Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
No worries. Good to see you on.
Things are busy on my end. Moving into our house at long last. Getting in my exercise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@SirAnonymous
He has had some odd turns at doing this. It’s difficult to read his first post when he doesn’t claim a role. In this case, since he’s claiming hated later, I’m lightly scum reading it. There was no reason to keep that information in reserve, and it’s unclear (to me at least) why the Falcons would be the Hated.
GP, what’s the explanation for that connection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Interesting that you chose to exclude your role this time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
@SirAnonymous
Hey everyone, good to do another mafia game.
SirAnon, I honestly couldn’t say at this point. I’ve tried hunting theme splits and gotten lost in the weeds before, so I’m not going to speculate until we get some claims. Right now, I’m more in increasing the activity of this thread.
Glad you joined Speed. How have you been?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
every citizen should receive either direct or indirect benefits from their governmentthat's the whole point of having a government in the first place
Agreed.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
this would also seem to exclude elected officials and those employed by branches of government, like the FAA and post-officeand probably corporations who receive the majority of their funds from government contracts (like lockheed-martin)
Yep, and it stops there only if we arbitrarily decide that only direct tax incentives and subsidies count. If we count any indirect effects, then no one would qualify.
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
Whiteflame also makes a point that I agree with that that subsided companies don't make reliable contributors to paying their share of taxes. I think any company and its employees being subsidized by the government shouldn't have the right to vote.
That makes your argument more consistent, but now you’re introducing a whole other set of complications.
For one, how much in the way of subsidies does a company have to receive before this removal of voting rights is triggered? Is it just any money received from the government to increase production?
For another, this would punish everyone in these companies for circumstances outside of their control. Not every subsidy is the result of lobbying the government, since they’re also given out in response to increased demand for or increased costs to produce a given product. I guess that makes sense since you’re actively punishing individuals for experiencing bad circumstances, but this is particularly egregious because everyone in the company, including those who made no decisions for the company at large, suffer the consequences.
For yet another, you are basically putting every employee of this company in an impossible situation. If they stay with the company, they lose their right to vote. If they leave the company, they become unemployed, and are essentially required to either sustain themselves on savings or remain without the right to vote by taking unemployment funds. If they join a new company, their options are always restricted to those that will grant them a right to vote, making it harder for them to simultaneously get work and retain the right to vote and likely increasing the duration and difficulty of their job search. In effect, if you’re intending for the removal of voting rights to incentivize a change of behavior that leads to self-sufficiency, this may have the reverse effect.
Also, if you’re willing to expand your point in this direction, the question I have is: where does it end? If contribution or lack thereof should dictate whether someone gets access to their voting rights, then anyone who dodges the tax system should be subject to the same standard. Just because subsidies and welfare checks are more obvious doesn’t mean that the buck should stop with them. Of course, now we’re getting to the point where the vast majority of people, up to and including most if not all job creators, wouldn’t have a voice in elections. Still, if the goal is to not be arbitrary in this, then that’s a necessary consequence.
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
I'm surprised by how many of you take it for granted the right to vote and to welfare as synonymous. Poor people voted all the time before large national social welfare programs even existed. I'm not counting everything before 1860, when mostly white land owning could vote in America even though before then many states were already working on substituting other qualifications other than land ownership for the right to vote.
I don't think anyone is treating the right to vote and welfare as synonymous, that's a straw man. The argument isn't that poor people didn't have the right to vote before welfare existed (though, as you point out, that wasn't always the case). The argument is that poor people should have the vote regardless of their welfare status.
An adequate fair approach is to say that anyone that pays their fair share of taxes ought have the right to make political decisions on what their institutions do. Of course, we don't want the rich to be only ones represented in government, but they are not adequately represented to amount of their contributions via taxes. They do significantly more for our institutions than anyone else for making them possible to exist. A fair share of tax is one that matches the exact amount for every individual, so that a person's vote is equal to exactly their contribution.
Once again, I don't see how that is a fair approach. It's actually pretty ironic that you point out that a fair share of tax "matches the exact amount for every individual," yet you just said that a fair approach to representation is one where a large proportion of the population is not represented, i.e. not every individual gets a vote. So a tax system that affects everyone equally is fair, but a voting system that excludes many is also fair? How does that work?
What you're talking about here is granting the right to vote on the basis of having sufficient funds to get by without being on welfare. That's not a right anymore. That's a privilege of those who have the means to afford it, and so far, I haven't seen you provide reasoning for why voting should become a privilege. Moreover, you dismiss the idea that the rich should be the only ones represented in government, yet your argument is that there should be a barrier to entry based on access to financial means, so that just means that your definition of "rich" is higher than your definition of "financially independent." You're drawing two arbitrary lines - rich and financially independent - saying that above one line is absurd (rich) and saying that above the other is fine (financially independent) without providing any reasoning for why one but not the other. The rich do significantly more for our institutions than the vast majority of people who are financially independent, so I don't understand why your argument isn't that they should have the sole (or at least majority) voice in elections.
This proposal is simply a head tax. I'm not supporting taxing poor to death or even taxing the homeless. I think the only reasonable tax is small tax which wouldn't be too burdensome for anyone to pay.
Entirely separate point that you don't really explain.
The people that think we need large taxes are people that simply love large government. Government doesn't need to large at all or have all the unnecessary expenses like social security, healthcare, and education. It simply needs to pay for the defense of a country and its institutions that protect liberty and justice.
Again, entirely separate point and a much larger issue.
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
In other words, some people pay taxes and make our institutions possible and are not fairly represented. While, other individuals are taxed ultimately very little and contribute a small portion to the funding of our institutions, but they are large part of the population and represent numerous votes.Another point, welfare breeds voting slaves to politicians.
What you're arguing here is that there should be a barrier to entry for representation in society based entirely on one's ability to provide for oneself without help from the government, and the purpose of said barrier is to more "fairly" represent the population that does contribute. I have a few problems with this.
One, this is a regressive standard for voting. By setting the barrier at a certain level of financial independence, you're effectively creating a standard that is no different from the "must be a land owner" standard that ended in 1828 and was fully abolished by the Supreme Court who abolished poll taxes in 1964. You're setting the bar lower than it was back then, but you're still taking a similar stance: that lacking economic independence makes a voter easy to manipulate. You aren't justifying that argument (saying that "welfare breeds voting slaves to politicians" is an assertion that lacks warrants and evidence), but more importantly, you aren't justifying that that was a better time or that better leaders were elected. Your argument has historical precedent that you could draw from, but it would almost universally hurt your case, so you don't.
Two, "fairly" is a poor use of words here. The fairest choice is to allow everyone to vote because the goal would be to avoid giving an advantage to any group. That is fair representation. What you're discussing is bias or preference - this group (tax-payers who do not receive welfare) is the only group that should have a say in elections. That is distinctly unfair since it strips people of their ability to affect who represents them in government. What you're really arguing here is that it's unfair for those who pay taxes and do not receive welfare to have their votes diluted such that their capacity to decide elections is reduced, preventing those who contribute to society meaningfully (in your estimation) from having the greatest voice in said society. By that logic, I'm not sure why you've decided to place the barrier here. Why not require a higher standard, affording an electoral vote only to those who create jobs in society? Hell, why not do away with a standard entirely and just scale the weight a person's vote to their contribution? If contribution to society is such an important standard that it should decide whether you get to pick who represents you, why should we not weigh the degree of contribution and give the rich far greater electoral sway?
Three, you're setting up a double standard. If receiving welfare and/or not paying federal/state taxes is sufficient reason to remove someone's basic right to vote, then why wouldn't we place the same standard on people receiving large subsidies or those who avoid paying taxes despite substantial incomes? That money could be used to pay for a lot more than even a great deal of people not taking welfare funds, but by your logic, that's fine so long as they're contributing to society. Everyone contributes to society to some degree. For poorer people, that may just mean buying from local businesses, paying rent and working an 8-5 job. So you're arbitrarily deciding that, because they receive some funds from the government, their contribution is insufficient. By contrast, the contributions of the rich, many of whose fortunes are buoyed by subsidies, are sufficient by your metric without considering the contribution vs. loss ratio. If contribution vs. loss matters on a small scale (individual people receiving welfare), it should matter on a large scale (rich people profiting off of subsidies) as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Having read and voted on the debate, I've already answered these points in part, but I'll be more specific to these questions.
1) Who are the breathing experts in question?
George Floyd and Alexander Kueng.
2) Does this paragraph imply that the breathing experts in question are medical professionals?
Not that I can see. It was a confusing statement on first read, but only for the lack of clarity in what made them experts.
3) Is this a correct use of the term "breathing expert"?
It depends on the context. If Barney made the choice to lean on some specific expertise on their part, i.e. something that steps outside of just basic capacities to breathe and experience doing so, something very clearly non-basic, then I think the term "breathing expert" would take on specific meaning that would require some degree of credentialing. It would also require a different term, e.g. respiratory therapist, respiratory care practitioner, pulmonologist. The term "breathing expert" has no meaning in a professional context and comes off as pretty silly. In this context, and particularly with the numbers given in this debate to support their expertise, which clearly encompasses their entire lifespan, it's function is sarcasm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
For the time being, I'll abstain from answering these questions. I plan to vote, and answering these points would somewhat spoil aspects of my RFD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I honestly don't think I can commit the time to give it my all, unfortunately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I honestly don't know why this is a problem for you or anyone else, but if you’d like to demonstrate by copying my pfp, be my guest. Wouldn’t bother me.
That being said, if this is a more widespread concern, we could discuss what the policy would be here. I don’t think someone posting a pfp should necessarily result in only that person having access to that pfp for as long as it’s up, particularly if it’s just generally popular, but assuming we did that, how many changes would have to be made to the picture to make it kosher? Would a color change be enough? How about adding text? Using it as part of a picture set? What’s the barrier to entry here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The catalyst for whiteflame was the pushing my lynch for inactivity when I already said I'd be inactive because I know whiteflame has allowed leeway
I get where you're coming from on that, but two things:
1) I wasn't pushing for your lynch. I had you listed as part of the most likely scum pair, but I didn't VTL you. I should also note that it wasn't inactivity that I said was the reason for my sussing you, but rather your interactions (or lack thereof) with RM among the posts you made. That's a pretty common means by which people establish scum pairings.
2) I was being legit when I said that I've been fooled by "I told you I'd be inactive" before and I'm not going to fall for that again. That doesn't mean that I won't give leeway - it's not like I was constantly pinging you for activity or making a big case about you being inactive, and I don't intend to do that to anyone who actively says that they'd be inactive - but it does mean that I'm not going to write off people who say that as town. I have a history of trusting too much of what's said in Mafia and I'm working on fixing that. I say this because when this inevitably comes up again in a future game, I know I'll be scumread for it and I'm outright saying that this is a change of strategy that I will employ in every game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
...Alright then, not that I was treating you like shit over it, but fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not really sure how to answer that. Part of the reason that we played the way we did is that we had outs in case things went wrong. There is no doubt that I could have played better, though I honestly can't think of a single game where that isn't true. If you're asking whether we outplayed you, we clearly were able to use our roles effectively, though we didn't exactly hide ourselves well, so on the whole I'd say not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Hell I'm surprised they claimed it knowing you were justice
Yeah, I realized my mistake soon after I made it. Easily my worst move in this game.
Created:
Posted in:
Eh, we’ll see. It’s a decent time commitment, and full time work, wife and puppy make it difficult to commit. I’ll consider it.
Created:
Posted in:
Gg guys. Definitely had me figured out, so good on RM in particular for that one, even if I’ve got issues with the way he went about it. Also, good Supa, That2 and Earth for keeping their focus. Didn’t make it easy.
For those who are wondering why we tried so hard to keep me alive, it was because we weren’t sure if there was a second town RB or some other role that could either prevent the NK or stop the vote block. Ended up not having to worry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
More of this “you should be panicking if you’re town, but I can see that you’re panicking now and it’s scummy” BS.
I’m responding to you because you’re the one who keeps addressing me, well after the point that you were already very clear that you thought I was scum and weren’t going to remove your vote. I want to address what I feel is pretty awful logic because it is cluttering up this DP.
As for addressing the others, I’ve already done that at length. They have all the information and insights I can provide. Reminding them of it or restating it in a different way isn’t going to change anything. That’s your strategy, it’s not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
NP1 went fast af
You've said something akin to this a few times, and it's just as strange as the first time you said it. NP1 started at 11:38 PM EST. It ended almost 12 hours later at 11:09 AM EST. That's "fast af"? That's fast enough that we should totally dismiss Supa as an option? I've been burned by logic like this before when someone said that a longer or shorter NP told us who scum was, but this is just absurd.
You are panicking rn, I can smell it. Alpha Town is bodying you. Badabing badabeta.
You sussed for not panicking, then you suss me for panicking (a pretty absurd interpretation). These aren't even double standards anymore, they're just entirely contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Btw, whiteflame, unless I missed it, never panicked or pointed put that if he isnt damn sure me or that2 is scum, that a Mharman-Supa team wpuld have blitzed by now.He has consistently behaved odd af. He chainsawed day one by saying he scumread incel and yet didnt officially chainsaw (ut means voting somebody in a faceoff, as scum, where the bandwagon you predict wins the lynch is on somebody that flips Town). While you can accuse me of chainsawing, why would I? Why would I remove Aikido who i was so sure was a protective role and said 'probably isnt vanilla' in my final plea? He would protect me!If I were scum, I had no fucking reason to not fully defend there. I had no reason to stop voting Pie for an ideal chainsaw that clearly was not gaining momentum.You can notice that today, WF spend so much effort appealing to me and only me for the entire start of the DP after I lead on him. He doesnt grill others at all nor appeal to them until needed.
I love how this post works entirely by excluding the vast majority of what I've said and how I've behaved in pretty much every game.
Look back at my previous games, particularly those where I'm scum. I panic. The only example I can think of where I panicked as town was when my Magistrate got redirected in a prior game, and that's when there was a result on the table that made me look scummy. More importantly, I wouldn't panic at this point because both of my top scum reads are currently on my lynch. People already know that, and I recognize that there's little more I can say about it. I'm not scumreading Mharman over Supa and you, so I don't know why you think that I would look at this situation and expect a blitz.
When it comes to odd behaviors, you're seriously one to talk. I've pointed out plenty of instances of strange behavior from you over the course of both DPs. I also said, in that post about Incel, that I both scumread him and CN. I also said that I had more reason to scumread CN, and I cited why while specifically pointing to your logic, which was largely based on a theme split that I didn't buy. I wasn't alone in that, not by a long shot, and for all you say that I bandwagoned, I was far from the last person on that vote and there was an even split between them at the time that I voted. You're doing a lot of WIFOM thinking on this one.
As for why I'm talking to you, it's because you're the chief one levying claims against me. That's not terribly surprising, especially when the level of activity isn't nearly as consistently high from others. And, again, this one's pretty rich because you've spent a great deal of time addressing me as well, despite actively saying at the start of the DP that you wouldn't bother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
VTL WFI can almost certainly recall town WF giving leeway to activity when someone is away
Dude, I've done that and lost because of it. Hell, this isn't even the first game where you, specifically, were absent for substantial portions and ended up being scum. Now you're just sussing me for learning from my previous errors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
They're kind of scattered, but I'll direct you to them. As an overall, I did give some reasoning on what plausible scum pairings there could be in #207, which doesn't focus on RM, though it does include him.
For Supa: #113 (initial read in the DP, I was equivocal), #187 (more generalized, but talks about who is most likely faking their claim), #286 (response directly to Supa about the basis for sussing him)
For That2: #113 (looking back, I typed That2 as Type2 here - my bad - but I do talk about how the change in role made me question them), the rest is in #207 where I talk about how That2 is behaviorally townie and only a dark horse possibility from my perspective
For Mharman: #113 (reconciling the result I got with my behavioral read on him), the rest is in #207, though I'd also previously discussed how my result could have been tampered with
Think that about covers it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Go back to the second response I gave to you when Earth claimed his PR, first paragraph:
I do, however, see having a Watcher/Tracker, Cop and Justice as problematic, so yes, I have reason to suspect that either you or Earth are scum at this point, and based on your responses to him and me, I'm suspecting you more at the moment.
In other words, on this basis alone, I was sussing you in post #68. Since then, I've provided more reasoning for why I'm sussing you, which includes several posts regarding why I view Earth as town and you as scum. Your response to that, apparently, is that I shouldn't be considering other factors as part of my reasoning. That's fine for you, I guess, but I like to consider every piece of evidence that's on the table. I'm also looking through all this because what is confirmed to me, personally, is not confirmed to those who cannot see my PM. For them, determining which of us is lying about our role requires more than just repeatedly pointing out that there cannot be 3 investigative PRs.
Oh, and good to see you once again asserting that I somehow didn't realize that you'd cleared Earth, despite the fact that there are clearly multiple examples of me including it in my reasoning throughout this DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yes, because the smart thing to do in Mafia is trust that people who say they aren't going to be very active aren't mafia. I've been burned by this before, dude. You're not my strongest scum read because I have trouble believing that you gave yourself such specific cover, but I can't validate when you were or were not on Discord and I can't be sure about your claim just because you said that you don't know what it is (even if I buy that you don't personally know it, that doesn't mean you couldn't claim it, especially if you had a scum partner who did).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@Vader
@Mharman
@That2User
Alright, I'm not interested in fighting this out with RM anymore at this point. You guys are the ones who will decide this, and I'll try to condense my thoughts down to one post.
The more I keep looking back through the previous two DPs, the more I'm finding I dismissed offhand as "normal" for RM.
He dragged out his claim in DP1, using the opportunity to push for as many character claims as possible and push for other investigative roles to CC him. I wasn't going to CC him and paint a target on my back. Earth made the same choice. This was just straight up anti-town since it was all based on a misconstrued theme split anyway, which itself was built on the premise that Luna had given him information that none of the rest of us had. Still, I could respect that if he had just explained himself up front and full-claimed, but instead he dragged things out and when he made his claim, he said Justice. That's a peculiar claim in any instance and impossible to verify.
Since then, he has spent the vast majority of DP2 saying that there is absolutely no way that there is a Cop and a Justice. He paints these two as though they directly CC each other, but noted himself that a Justice is unaffected by lawyering, framing or a Godfather, and that's not to mention how different the two of them work in general. When that argument wasn't getting traction, he suddenly became aware that the Justice role was called a Parity Cop in some games and has been harping on that ever since.
RM has also been all over the place, often contradicting himself and the basic facts in an attempt to find "scum slips." On the previous page alone, he's repeatedly accused me of having suddenly forgotten about his claimed Justice result, despite my having mentioned it directly in several posts. He has now pointed several times to my first post in this DP where I mistakenly put the count at 5-2, despite his initially failing to notice that Pie was already dead during the NP to the point that he cast his first VTL against him. He completely ignores every theme split that contradicts his vision of who must be scum in this game while touting his own on the basis that he's the one with the "airtight logic," simultaneously accepting that BJJ must be in this game and excluding it from his own theme split analyses. He keeps pushing different versions of who must be the strongman and/or ninja and/or roleblocker on arbitrary bases, and pushes the false claim that there will be any uncertainty in the next DP if I'm still alive, since I have outright said that everyone should vote for me if I'm still alive when we get there. I'll be the first.
As far as I'm concerned, RM is the obvious choice, but part of that comes from knowing what my PM says, having strong reason to believe that there are not 3 investigative roles in this game, and strongly townreading Earth. We all agree that Earth is town, regardless of whether we buy RM's results. Much as I don't want to make it a me or him situation, that's what it has become, with the sole other option being the VTNL. I'm still fine with that because there is at least some chance that we'll be able to narrow down the options for who his scum partner is, if not in this NP than the next, on the basis of PoE alone. My vote's staying there for now because I think it's the smartest move we can make at the moment. Still, if you guys decide to lynch me here and now, I'll hammer and end this. There's only so much I can say and we've been going for long enough already that I'm not going to drag this out any further.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, let's be clear about something: seeing RM as sus means you do not trust his Justice result. I've said, now multiple times, why I believe Earth is town independent of that result because I think that RM is scum and therefore have little reason to trust the results he gave. Nonetheless, and I've said this multiple times too, his Justice results town confirm Earth, if you believe them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think the biggest slip ever is that Mharman and Whiteflame clearly got lost during their mafia chat and forgot I'd outed with a clear on Earth, there is absolutley no way they had the same slip this close to each other without outside communication, I would believe. Do you notice how Mharman hasn't said shit to me since that slip to justify it?
If you believe this, then it is seriously incredible how many of my posts you haven't read, probably because you are so stuck on lynching me that you haven't cared what I had to say. I forgot that you claimed to have used your Justice role and cleared Earth? I've mentioned it several times, including on this very page.
Anyway, it's late, and frankly I'm just not interested in continuing this back-and-forth, particularly if you're just going to blatantly lie about what I've said before. You want to harangue Mharman for forgetting what you said back at the beginning of the DP? Go ahead, I don't really care, but I've acknowledged it multiple times and stated elsewhere that Earth is basically confirmed town at this point.
Whiteflame literally said he didn't know if Earth was town until I corrected him even at the top of this page.
Who's making stuff up now? In which post did I say that I didn't know if Earth was town? I'm seriously lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Why do neither of you think there are 3 investigative roles? Earth what do you think is this possible?
It mainly comes from seeing a lot of these games played and knowing that Luna will endeavor to make a balanced game. Having three townies with investigative PR in a nine player game means that almost half of town has some investigative role, which tends to be pretty unbalanced since it won't take much in the way of luck or perception for one of those three players to uncover scum. So, basically, it's a combination of experience and mod psych.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
This is extremely interesting btw.Both Mharman and Whiteflame didn't catch onto that I have cleared Earth.
…What are you talking about? I said straight up that he’s the most townread player in this game, and that if we trust your Justice result, he’s town. Why do you think he wasn’t on any of the potential scum teams I listed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Depends on the information you’re looking to get, but if you want to validate what I do, then yes, tracking me is the correct approach. Considering that that is what I meant to suggest, I apologize for the error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
How do we determine scum? What scum teams do you have most likely to least likely?
Ah, alright, that makes sense.
I'm not going to give a list of all possible scum teams, but I'll list my top 3 in order and give reasoning.
RM and Supa
I've already given my reasoning for suspecting RM and Supa in isolation. Together, I noticed that RM barely responded to him after Supa claimed despite calling for it so adamantly. He eventually responded to Supa several pages later in response to Supa saying that RM had only soft claimed in DP1, after which he demanded that Supa full-claim despite Supa's already having full-claimed. It smacked of manufactured tension that went nowhere. RM hasn't even acknowledged the claim since, let alone factored Capoeira into his suggested theme splits. For someone who has been trying to thoroughly figure out those splits, he's awfully willing to ignore this claim.
RM and Mharman
I scumread Mharman in DP1, hence my choice to target him during the NP. My result gives me less reason to implicate him, but as I said up front, I'm not going to ignore the possibility that my result was somehow modified. The main reason this is lower, though, is that it's harder to justify based on their behaviors. RM and Mharman have interacted substantially in both DPs, and while part of the difference can be chalked up to their increased activity over Supa, what I've read doesn't seem manufactured. Still, I have trouble dismissing this on that basis alone.
Supa and That2User
This is a bit of a dark horse choice. It wouldn't be the first time that we've had a team who started out relatively inactive and largely just let the main conflicts between town members play out. The more I'm watching you participate, the less I'm buying this as a viable team, but I'm still considering it.
In case you're wondering, I'm buying that there's at least one vanilla in this game, so I don't buy an Mharman/Supa team. Your behavioral interactions with RM come off as solidly townie to me, while your interactions with Supa are just too few for me to conclude much of anything from either of you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No, the real reason you should absolutely believe I am scum is that the tracker claim is cleared by me. That's why you're slipping if you firmly believe there are only 2 investivative PRs and you are one of them.
...Seriously? Let's look at the order of events here, RM.
At the beginning of the DP, you made clear what your result was for your Justice role:
I got that earth and Wylted are the same side but I fully believe a lawyer is in the game given the theme etc.
Later, you confirmed that a lawyer couldn't have modified your results, so you couldn't swing this result. Earth was locked in as town. Later, Earth claimed Watcher/Tracker and you accepted that immediately. That response didn't make a lot of sense to me at the time since you made a big stink about me not CCing you when you claimed an investigative role. I initially interpreted that as an extension of your double standard, since you made several points about how I'm scum for doing things that you admit you've done as well. Now, I'm reconsidering. You had every reason to doubt him, yet you accepted it almost immediately because you had no choice. Denying his claim would have implicated you.
You're just making up your thought process as you go along.
That's pretty rich coming from someone who has spent so much of this DP ignoring many of my responses. My thought process has actually been pretty consistent. I was clear up front when Earth claimed about how I perceived the presence of three investigational roles. I've brought up multiple times that I don't agree with your argument that a Justice and Cop cannot be in the same game. You don't like that response, but that doesn't mean that is suddenly new or unfounded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
What way is the way to go in this?
Not entirely sure what you’re asking for here, but since this was a response to my statement about theme splits, I would argue that we should take any theme split with a big grain of salt and use them mainly to guide what we believe to be a potential pairing. In that sense, I’d say that there are several options for scum teams, but they include enough of the remaining players that we shouldn’t be reliant on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have good reason to believe you’re scum and I gave it. You’re the only one who has been peddling this view that a Cop and Justice cannot ever be in the same game, for some reason on the sole basis that Justice is sometimes called a parity cop. I even noted that you said that you said your role isn’t affected by the framer, lawyer and godfather after you posted that, so I’m not sure why that clarification in any way implicates me. If anything, that gave me reason to see why Justice and Cop have some interesting dynamics in the same game, absent any other investigational claims.
I do, however, believe that a Watcher or Tracker is more likely than a niche role like Justice, and I do not believe that there are 3 investigational PRs. That’s not a slip, dude. Just because you call it a slip doesn’t make it so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
I’m not convinced that exploring theme splits is the way to go here. We’re mainly just spit-balling, and even with all the claims on the table, we have 3 or 4 potentially viable splits, all of which could be wrong and many of which disagree.
Still, I think it’s valid to consider who could be faking their claim. Capoeira seems plausible since it is another Brazilian martial art and just generally being vanilla makes the claim easy to fake. Sambo might be as well due to also being Vanilla, though it’s Russian. I have a harder time buying that the other claims are faked, especially yours (Karate was pretty much guaranteed to be here), but that’s partly due to the roles they come with. Justice is a bit weird, but I never saw it as a CC for the Cop, and Luna will often throw in underused roles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
I do not think that there are 3 investigational roles in this game, and I buy Earth’s claim over RM’s, so I think he’s scum, even though he behaviorally comes off as townie. I said that much earlier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
RM, it’s great to see you working to convince others instead of just saying that you won’t be swayed, but this logic isn’t nearly as airtight as you make it sound.
A lot of this is just surmising about plausible theme splits, though I haven’t seen much from you about it being rather likely that at least one claim in this game is fake. You alluded to the possibility that either Supa or I am BJJ, which fucks with every single theme split you’ve given. If we assume that someone is hiding BJJ and we know that to be a scum role, it is also utilizes a lot of grappling, joint locks and chokeholds, setting its style as very distinct from boxing. You also asked for my ideas on a theme split, clearly with no intention of considering them, and ignored each possibility that considers other possible pairings for scum. Geographically, BJJ is isolated from everything except Capoeira. It involves a lot of ground fighting, just like Sambo. If you’re going to focus on theme splits, at least try to incorporate the one we all accept is almost certainly in this game and scum.
As for sussing me over the incorrect 5-2 split, again, this is you calling someone out for making the same mistake you did. Not sure how this implicates me over you.
I don’t even know what your plan is with Earth in your attempt to lord what you consider to be better mafia play over him.
There’s a general assumption throughout your post that lynching me won’t end the game because you think you’ve called my role, as though no other form of martial art is as likely as boxing to have either the ninja or strongman role. Ninja, in particular, seems odd as speed is inherently important to every martial art and it’s weird for a western style to get a “ninja” label. As for the strongman, other martial arts do KO their opponents, not to mention you haven’t even responded to my justification.
I also don’t get why you’re opposed to PoE, especially since I’ve outright stated that if I survive, I’m the obvious lynch target. I’m saying that outright now, taking away any discussion of CC or votes on you vs. me: if I survive this NP, everyone should vote for me, full stop. I’ll join you to get it out of the way. There’s also the possibility (albeit there are variables we don’t know, like an RB) that yours or Earth’s roles won’t work. If that happens, then we lose that extra information, but we still gain information and you do not lose your opportunity.
I may not convince anyone with this, but with us at MYLO, I think we should be as close to certain as possible before we lynch someone. Maybe you are, but I’m not, and I don’t think anyone else is, either.
Created:
Posted in:
I've read back through this DP, and the more I keep thinking about it, the less I'm decided on RM one way or the other. I've got a slight scum read on him, but that's largely behavioral and I largely buy his claim.
Meanwhile, Type2's sudden change of role isn't helping their case. They acknowledge that they soft-claimed vanilla, but are now a protective role that they conveniently chose to use on themselves during NP1 rather than using it on RM, who was a full-claimed investigative role. Just because the role is self-defense doesn't mean that Type2 had to use it on themselves, as they stated that the plan is to use it on Earth during NP2. Behaviorally, Type2 strikes me as townie, but both with the role claim and use, Type2 is skewing a bit scummy to me.
Mharman seemed most likely to be scum to me, and though I'm not dismissing the possibility that my investigation was in some way affected by another role, I have a harder time going with what I thought was a pretty clear set of behavioral scumtells as a basis for reading him as scum at this point.
That just leaves Earth and Supa, the latter of whom has contributed so little that I find it difficult to place him in either camp. Earth's affiliation is largely based on whether I believe RM's results and his character claim. The watcher/tracker dynamic for Judo is a bit strained, but I have an easier time buying it than I do the Justice claim from RM at face value. Behaviorally, I'd say he's pretty townie, so he's my strongest townread regardless of whether I buy RM's role or not.
As for what to do at this stage, if the goal is to gain info, I think it's risky to lynch. A mislynch at this point ends the game. I don't necessarily like a VTNL, but as the Cop, I necessarily should be killed off during the NP. If I'm not dead during the NP, I'm the easy lynch during the next DP, and it strikes me that with these investigative roles, we could do a lot with even one NP even if someone is faking their claim. I think that information is more valuable than the potential of getting another crack at figuring out the theme split in a game where it's pretty likely that at least one scum is fake claiming their martial art anyway. Hell, if we're looking to be even more certain, we all agree that Earth is basically confirmed town at this point. He could Watch me during the NP, or, if RM doesn't trust those results, he already said that his Justice role wouldn't be compromised by framing, lawyering or a godfather. Confirm me that way, or have each of you confirm someone else and have the game sorted in a single NP since I will be confirmed scum if I survive this NP. All we do is go from MYLO to LYLO. Nothing substantive changes. We don't need my Cop or to keep theorizing about possible theme splits to win this.
It seems straightforward to me. VTNL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am sure anybody can see it is odd how you keep pandering to somebody you should be leading a lynch on or at least heavily suspecting if ypu were really the cop.Instead, your entire series of interactions after I voted you are to make me feel insecure about my vote amd reasoning. This fits perfectly with your DP1 behaviour in fact.
RM, at what point did you think I was pandering to you? I'm getting more and more reason to suspect you, so well done there, but my only goal in responding to you is to address what you believe makes me sus. I don't agree that I would automatically heavily suspect you on the basis that you are the Justice and I am the Cop. This would not be the first time that Luna set up the roles in a distinct way, and I don't see the combination of a Justice and a Cop as absurd. I do, however, see having a Watcher/Tracker, Cop and Justice as problematic, so yes, I have reason to suspect that either you or Earth are scum at this point, and based on your responses to him and me, I'm suspecting you more at the moment.
Throughout this DP and the last one, my only goal has been to try to understand the theme split and, absent any clear split, focus on behavioral choices and claims that make each player stand out. I'm not responding to you to make you feel insecure and I don't know why you're personalizing this. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from and why you are so solid in your conclusion, in part because there are 4 other people in this game besides the two of us and it would be great if they had a clearer decision to make based on the available information. If I'm one of the prime suspects, so be it. I don't even care if you refuse to change your vote, but if you're going to be this obstinate, justify it to convince others. So far, most of what I've seen are assertions about the likely roles in the game, more questionable theme analysis with (I'll give this to you) some willingness to consider alternatives, and some weak behavioral tells based largely on you not liking my analyses. If that convinces people, great, but I don't think it's going to do you many favors.
If you are town, (I am not really considering it but I am curious what you will reply)What is the theme split?
I've suggested two before, though you dismissed both of them as gaslighting. Of those two, I'd still consider geography. I initially thought that this meant Japanese martial arts against others, and at this point any difference is going to be at least somewhat arbitrary.
As for alternatives at this point, I wouldn't say that there's any obvious theme split based on the given roles, though I think at least one of them is fake. We haven't seen Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu or Taekwondo, both of which are listed as primary fighting styles among champions. I suspect that at least the former is in this game, and if so, either Judo or Sambo, as both are ground fighting techniques, would fit into the split between those and other styles. It seems more common in Sambo, though I could see that split going either way.
I'm not seeing a good reason to go by any suggested split so far, though, including these. There are plenty of ways we could isolate two of the martial arts from the rest and they would all lead us to different conclusions. We have more information that is more solid than our purported splits. Your grappling theme split, for example, depends on how you define it. Grappling occurs in boxing, just not offensively. Muay Thai isn't all that different in this respect, though it does have clinch holds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So, let me get this straight:
You're sussing me partly because I refused to CC you in DP1 over your investigative role, but now that Earth's doing it (much later and with a result that we already knew before he said anything), that doesn't matter anymore?
Interesting as well that you decided to ask Earth what justification there is between his role and martial art, but automatically assumed that there was no reasonable justification connecting mine. By the by, it's justified as being hugely important in the octagon, separating the fakers from the contenders.
And here I thought you were only applying your double standard to you and me. Really making me question that behavioral read on you at this point.
As for theme, if he really is the martial art he claimed, he is scum and if he lied he's scum.Boxing can't be town, read the description and notice the pattern:Disarming and/or incapacitating.Boxing specialises in sheer offense and dodging.
Again, this is based on a selective understanding of each of these martial arts that draws arbitrary lines in the sand, utterly ignores highly offense-oriented martial arts like Muay Thai that are clearly town, and you can't even seem to decide where others like Sambo fit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Hey, remember when you said:
I believe in this lynch and am busy irl rn. I leave that vote there and will only talk to people who are not whiteflame during this DP.
Because I do, and yet somehow you both have the time to go back
and forth at length and have been chiefly talking to me! It's almost like this was an
excuse that you immediately discarded solely for the reason that you felt you
had to justify drawing more attention to me over things that you conveniently
never noted before.
You know why I didn’t automatically sus you at the start of the DP? I did provide a brief statement to this effect in DP1, but I’ll clarify: I’ve seen your scum style and I’ve noted a couple of pretty obvious tells that I haven’t seen here. I also see all your play here, at least up to this point, as pretty obviously town. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you do it, and I have a hard time believing that you’d do this as scum. So no, much as you seem to be very much into mod psych and how many investigative roles there must be in this game, I don’t feel that all of these behavioral tells were immediately overwhelmed by the knowledge that you were Justice. It’s a weak informative role, and I’d personally be shocked if it was the sole informative town role in this game. Maybe you wouldn’t, but for the life of me, I can’t fathom why.
But just because it’s townie behavior doesn’t mean it’s pro-town. You’ve been pushing single-minded theme splits this whole game with barely any reasoning that goes against what we already know or draws artificial lines that don’t make sense, and now you’re giving yourself a pat on the back for calling ComputerNerd right and eventually recognizing that Pie might be town? I’m not calling you stupid or insane, but I am saying that you’re stubborn to a fault. I have my moments too, but you spent the entirety of both DPs dismissing any and all alternative possibilities for a theme split on the basis that you have been absolutely certain (now twice) of entirely different theme splits based on partial knowledge of the martial arts in this game and a clearly misinterpreted message from Luna. I spent my DP1 considering thematic options that you dismissed without explanation (even when they overlapped with yours), examining individual claims and looking at behavior. You might not like those methods, but they’re not gaslighting and I didn’t pit anyone against each other. Dismissing options for who could be scum in this DP seems to be your MO, since you’ve now set aside Supa almost entirely and haven’t even talked about Earth.
What baffles me the most, though, is how you’re setting me up as scum. I’m simultaneously too knee-jerk in response your statements about not sussing Supa (despite the fact that he’d be on a scum team and therefore wouldn’t need to be online himself), but not knee-jerk enough to immediately sus you when you claimed an investigative role. It’s townie if you miss Pie’s Vig, but my missing it in the first of several posts I’ve made on here is a scum tell, despite the fact that if I was scum, I’d be in chat with another scum that would help prevent these kinds of mistakes. For some reason, my full claiming is feigning genuine activity to you, despite the fact that you dragged out your claim through almost the entirety of DP1. I don't know why you're treating me as some kind of perfectionist when it comes to writing each post for this game or any previous one, but you seem extremely willing to sus me over oversights that you've fully admitted to making yourself.
You know why I didn’t automatically sus you at the start of the DP? I did provide a brief statement to this effect in DP1, but I’ll clarify: I’ve seen your scum style and I’ve noted a couple of pretty obvious tells that I haven’t seen here. I also see all your play here, at least up to this point, as pretty obviously town. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you do it, and I have a hard time believing that you’d do this as scum. So no, much as you seem to be very much into mod psych and how many investigative roles there must be in this game, I don’t feel that all of these behavioral tells were immediately overwhelmed by the knowledge that you were Justice. It’s a weak informative role, and I’d personally be shocked if it was the sole informative town role in this game. Maybe you wouldn’t, but for the life of me, I can’t fathom why.
But just because it’s townie behavior doesn’t mean it’s pro-town. You’ve been pushing single-minded theme splits this whole game with barely any reasoning that goes against what we already know or draws artificial lines that don’t make sense, and now you’re giving yourself a pat on the back for calling ComputerNerd right and eventually recognizing that Pie might be town? I’m not calling you stupid or insane, but I am saying that you’re stubborn to a fault. I have my moments too, but you spent the entirety of both DPs dismissing any and all alternative possibilities for a theme split on the basis that you have been absolutely certain (now twice) of entirely different theme splits based on partial knowledge of the martial arts in this game and a clearly misinterpreted message from Luna. I spent my DP1 considering thematic options that you dismissed without explanation (even when they overlapped with yours), examining individual claims and looking at behavior. You might not like those methods, but they’re not gaslighting and I didn’t pit anyone against each other. Dismissing options for who could be scum in this DP seems to be your MO, since you’ve now set aside Supa almost entirely and haven’t even talked about Earth.
What baffles me the most, though, is how you’re setting me up as scum. I’m simultaneously too knee-jerk in response your statements about not sussing Supa (despite the fact that he’d be on a scum team and therefore wouldn’t need to be online himself), but not knee-jerk enough to immediately sus you when you claimed an investigative role. It’s townie if you miss Pie’s Vig, but my missing it in the first of several posts I’ve made on here is a scum tell, despite the fact that if I was scum, I’d be in chat with another scum that would help prevent these kinds of mistakes. For some reason, my full claiming is feigning genuine activity to you, despite the fact that you dragged out your claim through almost the entirety of DP1. I don't know why you're treating me as some kind of perfectionist when it comes to writing each post for this game or any previous one, but you seem extremely willing to sus me over oversights that you've fully admitted to making yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, because speaking to my previous experience as scum obviously reveals that I’ve been scum this game.
You’ve been wrong all game dude, but now you’re certain that you’re right because you’ve divined yet another arbitrary and puzzling theme split. And you wonder why you can’t form a wagon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm really just lost on how you're explaining things in this DP.
You have evidence that what you thought was the theme split was most definitely not that split, and now you're shifting to a position regarding which martial arts take initiative and are aggressive? That's not true of all fighters who use either of these martial arts. In any martial art, someone is always required to take some initiative. You even acknowledged earlier that Sambo can be either defensive or offensive, but suddenly put it in the entirely offensive category later. And you're also missing the most obvious example that contradicts you: Muay Thai is extremely aggressive and focuses heavily on strikes, yet we now know that it was a town role. Somehow, you decided that it wasn't worth bringing that up.
I also just generally don't understand how you see the order of events.
You're upset that I didn't CC you? Having multiple investigative roles in a single game would not be a first, especially given that the Justice role doesn't exactly give us a lot to go off of. I also wasn't going to out myself as a target for either an RB or an NK, and I'm not sure why you think that would have been the townie choice to make. Even if all I did was say that I was investigative, the moment you revealed your role, I would have become the prime target because, frankly, there wasn't a whole lot of information we could glean from your results unless we knew one of your targets was town. I also made very clear what I thought of mass claims in DP1.
You think that I'm scum and I'm partnering with Mharman? If so, why would I draw more attention to him by claiming that I investigated him? As scum, I would be trying to create as much distance as possible. Look at my previous games where I was scum. Hell, as scum, I have claimed to cop someone guilty before to get off a quick lynch. Why wouldn't I do that here? Why would I drag out the DP?
And I don't at all get why you're dismissing Supa as an option when Mafia PMs are sent in Discord, especially since it still took an overnight for all actions to be submitted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Alright, I'm home.
Why Mharman?
I figured Mharman was a relatively obvious choice. He's not new to this game but seemed easily swayed to join the lynch during the last DP. He came off as pretty defensive during the back-and-forth with Incel. However, it was the unprompted, sudden character claim that had me most suspicious of him. I downplayed it in post #220 in the last DP, but I was slightly scum-reading him after that move. I still feel like I have a hard time reading Incel, so he was my strongest scum read aside from CN, and given that he was on that lynch and it was likely that there was at least one scum on the lynch, it made sense to check him.
We have 2 realities, one with WF being the cop and Mhar being innocent, the 2nd with WF saving his mafia partner
I'm honestly a little baffled by the second "reality" you've laid out here. First, if I was scum and my aim was to protect him, why wouldn't I just claim that I'd copped someone else guilty? That would draw attention to a single target rather than just trying to defer it away from someone, and since there's always the chance that Mharman is the Godfather or that I'm somehow flavored, there's reason to question my result regardless. Second, that would be an incredibly strange move because I don't see what Mharman needed protection from. He had one vote on him from RM with no explanation. RM wasn't able to rally a wagon against Incel in the last DP with what he thought was a lot of support for his position, so if we are scum and this was me "saving" Mharman, then this seems pretty unnecessary.
Created:
Posted in:
Just got out of a tax appointment and heading home, but I’m posting this before I leave.
Given that we’re at 5-2 now (assuming no third party), I think we need to put all our cards on the table.
I’m boxing. I’m the cop. Before you ask, no, I wasn’t going to put a target on my back by claiming an informational role in response to RM in DP1 before I got any relevant information. I copped Mharman innocent.
Created: