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well we already know the scientific start of life is at conception. So we can assume that the start of person hood can very from conception, up till when the baby is born.
We're not talking about the start of life, though that's another issue that we could discuss. Life came before (the sperm and ovum are alive), and the zygote is simply a fusion of those two, so I'd hesitate to say that a life begins at conception. I'd even hesitate to say it's independent because it most definitely is not. It's distinct from what came before in a myriad of ways, but so are subsequent stages of development. Why are those distinctions sufficient to assume that life starts at conception, whereas other distinctions have no bearing on whether this is or is not a new life?
I'll also point out that we're talking about the beginning of personhood, specifically. I'll assume for a moment that a life does start at conception. If you are arguing that the start of a life is both necessary and sufficient to impart personhood, then I have to ask: why should we assume that a new life is immediately imbued with personhood? You're making that assumption. Justify it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm interested in digging down into this issue of a biological start to personhood. TheUnderdog argues from the outset that there is a biological beginning for personhood, but the only support I've seen for that (from him or anyone else) is that there's broad support for it (ad populum) among those we would consider experts (ad verecundiam), though I'll note that in the latter case, the experts are "biologists," which is a rather large and highly varied set of expertise. In both cases, this doesn't function as biological certainty - if you're going to treat this as scientifically proven, then appealing to anyone isn't going to move the needle, no matter how expert they are. We don't (and shouldn't) treat the statements of doctors/scientists as regard vaccines and climate change as proof that they are correct on those matters; these people did the research and published it, and whether a broader audience understands that research or not, it exists to demonstrate that their opinions on these matters are well-supported.
So, I ask: where is that research that demonstrates what is biologically defined as the beginning of personhood? Or, to be more precise, what traits have been proven by researchers to impart personhood? TheUnderdog rejects DNA as the sole determinant, so there are clearly more traits that determine what is a person. What are they, and why are those traits both necessary and sufficient to determine when one becomes a person? I say it that way because the argument implies what came before is not a person, even though they (the gametes) would obviously be classified as human under any biological definition. Some defined subset of traits necessarily must determine that conversion if you wish to define it biologically. Usually, the argument that biology is necessary to determine personhood, but that it doesn't come down to specific traits, instead somehow involving a view of a human's "nature," which seems less like a biological effort to determine when personhood starts and more of a circular and infinitely regressive threshold that takes biology out of the picture.
I'll note as well that I'm not arguing that this is a basis for determining the morality of abortion, I'm simply addressing a claim that I've seen a lot and honestly don't understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I’ve enjoyed the show so far, really shows what is possible when they work within this universe without being tied down to the central plot of the movies (since it’s a prequel to Rogue One, it’s technically only tied down by having certain characters change their mentalities to fit where they were at the start of that movie) or being restricted to a super short series run. I think it also helps that there’s a sharper focus on the series plot as opposed to a focus on set pieces or single episodes, which have largely typified Star Wars TV series so far, as well as a stronger emphasis on organic character development. Particularly love Stellan Skaarsgaard‘s performance in this one.
It’s definitely a worthwhile watch.
Created:
Posted in:
So long as it doesn’t start until Thanksgiving or later, I’m /in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crystalynx
ur not allowed to post anymore but hopefully im allowed to reply?yea sorry about that, i went with the vote partly on Supa's logic. but i dont think that kinda tactic shud be used in the game
The end of the DP hasn’t been posted yet, but it should also just be going to endgame at this point. I’ll stop posting, but it feels kind of pointless to continue from here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I was talking to whiteflame in the scum PM without realizing he wasn't there. I will copy and paste what I was saying in the next DP or in the end game
Honestly, would love to see it. I have no idea why the game would continue past this point, so it should just go to endgame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Feels like I didn’t have any options at that point. Telling people that they could side with scum was always an option regardless of my affiliation. If the game becomes so pointless in DP2 that everyone can just straight up say what they are and secure a mafia victory, then the problem is the game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You literally have somebody in scum chat that got converted to town. It isn't a good precedent either
Not saying it is, but securing a win through promises of something external to the game seems more than a little messed up. Don’t really care about losing, just find this way of doing it incredibly frustrating.
Created:
Posted in:
Whatever. Apparently we’re just playing for promises now because Wylted’s willing to spend a little to secure a win for scum. Great. Well, it was a messy game regardless, clearly doesn’t matter what I think.
Created:
Posted in:
…seriously? Now we’re just winning games with the promise of Starbucks gift cards? Hell, why not just fucking throw the whole concept of actually playing the game out the window and just tell everyone what we are from the outset with the promise of some reward?
Seriously, this is the precedent you guys want to set for future games? Have at it then.
Seriously, this is the precedent you guys want to set for future games? Have at it then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
There is literally no reasonable role in which scum can be converted into a town. Whiteflame lying out of his socks as scum right now
When whoever did it (likely Pie) confirms they did, this is going to look absurd. That2 isn’t sticking to the usual set of roles, she has designed several new ones for this game, hence the modified Vig i got.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This is really funny because I originally going to use my kill, but since I was lynched I went with WF. Guess it worked lol
…you didn’t get lynched. Can you not even keep your own story straight?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This is funny because I jailed you last nightVTL WF
I also carried out the NK, so no dice. If you JK’d me, Earth wouldn’t be dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@ILikePie5
@SirAnonymous
@crystalynx
I’ll start us off:
I am The Riddler. I was scum and a JOAT (1X converter, 1X RB, 1X modified Vig - essentially, giving someone else a Vig that allows them to choose between killing themselves or someone else). I am now vanilla town - I’m guessing that Pie converted me through some skill he kept hidden. I used the conversion on Supa, who is likely still the Joker (assuming he didn’t lie) and is now full scum. My scum partner was Wylted, who is The Godfather. He doesn’t have any other abilities, whereas Supa does.
Supa wasn’t lynched last DP, so he likely still has a 1X deathproof, which means we’ll have to kill him twice. I think we should eliminate Wylted now and then work on him over the next 2 DPs. Anyone with a role they can use to prevent Supa from doing anything should use it on him during NP2.
VTL Wylted
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, I'm home from work and it looks as though things have shifted a bit. I already said that I scumread Corey, and while I still see his response to Earth as pretty townie, the main thing that still sticks out to me (and apparently to Pie as well) is the choice to claim. Setting aside the insights regarding theme analysis (which apparently are shared between him and Crystal), the decision to claim was an odd one. Not only did he choose to claim unprompted without having provided the color of his clothing as Barney suggested (seems like that would have been a more intermediary step), but he hasn't explained why he made that decision nor why he didn't include the role claim.
The fake claims post doesn't help his case, but what's more important to me is his response to being at L-1. Rather than try to defend himself by providing his full claim, he just avoids the opportunity over and over. The delay doesn't sit well with me, seems like he's trying to seek out a reasonable fake role claim to give himself cover.
That's enough for me. VTL Corey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s brutal. I’ve easily spent 24 hours on it. It sucks cause the instructions are unclear and the TAs give contradictory information.
Ugh, been there far too often, unfortunately.
Sure, and that’s your prerogative. But Supa imo is far far more dangerous if he’s mafia. Like his skill set seems designed to be like a one man mafia team.
At minimum, I think he's got an independent wincon as TP, so I agree that he's dangerous.
VTL Supa
I'd still prefer the Vig tactic for verifying him, but testing the Deathproof still makes some sense as I was saying earlier. I'll hammer this when I get off work if nothing's changed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crystalynx
Batman could be labeled a pacifist because there were no oher characters in the franchise to label that. I mean...can you think of many pacifist characters in Gotham in general?
There doesn't really need to be a Pacifist in the game. Certain roles are common to games (say, Doctor and Cop), but I can't think of a role that is absolutely necessary to have. Pacifist certainly wouldn't be, though I'll admit, I can't think of many characters I would characterize as pacifists in Gotham.
I think Joker winning with either side is fitting for his characterHe likes evil in terms of chaos more than a personal attachment to either side
I think his more chaotic nature would trend towards an independent win condition separate from either side, since he's not personally attached. Especially with all those JOAT abilities, it would make more sense if he could win by himself.
Sorry, what did I not respond to about Barney's color thing? I actually agree with Coreyinthehouse that they could be riddler. As for naming myself a color / my abilities I don't know if I'm ready to yet.This is probably my favorite post so far, it's very in depth for each player in the game
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see you give a color for what your character is wearing or give a reason why you wouldn't do so. I understand if you don't want to do it - I haven't, and I said as much earlier - not to mention I'm townreading you. I'd like to hear more about why you're both suspecting whoever is the Riddler - would you care to explain that?
Also, thank you! I often can't be on for long stretches of time, so I try to make bigger posts to compensate for that lack of consistency.
Coreyinthehouse not answering your question is not very sus, keep in mind hes been playing catch up like me after being inactive the first day or two this started
I'll note that that's only one of the reasons I'm sussing him, though I'll keep that in mind.
Could you or someone else explain what Vig is?
A Vig is a Vigilante. They get the ability to perform a night kill, meaning that they can kill someone of their choice when they enter the night phase. This is similar to what scum can do every night phase, except it's a 1-time use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Okay, sorry for my absence. Finance case has been killing me for the past two days.
Hope the case is going well! Sounds like a pain.
I agree. But, that’s the role and justification That2 gave me. It’s a her first game modding, so it could be that.
Yeah, and I don't want to dig too deeply into mod psych. As it stands, I don't think you're scum, I just think it's plausible that you're hiding elements of your role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
The problem with using Supa's vig as role confirmation is that we would lose an extra town member (most likely) for the sake of role confirming a TP claim. I think what we should do is vtnl and vote on who Supa should vig. This would allow us to role confirm Supa, effectively have a lynch this DP, and avoid losing an additional towny.
Given that we don't really have a same page to get on when it comes to the lynch target, I don't think we'll get everyone on the same page about who to Vig, but that's not the bigger problem from where I'm sitting. I don't really want to create the opportunity for scum to manipulate the Vig any more than absolutely necessary. The strat will already require that scum know he's going to use the Vig. They can manipulate that alone, but if they know the target, that gives scum a lot more options to alter the target or interfere with the action.
I also wondered about the Bane-strongman possiblity. There are other possibilities, like bodyguard or something, but strongman really jumped out at me.
I could see that if he's town, though that would be difficult to prove.
Regarding your read on me: after looking up my character, I ended up changing my claim to not green. My memory betrayed me on that point.My activity is the result of me being generally unavailable, but contributing as much as I can when I have the time.
Ah, must've missed the follow-up. You're like me in that regard, hence I'm not scumreading you over it.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, time for some reads before I get lost in my day:
TP Claims:
ILikePie5
Many of us have said this before, but the Batman claim is a pretty clear outlier. Based on the other claims made so far, my own claim, and the theme of this game, it's pretty obvious that most or all of us are villains. There may be some characters in the mix that straddle the line between heroes and villains (e.g. Catwoman or Red Hood), but having a straight up hero in the mix is a different story. That being said, I don't want to get too bogged down in theme analysis, since it's driven us in the wrong direction in so many other games. The bigger problem I have with the claim is the role: Pacifist. It doesn't fit in more ways than one. Batman is anything but a pacifist himself, I can't find an example of the Pacifist role being written this way in other places where it is used, and I can think of several more likely roles for the character. Maybe this is just Pie covering for another role as town, but his behavior has also been off, since he hasn't done much in the way of scum hunting this game, playing much more passively than normal. He did scum hunt as scum last game, though, so I'm not sure how to take that. The claim came out early enough and is absurd enough that I'm buying it, though I can't say I'm convinced of his being a TP that wins with town.
SupaDudz
In some ways, this is even trickier. The Joker claim was bound to be in this, and I wouldn't have been surprised that it was a TP if he had an independent wincon. The claim that he can win with either side doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the character. Supa has also made some surprising moves with it. The decision to claim itself seemed a bit hasty given just how much utility this role has and his ability to confirm himself in a later DP using either the Vig or the Deathproof without claiming now. Pushing on Pie to hammer in order to get modkilled and confirm himself only to realize that his own role is much more easily confirmable is difficult to read, as was the choice to delay claiming his JOAT roles. For now, I'm buying this claim because my gut read is that Supa is likely not thinking through his moves as much as he would on a scum team or with a partner helping to guide his actions.
Other Players:
WyIted
It's consistently difficult to read WyIted. It's not unusual for him to be this involved and go down so many rabbit holes. That many of those holes lead nowhere or follow routes that are extremely unlikely (e.g. the vote stealer possibility rather than mod error) doesn't really tell me anything, I think WyIted would behave this way regardless of affiliation. Rather than respond to Barney's original idea to present the colors that our characters wear, WyIted waited until much more recently in the DP to give his color as purple and then hedge a bit on it, which I'd normally read as scummy... but again, there are a lot of iterations of these characters with a lot of different costume designs depending on whether we're talking about film, tv, comics or games. Feeling pretty null on WyIted.
Barney
Pushing the color scheme early and providing his color (which is admittedly common among Batman's villains) came off as pretty townie to me. It's the kind of scheme that provides just enough information to get a feel for what characters everyone could be without narrowing the window so much as to give scum easy fake claims. That doesn't necessarily work for everyone as Batman's rogues gallery does contain at least a couple of villains that stand out with unusual colors, but it was at least a decent idea and how people chose to respond to this was more interesting than the prospect itself. I still read him as slight town based on behavior.
SirAnonymous
One of the other few who directly responded to Barney by claiming his color (also green), I've still had a hard time reading SirAnon behaviorally. Early on, he said that he would have little participation in the DP due to a busy schedule, but was on and posting again quite a bit a couple of hours later, including some extended posts showing that he'd done some analysis. Maybe he had just overestimated how time consuming his schedule would be, or maybe he saw this as an opportunity to jump on the Joker claim. Regardless, I hate to play off of someone's schedule as a means for sussing them, and most of his behavior has looked townie to me, especially his choice to soft claim early.
Earth
Given what happened last game, I'm trying to change up the way I'm reading Earth. Behaviorally, his efforts to get Crystal and Corey to out themselves as scum do come off as pretty townie, albeit a bit simple. If either of them have a scum team member with any experience, they should have been able to prevent any slip ups. Jumping from the lynch on Pie to the lynch on Supa without much in the way of explanation was a bit jarring, though he said previously that he didn't buy there being two TPs, that it was odd that Supa didn't claim his Deathproof up front and, even if he's vague about why, that "It's odd that Joker is TP". He's a bit weak on the reasoning, seems to piggyback on what other people were saying at various points. His response on claiming colors came off a bit cagey as well, if only because it's unclear what he thought color gave away. I read him as null.
crystalynx
Probably my strongest town read at the moment. Her responses to Earth looked like genuine confusion to me and I think that's hard to fake, especially for a noob. She has also been asking a lot of questions that I think she wouldn't ask here if she were scum. The lack of response to Barney's suggestion regarding color does stand out a bit, but considering how much of this game she has come off as playing catch-up, I buy that she's town.
Coreyinthehouse
Corey's another mixed bag. It's only a couple of posts, but his responses to Earth also showed some confusion, which I write off as noob town behavior. Then I see posts like this where he is clearly hinting at a possible theme split and even claiming that the Riddler, specifically, is scum. He doesn't really explain this beyond saying that Joker and Riddler have an implied team-up at the end of one movie. I don't like to get into modpsych too much, but especially given that Corey appears to have some pretty personal insights into That2's mentality going into this game, which could at least help narrow down the potential themes, it's strange that he hasn't expanded on this after I asked him about it. Doesn't help that, after avoiding or missing the opportunity to claim the color his character wears, his response to several of us advocating that no one else claim was to claim his character and then ask why that might be a bad thing after the fact, particularly as that character is Bane, a probable Strongman. I'm leaning scum on him at the moment.
As for what I want to do with the end of the DP, I think proving Supa's Deathproof claim is the lazy choice, since he's probably not lying and we'll end up with only a single flip to work from at the start of the next DP. Given how scattered we are on picking a lynch target now, that's not going to help us much in DP2. I think using Supa's Vig in place of the lynch makes sense, since it both confirms his role and gives us two flips to analyze at the start of the next DP. So, that's my preference: NL and have Supa choose who to Vig.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crystalynx
why do we need to know if they're deathproof or not?
It verifies part of his role claim, meaning that he didn't just lie about his role to cover up something else that we should concern us. It also helps that it's a rather rare role for scum to get (we call it "bastard modding" because it's generally agreed that certain roles make scum too powerful and being able to survive a lynch is one such role), though the fact that it's a 1-time use makes it still possible to some extent. It's not necessarily the most important piece of information we could gather from the lynch, but at least it's something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I agree that it's worth getting reads from everyone before the DP ends. Defaulting to lynching one of the claimed TPs, even just to test a deathproof claim, doesn't do a whole lot for us and it doesn't narrow anyone else down.
That being said, I'll post my reads tomorrow morning. Too tired to go read back through the DP and post reads tonight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crystalynx
In forum games like this, scum communicate via a Discord channel, so the goal here was to see if Corey responded in a way that indicated that he was in such a channel or DMing with the mod, both of which would indicate that he was scum.
As for what deathproof is, it's just what it sounds like: if a player would die (either by lynching or by a night kill), the ability prevents them from dying. If he survives the lynch, that would presumably confirm that he is either lynchproof or deathproof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Coreyinthehouse
Been a long day, had to do a bit of catching up.
Supa's choice to wait on providing his JOAT abilities definitely stood out to me, but his willingness to get himself lynched to test the deathproof kind of balanced it out. It wouldn't confirm the rest of his claim, but given that his other idea for how to handle the lynch this DP could have led to a lot of lost ground for town, this makes more sense, even if it would give town scant little other information to go off of given that we'll lose the flip for the lynch. Not sure if this would end the DP, but I'm assuming it will.
It's nice to see more participation by crystal and corey, though I would prefer not to have gotten the Bane character claim from the latter. The reason we generally don't do that (@Corey) is that it gives scum information. Your character claim may not give away your role (though many do and I can personally think of a couple of likely matches for yours), but if they don't have fake claims made available to them by That2, this also makes it easier for scum to fake claim convincingly without getting counterclaimed. For that same reason, I don't want more information on Barney's claim at the moment. Even with the color green alone, he's narrowed the window for characters quite a bit.
And speaking of Corey, it's interesting that he's suspecting the Riddler, specifically. I haven't been clear from the start whether this game is themed around the movies, the games, a specific show or what. I don't want to focus too much on theme analysis in this DP, but if Corey has some reason why the movies came to mind first for a game created by That2, it would be helpful to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crystalynx
I may be missing details on the conversation with Pie, but if he's willing to be lynched I imagine that would be good to further the game.Also I'm good with character / role claiming myself if people want.
It sounds as though you're not supportive (at least for now) of pushing a lynch on Pie due to suspicions about his claim, though I'm not clear on why you're supporting a later lynch. If either or both of these TP claims are real, That2 has pretty much confirmed that they count as part of town when it comes to determining when the game ends. Assuming there are two scum, for example, and that that total does not increase (Pie was a converter scum during the last game and therefore added to the number of scum on his team by converting a town player), the number of town players + TP players would have to be at or less than two for the game to end with a scum victory. Losing a TP player would therefore negatively impact town. I can understand this choice if you don't trust Pie's claim, but not so much if you do.
For the time being, I would prefer that you claim neither your character nor your role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
We would vtnl if Pie actually DOES get modkilled.
Again, the plan doesn't really make sense to me.
If Pie's lying, he hammers the lynch and ends the DP. That doesn't mean he's automatically scum, since he could be covering for a different role as town, TP or scum. That might lead to an opportunity for Pie to confirm his actual role in the next DP, but since you've said you'll just Vig him during NP1, you've made clear that he won't be given the opportunity because you'll presume him to be scum. If he's scum, that's great, but if he's not, then we might be looking at 3 town/town-aligned TPs biting it over the course of DP1/NP1.
If Pie's telling the truth, then he just gets modkilled. That's not the biggest of deals since he's a TP, but he's also skewing the numbers in favor of town. That2 said as much in response to WyIted - town won't automatically lose if it loses its majority, meaning that either or both you and Pie (depends on if we believe both of you and how each of your TPs align) are automatically counted as a part of that majority. In this case, we're confirming that Pie was effectively a part of the town majority, meaning that we'll still be down 2 assuming an NK goes through. That's the least bad of these options, since it doesn't result in a potential mislynch/NK/Vig all hitting town/town-aligned TPs, but it's a stretch to call that beneficial.
I just generally don't love the strategy. It's also complicated by the fact that it requires that a majority of us be on the same page about being willing to lynch Pie if he doesn't do it. It's nice that the Vig would at least partially confirm you if you use it, but doing so doesn't require that we get Pie to attempt to hammer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
@That2, is there a theme split?A theme split exists, yes
Thanks for confirming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crystalynx
Like I said, if you don't know, ask questions about things you don't understand. Read what has been posted so far and comment on it. You joined the game, you're expected to contribute in some way, regardless of your attention span.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I’m not questioning your decision to claim, I’m more puzzled by the claim itself. I’m also not seeking claims of any kind at the moment.
As for getting Pie to test his claim, the method itself seems problematic. We lose someone regardless, either due to the modkill or the lynch. If he’s lying, we waste the DP and potentially give scum a mislynch. This only helps at all if he’s telling the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
We might should just get full claims from the noobs
I'd prefer participation to claims, especially since we already have two full claims on the table.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Regarding the claims on the table so far, they are both a little off, though it's difficult to say if it's more likely that That2 would have made them this way or not. I can't dismiss the possibility that they're fake claims, but if they are, giving them this early doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Still, I can't shake how strange they both are. Batman isn't an Arkham inmate, though given how often he goes there, particularly in the games, it's not entirely out there. The Pacifist role still doesn't sit well with me, since it seems like someone just glued the name "Pacifist" onto an entirely separate role and, given Batman's character, it's not exactly accurate, either. The "no kill" rule isn't exactly something he's held to throughout his many incarnations, but even beyond that, he's certainly no pacifist.
The Joker has a couple of oddities as well. He does drift between alliances to some extent, though I'd expect him to win independently given that he rarely gels well with other villains and never stays. It's also an odd choice because I'm noting a trend of characters with an alter ego. The Joker doesn't have one. I agree with Earth that we don't want to reveal too much information about our characters and color can be rather revealing with some characters (though I will say green is common enough that isn't not a problem), but it would be nice to know if anyone else has a character without an alter ego, just to see if this is actually a distinction or not. I don't want to get caught up on theories about a theme split.
Speaking of which, I haven't checked yet. @That2, is there a theme split?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Coreyinthehouse
@crystalynx
Well, it's good to hear both of you, though some contribution beyond just saying that you're still noobs would be good to see. I realize it's early stages and there's not a huge amount to talk about at the moment, but talking about the theme, the claims on the table already and how you perceive them, or even just asking questions to clarify things you don't understand would be better than what you've posted so far. There's nothing to read behaviorally from either of you at the moment, which makes both of you black boxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I reread the OP and it says “at least one TP exists.” Theoretically that means that 2 could exist, but then is there just one mafia member?
Yeah, I just checked myself, thought it said one TP when I skimmed it at first. Two TPs and two mafia seems unbalanced, though given that your wincons are distinct, that might be possible. It would be unusual, though. The 6-2-1 or 6-1-2 makes more sense than a 5-2-2 setup, regardless of TP affiliation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yeah... I don't buy that there are two third parties unless something weird is going on with scum (could just be one scum and two third parties, I guess?). It's interesting that each of you has what are generally agreed to be the most popular characters in this mix (Batman and the Joker). I'd like to see how Pie responds to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
@That2User
Does town lose if they are no longer a majority?No
That's a surprisingly direct answer and it lends credence to Pie's claim, since a third party that wins with town adds one to the town pool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
3rd party out yourself right now and perhaps town can spare youYa, I hate playing as Third PartyI’m Bruce Wayne/Batman and I’m the Third Party Pacifist. I cannot attempt to hammer. Any attempt to do so will result in a mod-kill.My justification is that Batman’s one rule is not killing anyone, rather he wants to save people.That2 has informed me that I can joint-win with Town, and that’s what I plan on doing.
I hadn't heard of this, so I read up on it. The Pacifist role, at least from what I've read, usually has some association with preventing lynches and/or kills rather than simply being unable to hammer. That tends to be more associated with the Priest role, though not always. It makes sense for the character, though calling Batman a "pacifist" is a stretch regardless. Still, in a game with this theme, Batman was almost certainly going to be here, so I doubt this is a fake claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Coreyinthehouse
@crystalynx
Anime Waifus Mafia (SupaDudz)This was Corey’s and Crystal’s only game. They were replaced DP2.Credit to Supa for the archive
I do remember that game. Glad you're both participating again. It's been a while, so hopefully you'll both involve yourselves more this game. Especially if you're still rather new to this, you get far more out of the experience with more engagement.
Created:
Posted in:
Just checking in before I head to bed. I'm good with learning a bit about our new players, though I think two votes is more than enough to get an intro.
Created:
Posted in:
FINAL RESULTS
USERS
(10) - 3RU7AL
(10) - Intelligence_06
(8) - GreyParrot
THREADS
(7) - DDO is shutting down
These will advance into the Hall of Fame. Please contact me if you would like to write ups on the winners, and congratulations to everyone who is joining the HoF and anyone who has a debate or thread joining.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
Again, feels like we’re having two different conversations. I doubt there’s much I can do to explain this any further than I already have, and it seems that with every response you give me, you keep moving further and further away from the reason I have given and expanded upon for why these votes met the voting standards. If you want to engage directly with what I’ve said on the matter, I’ll address what you respond with, but this isn’t a response to what I’ve posted. You clearly have a very different conception of why these votes stand after being reported.
If you view it as bias on my part, then I guess that’s how you’ll continue to view it. Believe it or not, I neither hate you nor have any interest in using my position to make things difficult for you or to protect Barney from losing a debate. I sincerely doubt that my saying that will change your mind, but it’s the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Considering that I never argued that I played this well, I don’t know why you claim that I “overrated” myself. I admitted I made the wrong call. Clearly, you made the right one here, I just think you weren’t very convincing to anyone else. On that and only on that, we disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
We're talking about this debate. This one. Not some other potential debate with an entirely different description. This one.
If some future instigator of some future debate decides to include that in the description, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, though again, I'd say it's an apples and oranges comparison. For this debate, you wrote a description that could reasonably be interpreted as limiting the scope of the debate. I'm... honestly not quite sure what you're trying to do with this one. It looks like you just wrote an argument and are saying that you put it in the description.
It's fine if you want to argue that voters should consider "STRONG responses" to the reasoning they use that are present in the debate. It honestly does look like both Public-Choice and K_Michael did, at least from what I'm seeing here. They just don't see that those responses move the needle. You may not like their perspectives on the matter, but they appear to have done it. It's not the place of moderation to do more than assess whether their votes were sufficient, and based on everything I've said so far and taking into account all of your reasons for being against it, they are still sufficient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
I feel like we're not discussing the same thing anymore. I'm explaining to you what makes a vote sufficient, not what makes it thorough or even what I would say is a "good" vote. It is sufficient for a voter to look at the description and, where they are not extrapolating or adding something that is not clearly present, to determine whether what is there restricts the debate. I don't see them "bend[ing] backwards to interpret it as such." I see them clearly pointing to what is said in the resolution and applying it absolutely to the debate. That's straightforward. I'm not arguing that their interpretations are correct. I'm not arguing that what is in the description cannot be contested. I'm pointing out that these voters have clearly stated, whether in their votes or in follow-up comments, that the contents of the description could not be meaningfully contested, effectively hamstringing your case from the outset. Doing that had a demonstrable effect on how they perceived your points. They didn't have to go through each individual point to show that effect, as it was made clear in general.
What they did here was sufficient, and so far at least, I haven't seen good reason why it violates the voting standards. Again, completely understand that it is not to your liking because it dismisses a large portion of your argument as irrelevant. That does not mean that these votes should be removed by moderation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I guess if it falls within the guidelines nothing you can do, but it's bullshit to award source points in a debate that is largely about semantics and philosophy
I probably wouldn't do it myself, so I can see your point. Then again, I haven't fully read the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Can you see if the votes on that debate followed the correct procedure for awarding source points please.It seems like a philosophical argument by both sides for the most part and source points should have been disregarded
I did. Each vote was reported and the results of those reports are in the comments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
You're comparing apples to oranges with these two debates and the reasons given for removal/non-removal.
In your case, the voters reference the description and view what is stated there as a clear limitation on what evidence is pertinent to the debate. The two voters you quoted referenced that. You gave responses to this view in your arguments, but both voters clearly viewed this as paramount. It's not an argument given in the debate by your opponent, it's effectively being treated as a rule that precedes any discussion by the debaters. Making a decision on that basis is like making a decision based on how the resolution is written or the specific definitions provided - it does not necessitate that voters assess specific points made by both debaters, not even those points that get the most attention.
In the case you're citing from a separate debate, the voter references a specific argument made by one side in the debate without engaging with responses given to that argument by his opponent. By basing his decision on an argument presented by one of the debaters rather than a perceived rule/organizing principle for the debate, the voter makes it about what the debaters said within the debate first and foremost, and looking at only one side's arguments in that debate suggests that they only considered those arguments in the debate. This is when considering arguments presented by both sides becomes necessary.
I understand why you view this as similar since your arguments included points against this perception of the description, and I suspect you'll continue to see this as biased moderation on my part after reading this, but what you appear to be looking for here is an extension on these RFDs that would amount to more specific dismissals of those points, which just looks like repetition of what's already there. Public-Choice made that clear in the numerous responses he gave you in the comments of that debate, and while K_Michael didn't engage in a similar back-and-forth, he makes his position on what is paramount clear from the first sentence. How they view each sides' arguments stems from the description, and they make it clear why and how that affects the debate as a whole. I understand if you view that analysis as frustratingly limited because it dismisses a lot of your argument as irrelevant, but it is sufficient.
Created:
Posted in:
I know I could probably have done better, particularly with keeping my Doc role under wraps, though that claim actually could have helped us if GP had recognized it more clearly. I think copping either That2 or Earth innocent would have been reason enough to take attention off of one of them and start grilling the other and Pie. Don't know if that would have gotten us the win - at best, it would have made Pie look scummy by POE, though I'd still have pushed to kill either That2 or Earth way before I'd have pushed for Barney.
Created: