Search:

[QUOTE=OzyWho;917250]You should apologize for this apology, it makes you look weak. :)[/QUOTE]

[url]https://that'sthejoke.com[/url]

I was half joking and half telling the truth

Originally Posted by OzyWho

You should apologize for this apology, it makes you look weak.

https://that'sthejoke.com

I was half joking and half telling the truth

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;917241]The state should never restrict marriage and sexual relations where it's consensual and does not harm others.[/QUOTE]

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. If it is, "wooosh" i guess
But if it isn't...

Congenital illnesses are bad for people's health, as one can tell from the word "illness" xD. So it absolutely does harm others. Checkmate, Victoria.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

The state should never restrict marriage and sexual relations where it's consensual and does not harm others.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. If it is, "wooosh" i guess
But if it isn't...

Congenital illnesses are bad for people's health, as one can tell from the word "illness" xD. So it absolutely does harm others. Checkmate, Victoria.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;917235]Yes, occasionally.

It is not hard to tell that all of your political views consist of whatever was on Tucker's segment 48 hours ago.



Do you have any sense of what's actually going on in the world?[/QUOTE]

You should read that thread about politics and morality. It's about how you shouldn't treat people on the opposite side of the political spectrum like they're subhumans, really interesting stuff. :^)

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Yes, occasionally.

It is not hard to tell that all of your political views consist of whatever was on Tucker's segment 48 hours ago.



Do you have any sense of what's actually going on in the world?

You should read that thread about politics and morality. It's about how you shouldn't treat people on the opposite side of the political spectrum like they're subhumans, really interesting stuff. :^)

That moment a circlejerk post makes you think about where you're at in life... In fact, there isn't really a need to feel annoyed by this; it's petty and rather... dumb. In fact, it's just funny lol. After all, we're all here for fun. Yet I was annoyed at first, and I was absolutely not back in 2018... yet it's not like my goal in coming here has changed. I guess my spontaneous reaction was just to be a, uh, lesser human being xD.
But anyway, some people may mind because it does give them a notification (and potentially an email), so it's a bit like spam. Buuuut... I actually don't mind that much, and I apologize for being dumb.

I also apologize for apologizing over something so small.
...oops

That moment a circlejerk post makes you think about where you're at in life... In fact, there isn't really a need to feel annoyed by this; it's petty and rather... dumb. In fact, it's just funny lol. After all, we're all here for fun. Yet I was annoyed at first, and I was absolutely not back in 2018... yet it's not like my goal in coming here has changed. I guess my spontaneous reaction was just to be a, uh, lesser human being xD.
But anyway, some people may mind because it does give them a notification (and potentially an email), so it's a bit like spam. Buuuut... I actually don't mind that much, and I apologize for being dumb.

I also apologize for apologizing over something so small.
...oops

[QUOTE=OzyWho;917172]Why wasn't this an issue in 2018?[/QUOTE]

That. Is a good question. :D

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Why wasn't this an issue in 2018?

That. Is a good question.

[QUOTE=Helz;917049]You are framing one corrupt presidents behavior as the norm for an entire party. The vast majority of people I know only voted Trump because Hillary was such a bad option. They are very anti-socialist and hate how democrats dig up any passion project that comes to mind and throw money at it like a 16 year old girl with her daddys credit card.

I also really do dislike how people keep framing the capitol riot as 'so much worse' than the innocent business owners having their shops robbed and burnt to the ground. I mean, if you want to talk about republican corruption and evil the way they tricked America into the Iraq war would be a much better example than a riot.

Regardless Ozy brought up a good point. Religions believing other religions and atheist's are morally wrong makes sense. But political affiliations? If I vote democrat simply to avoid putting a fucktard like Trump in office does that mean I support socialism?If I were to vote republican simply because opening our borders means I will have a much harder time finding work in my industry does that mean I support the rest of the republican addenda?

This model of persuasion makes me a little sick. It leverages good and evil into political affiliations in a way that justifies extreme behavior and division. As a society we were once able to agree to disagree and respect opposing opinions but now we push our beliefs on others and have escalated to painting the opposing individual as a 'worse human being' for having an opposing opinion. Its a moral and ethical form of ad hominem cleverly injected into conversations in a way thats nearly impossible to address in an interaction. This type of systemic moral attack is more evil than authoritarianism in my opinion and I consider it a cancer in our society that is more dangerous in many ways.[/QUOTE]

I already said I wasn't talking about pro-Republicans, but about the party itself, its leaders. Also, you'll excuse me, but those following the corrupt president are guilty too. They don't have the "b-but we were following orders" excuse: the US are a democracy, and party members have the right to oppose the president when he does bullshit. But again, it's not the [I]entire[/I] party, just the Trumpist part of the leaders of that party. The rest are just misled folks (or people who hate democrats so much they preferred Trump over them, which is honestly somewhat understandable considering how shitty Hillary was).

Attacking the symbol of democracy in a country that takes pride in its institutions and venerates the Constitution like the Bible goes further than attacking business owners. I'm not saying attacking businesses isn't terrible, but no, it is absolutely not equal to what happened at the Capitol. It's not just a riot, it's a direct act of rebellion against the government. It has a much stronger political weight, in addition to being no less violent.

What you're talking about isn't a political affiliation, but rather a strategic vote. You aren't affiliated to Democrats if you're voting for them just because you don't want Trump, and you aren't affiliated to Republicans if you're voting for them just because you don't want foreigners to "steal your jobs" (which I agree with, for the record; why take in immigration when your country can't support it? That's off-topic though). I'm talking about those who truly believe what [I]their [/I]party is doing is right. Those folks going at Trump rallies aren't just strategic voters, they're praising him lol. Note that this doesn't make them "lesser human beings". It just makes them wrong, on a pragmatic side and, yes, on a moral side. Doing something morally wrong doesn't make you a lesser human being, it just makes you human.

On "we were once able to agree to disagree and respect opposing opinions": There was never such an utopia anywhere. If you're talking about the US, just think about how socialists were treated during the Cold War lol. And in France, protests (and riots) are nearly normal, at least in Paris.

Originally Posted by Helz

You are framing one corrupt presidents behavior as the norm for an entire party. The vast majority of people I know only voted Trump because Hillary was such a bad option. They are very anti-socialist and hate how democrats dig up any passion project that comes to mind and throw money at it like a 16 year old girl with her daddys credit card.

I also really do dislike how people keep framing the capitol riot as 'so much worse' than the innocent business owners having their shops robbed and burnt to the ground. I mean, if you want to talk about republican corruption and evil the way they tricked America into the Iraq war would be a much better example than a riot.

Regardless Ozy brought up a good point. Religions believing other religions and atheist's are morally wrong makes sense. But political affiliations? If I vote democrat simply to avoid putting a fucktard like Trump in office does that mean I support socialism?If I were to vote republican simply because opening our borders means I will have a much harder time finding work in my industry does that mean I support the rest of the republican addenda?

This model of persuasion makes me a little sick. It leverages good and evil into political affiliations in a way that justifies extreme behavior and division. As a society we were once able to agree to disagree and respect opposing opinions but now we push our beliefs on others and have escalated to painting the opposing individual as a 'worse human being' for having an opposing opinion. Its a moral and ethical form of ad hominem cleverly injected into conversations in a way thats nearly impossible to address in an interaction. This type of systemic moral attack is more evil than authoritarianism in my opinion and I consider it a cancer in our society that is more dangerous in many ways.

I already said I wasn't talking about pro-Republicans, but about the party itself, its leaders. Also, you'll excuse me, but those following the corrupt president are guilty too. They don't have the "b-but we were following orders" excuse: the US are a democracy, and party members have the right to oppose the president when he does bullshit. But again, it's not the entire party, just the Trumpist part of the leaders of that party. The rest are just misled folks (or people who hate democrats so much they preferred Trump over them, which is honestly somewhat understandable considering how shitty Hillary was).

Attacking the symbol of democracy in a country that takes pride in its institutions and venerates the Constitution like the Bible goes further than attacking business owners. I'm not saying attacking businesses isn't terrible, but no, it is absolutely not equal to what happened at the Capitol. It's not just a riot, it's a direct act of rebellion against the government. It has a much stronger political weight, in addition to being no less violent.

What you're talking about isn't a political affiliation, but rather a strategic vote. You aren't affiliated to Democrats if you're voting for them just because you don't want Trump, and you aren't affiliated to Republicans if you're voting for them just because you don't want foreigners to "steal your jobs" (which I agree with, for the record; why take in immigration when your country can't support it? That's off-topic though). I'm talking about those who truly believe what their party is doing is right. Those folks going at Trump rallies aren't just strategic voters, they're praising him lol. Note that this doesn't make them "lesser human beings". It just makes them wrong, on a pragmatic side and, yes, on a moral side. Doing something morally wrong doesn't make you a lesser human being, it just makes you human.

On "we were once able to agree to disagree and respect opposing opinions": There was never such an utopia anywhere. If you're talking about the US, just think about how socialists were treated during the Cold War lol. And in France, protests (and riots) are nearly normal, at least in Paris.

Why does your AI automatically cause inbreeding lol? I've conquered half the known world in a game (with a ton of kinsmen) and had no inbreeding (unless I forced it, which would be dumb).

Why does your AI automatically cause inbreeding lol? I've conquered half the known world in a game (with a ton of kinsmen) and had no inbreeding (unless I forced it, which would be dumb).

Lmao I had it right before looking. I swear!

Shows how statistical errors can dumbly lead people to making mistakes.

Lmao I had it right before looking. I swear!

Shows how statistical errors can dumbly lead people to making mistakes.

[IMG]https://media3.giphy.com/media/1iTpx5PpzRugcrZK/200.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Dark Magician;917160]Shit I just picked up that your Mafia.
Do I say anything?[/QUOTE]

huh?

Originally Posted by Dark Magician

Shit I just picked up that your Mafia.
Do I say anything?

huh?

[QUOTE=MartinGG99;917128][B][U]Yeah, uh, no.[/U][/B]

A key part of that game was me searching for whoever had been interacted with very little, and my focus at times was very mechanical (so much so that I almost gave MattZed a metaphorical heart attack as the setup creator). Additionally, given the significantly different context of phase length in this game, I wouldn't be surprised if some things about me changed quite a fair bit.

Can you please point out what exactly mirrors my thought processes from that game, and/or why have my thought processes are (or likely are) irreplicable as !scum Martin?[/QUOTE]

I like that you're denying yzb's likely pocketing attempt, and would too like to see explainations on the matter.

Originally Posted by MartinGG99

Yeah, uh, no.

A key part of that game was me searching for whoever had been interacted with very little, and my focus at times was very mechanical (so much so that I almost gave MattZed a metaphorical heart attack as the setup creator). Additionally, given the significantly different context of phase length in this game, I wouldn't be surprised if some things about me changed quite a fair bit.

Can you please point out what exactly mirrors my thought processes from that game, and/or why have my thought processes are (or likely are) irreplicable as !scum Martin?

I like that you're denying yzb's likely pocketing attempt, and would too like to see explainations on the matter.

DID YOU JUST PING 500 PEOPLE YOU MADMAN

Please don't do that again lol.


Damus_Graves is probably one of the coolest FM folks this site has seen, and ex-FM staff (ex other stuff too, he's been in and out for time immemorial). It's strange you haven't seen him, he has played a few games with us recently-ish.

DID YOU JUST PING 500 PEOPLE YOU MADMAN

Please don't do that again lol.


Damus_Graves is probably one of the coolest FM folks this site has seen, and ex-FM staff (ex other stuff too, he's been in and out for time immemorial). It's strange you haven't seen him, he has played a few games with us recently-ish.

[QUOTE=Varcron;917116]Amen, amen.[/QUOTE]

Did you just say [I]amen[/I] was cringe, you HEATHEN??

Originally Posted by Varcron

Amen, amen.

Did you just say amen was cringe, you HEATHEN??

[CENTER][SIZE=7][class=rassilon][FONT=Garamond]You all sincerely need Jesus. Or Buddha.[/FONT][/class][/SIZE][/CENTER]

You all sincerely need Jesus. Or Buddha.

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;916839]Contextually, I dont think authoritarianism is necessarily immoral, it depends on if the people in question consent to it or not
like if Singapore wants authoritarianism, and ppl agree with it, meh, I won’t exactly be singing its praise, but it’s not like it’s forced on them[/QUOTE]

People [B]agreeing [/B]with [B]authoritarianism[/B]? Uhhh............................................... :D

To take your Singapore example, it's just that the place isn't highly authoritarian, which is why it's probably not [B]too [/B]horrible. When it comes to morality, though, it's true that benevolent authoritarianism is possible. If a truly benevolent, competent and immortal dictator was to appear, I could absolutely see myself think about being authoritarian under that guy. The issue is, noone is immortal... and when the good dictator dies, his successor is normally shit, and then people are screwed because morality goes away. Democracy preserves morality better (assuming the people have some morality, which is necessary no matter the government type), which is why it's "morally superior" in the end, even though it isn't directly.

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

Contextually, I dont think authoritarianism is necessarily immoral, it depends on if the people in question consent to it or not
like if Singapore wants authoritarianism, and ppl agree with it, meh, I won’t exactly be singing its praise, but it’s not like it’s forced on them

People agreeing with authoritarianism? Uhhh.............................................. .

To take your Singapore example, it's just that the place isn't highly authoritarian, which is why it's probably not too horrible. When it comes to morality, though, it's true that benevolent authoritarianism is possible. If a truly benevolent, competent and immortal dictator was to appear, I could absolutely see myself think about being authoritarian under that guy. The issue is, noone is immortal... and when the good dictator dies, his successor is normally shit, and then people are screwed because morality goes away. Democracy preserves morality better (assuming the people have some morality, which is necessary no matter the government type), which is why it's "morally superior" in the end, even though it isn't directly.

[QUOTE=Helz;916819]Sure, but in context to my quote I was pointing out someone calling the site a "Far right cesspool."

I would agree not all affiliations are equally moral but this idea that being a republican or being a democrat is a morally bad affiliation is very toxic. I would like people to consider what it means to go from being able to accept someone holds different political beliefs from yours to judging their political beliefs as morally wrong and yours morally right. I believe there is so very much wrong with that thought process.

It can be justified by pointing to the extremes of genocide and such but that holds no bearing on the context of Republicrat vs Democran.[/QUOTE]

Eh, you're right that democrats and republicans are not nazis or stalinists, so the extreme lack of morality the last two have doesn't apply nearly as strongly to the situation in the US. However, as an absolute, you agree that not all affiliations are equally moral. It's quite hard to disagree with that unless you consider morality doesn't exist in any objective manner, if I'm not mistaken. That means American parties, like all other parties, could be unequal when it comes to morality. Rejecting that possibility is lack of nuance. Demonizing one side or the other also is one.

Now, if you'll allow me a more controversial stance... Pro-democrats may have rioted, but that was condemned by the party and absolutely not [I]actively incited[/I] by it. Pro-republicans broke into the fucking Parliament [I]after their leader told them to go there and protest[/I]. Sure, the party said it was bad [I]afterwards[/I], but it's not like it wasn't painfully obvious something exactly like that would happen. Also, Democrats don't tell Antifa or far-left groups in general to "stand back and stand by". They also don't actively divide the country to forward their political agenda, or at least not even remotely close to what Republicans have done. Doing all of that is incredibly harmful to democracy and democratic tradition. I'm not saying Democrats are perfect - far from that, especially since the party is large and emcompasses several political affiliations that would actually form different parties in multi-party countries - but they are at least not severely under the already bad standard of political parties, unlike Republicans. Note that I'm not only talking about competence here, but also about how far they're ready to go to forward their political agenda [I]at the expense of the people.[/I] That exists everywhere, but it was way too strong these last years.

Also, I'm not saying I have zero respect for pro-Republicans. I just don't have much for those in the party itself (i.e. governing people) who decided to follow Trump in his... adventure.

Originally Posted by Helz

Sure, but in context to my quote I was pointing out someone calling the site a "Far right cesspool."

I would agree not all affiliations are equally moral but this idea that being a republican or being a democrat is a morally bad affiliation is very toxic. I would like people to consider what it means to go from being able to accept someone holds different political beliefs from yours to judging their political beliefs as morally wrong and yours morally right. I believe there is so very much wrong with that thought process.

It can be justified by pointing to the extremes of genocide and such but that holds no bearing on the context of Republicrat vs Democran.

Eh, you're right that democrats and republicans are not nazis or stalinists, so the extreme lack of morality the last two have doesn't apply nearly as strongly to the situation in the US. However, as an absolute, you agree that not all affiliations are equally moral. It's quite hard to disagree with that unless you consider morality doesn't exist in any objective manner, if I'm not mistaken. That means American parties, like all other parties, could be unequal when it comes to morality. Rejecting that possibility is lack of nuance. Demonizing one side or the other also is one.

Now, if you'll allow me a more controversial stance... Pro-democrats may have rioted, but that was condemned by the party and absolutely not actively incited by it. Pro-republicans broke into the fucking Parliament after their leader told them to go there and protest. Sure, the party said it was bad afterwards, but it's not like it wasn't painfully obvious something exactly like that would happen. Also, Democrats don't tell Antifa or far-left groups in general to "stand back and stand by". They also don't actively divide the country to forward their political agenda, or at least not even remotely close to what Republicans have done. Doing all of that is incredibly harmful to democracy and democratic tradition. I'm not saying Democrats are perfect - far from that, especially since the party is large and emcompasses several political affiliations that would actually form different parties in multi-party countries - but they are at least not severely under the already bad standard of political parties, unlike Republicans. Note that I'm not only talking about competence here, but also about how far they're ready to go to forward their political agenda at the expense of the people. That exists everywhere, but it was way too strong these last years.

Also, I'm not saying I have zero respect for pro-Republicans. I just don't have much for those in the party itself (i.e. governing people) who decided to follow Trump in his... adventure.

[QUOTE=S-FM Magoroth;916784]It just looks like scum paint to me. I don't see "scum painting" as town behavior in general.[/QUOTE]
"I suspect you because you look upset about the kill"
That's not scumpaint, that's just a stance. Maybe not the strongest stance ever, especially since it's confirmed to be wrong, but saying Leto had been scumpainting Wisp because he had voiced a suspicion on him is a big stretch.
[QUOTE=Samson;916978]Misunderstand my rhyme, clearly you haven’t the time, to understand my spoken word, you don’t have to sing like a bird[/QUOTE]
Understand thy cryptic posts I do not, therefore my patience begins to rot. Clear stances and opinions on players may you give, so that our reads may prosperously live?
[QUOTE=Helz;916995]Someone else touched on it but the sub out has some AI potential with stronger pressure on a team scum to preform.[/QUOTE]

That would be angleshooting... so no.
I have a mild townread on Varcron for his caution when it comes to clearing Mag for not realizing Wisp is confirmed town. He had the same reaction I had: yes, it's towny, but giving him a free pass over it is dangerous. He didn't try to make it look like it was nothing, he addressed it, but he also made sure we weren't giving a free pass to potential scum.

Originally Posted by S-FM Magoroth

It just looks like scum paint to me. I don't see "scum painting" as town behavior in general.

"I suspect you because you look upset about the kill"
That's not scumpaint, that's just a stance. Maybe not the strongest stance ever, especially since it's confirmed to be wrong, but saying Leto had been scumpainting Wisp because he had voiced a suspicion on him is a big stretch.

Originally Posted by Samson

Misunderstand my rhyme, clearly you haven’t the time, to understand my spoken word, you don’t have to sing like a bird

Understand thy cryptic posts I do not, therefore my patience begins to rot. Clear stances and opinions on players may you give, so that our reads may prosperously live?

Originally Posted by Helz

Someone else touched on it but the sub out has some AI potential with stronger pressure on a team scum to preform.

That would be angleshooting... so no.
I have a mild townread on Varcron for his caution when it comes to clearing Mag for not realizing Wisp is confirmed town. He had the same reaction I had: yes, it's towny, but giving him a free pass over it is dangerous. He didn't try to make it look like it was nothing, he addressed it, but he also made sure we weren't giving a free pass to potential scum.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;916772]Ohh, that's fair.
Well, I can say that I see this as an alternative approach for sure which I don't think I've noticed before.

But I'd argue that the same could be accomplished by direct text, by proposing a direct moral argument against the idea. I'd never had figured that there's a different possible way/approach tbh.[/QUOTE]

True, but going straight to the core is better, because it ensures the topic will be exactly what it has to be. Instead, if you propose a direct moral argument against the idea, you're probably going to end up with something like that:

[I]But human life is sacred, and it is not up to us to decide whether or not someone should live.[/I]
or
[I]Killing people makes us as criminal as the ones we'd kill.[/I]
etc.

Which would lead to arguments that are [I]close[/I] to the core of the topic, but not touching it. Of course, it wouldn't be horrible, but it wouldn't be optimal either.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Ohh, that's fair.
Well, I can say that I see this as an alternative approach for sure which I don't think I've noticed before.

But I'd argue that the same could be accomplished by direct text, by proposing a direct moral argument against the idea. I'd never had figured that there's a different possible way/approach tbh.

True, but going straight to the core is better, because it ensures the topic will be exactly what it has to be. Instead, if you propose a direct moral argument against the idea, you're probably going to end up with something like that:

But human life is sacred, and it is not up to us to decide whether or not someone should live.
or
Killing people makes us as criminal as the ones we'd kill.
etc.

Which would lead to arguments that are close to the core of the topic, but not touching it. Of course, it wouldn't be horrible, but it wouldn't be optimal either.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;916770]The core of the debate is whether or not death penalty should be restored - asking why is core to it.
B questions A's morality, it has nothing to do with the idea that A is bringing forward imo.
:thinking:[/QUOTE]

Since death penalty was abolished for moral reasons, morality has everything to do with restoring death penalty. Also, be careful with your words: B questions the morality of A's [I]stance[/I], not A's morality itself.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

The core of the debate is whether or not death penalty should be restored - asking why is core to it.
B questions A's morality, it has nothing to do with the idea that A is bringing forward imo.

Since death penalty was abolished for moral reasons, morality has everything to do with restoring death penalty. Also, be careful with your words: B questions the morality of A's stance, not A's morality itself.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;916766]I'd say that practically it'd be easier to just ask "Why?" instead of rephrasing the question. Or have the same effect with responding to direct text "Why [repeat premise]?".
I don't see a benefit in this example at least tbh.[/QUOTE]

If you ask "why", which is an open-ended question, you will most likely get the answer "because some fuckers don't deserve to live" or something similar, and you'll never touch the core of the topic.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

I'd say that practically it'd be easier to just ask "Why?" instead of rephrasing the question. Or have the same effect with responding to direct text "Why [repeat premise]?".
I don't see a benefit in this example at least tbh.

If you ask "why", which is an open-ended question, you will most likely get the answer "because some fuckers don't deserve to live" or something similar, and you'll never touch the core of the topic.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;916764]Hmm.. makes sense.
In your opinion, would it be better IRL to perhaps only respond to the direct text?[/QUOTE]
No, because that would close us this kind of transcendence in thoughts:
[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;916765]A: [I]Death penalty should be restored.[/I]
B: [I]So you believe humans have the right to kill other humans under certain conditions?[/I]
A, if their thoughts are consistent: [I]Yes, because X Y Z.[/I][/QUOTE]

Instead, B would be asking about why death penalty should be restored, which wouldn't touch the core of the debate topic. Or, even worse, they'd say "No" and go away because they don't agree with the text. Trying to guess someone's intention from their words is possible, but dangerous, and should not be done lightly.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Hmm.. makes sense.
In your opinion, would it be better IRL to perhaps only respond to the direct text?

No, because that would close us this kind of transcendence in thoughts:

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

A: Death penalty should be restored.
B: So you believe humans have the right to kill other humans under certain conditions?
A, if their thoughts are consistent: Yes, because X Y Z.

Instead, B would be asking about why death penalty should be restored, which wouldn't touch the core of the debate topic. Or, even worse, they'd say "No" and go away because they don't agree with the text. Trying to guess someone's intention from their words is possible, but dangerous, and should not be done lightly.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;916762][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]Could you provide a hypothetical example? Though, I realize it might not be easy.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

A: [I]Death penalty should be restored.[/I]
B: [I]So you believe humans have the right to kill other humans under certain conditions?[/I]
A, if their thoughts are consistent: [I]Yes, because X Y Z.[/I]

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Could you provide a hypothetical example? Though, I realize it might not be easy.

A: Death penalty should be restored.
B: So you believe humans have the right to kill other humans under certain conditions?
A, if their thoughts are consistent: Yes, because X Y Z.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;916758]For ad hominem to occur you'd have to assume their intentions instead of thought process though, right?
:thinking:

Maybe it's the same thing...[/QUOTE]

Fundamental attribution error will make this happen rather often. Most conflicts actually stem from that specific cognitive bias (personal take and conclusion after observing conflicts "in hindsight" or from an external point of view, not from a study or anything like that).
Plus, since humans are humans, you cannot completely dissociate their intentions from their logical thought process, unless you have absolute trust in a specific person, which is rather rare.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

For ad hominem to occur you'd have to assume their intentions instead of thought process though, right?


Maybe it's the same thing...

Fundamental attribution error will make this happen rather often. Most conflicts actually stem from that specific cognitive bias (personal take and conclusion after observing conflicts "in hindsight" or from an external point of view, not from a study or anything like that).
Plus, since humans are humans, you cannot completely dissociate their intentions from their logical thought process, unless you have absolute trust in a specific person, which is rather rare.

Making a new thread to avoid derailing the Bible one.

[QUOTE=Helz;916626]Totally unrelated but I think most of the people here lean left. I wonder if you can set your bias aside and [COLOR="#008080"]consider what it means that you consider a political affiliation an insult or some sort of morally reprehensible condition.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="#008080"]I consider authoritarianism as absolutely reprehensible: it results in horrors, as history clearly shows. And to take a more precise example, I'm pretty sure you won't find many people around who think being politically affiliated to nazis isn't morally reprehensible.[/COLOR]
I have a hard time believing all affiliations are equally moral, since they inherently mean their followers lean towards X Y Z morality standards (abortion good/bad, freedom of speech good/bad, social measures good/bad, genocides good/bad, etc.)

Making a new thread to avoid derailing the Bible one.

Originally Posted by Helz

Totally unrelated but I think most of the people here lean left. I wonder if you can set your bias aside and consider what it means that you consider a political affiliation an insult or some sort of morally reprehensible condition.

I consider authoritarianism as absolutely reprehensible: it results in horrors, as history clearly shows. And to take a more precise example, I'm pretty sure you won't find many people around who think being politically affiliated to nazis isn't morally reprehensible.
I have a hard time believing all affiliations are equally moral, since they inherently mean their followers lean towards X Y Z morality standards (abortion good/bad, freedom of speech good/bad, social measures good/bad, genocides good/bad, etc.)

In FM, you reply to the thought process because it's the thought process that matters when you need to read people. In life, depending on the situation, you'll either reply directly to what the other person is saying (that's what happens in everyday conversations most of the time) or reply to what is implied by what the other person is saying (when you are debating with someone, for example, so that you can see if what they are saying is valid). Responding to the [I]thought process[/I] itself is quite dangerous in a logical debate where you have to find out whether a given statement is true or false and when it doesn't involve lies from the other person, because you are likely to derail the conversation, to make ad hominem attacks, etc.

In FM, you reply to the thought process because it's the thought process that matters when you need to read people. In life, depending on the situation, you'll either reply directly to what the other person is saying (that's what happens in everyday conversations most of the time) or reply to what is implied by what the other person is saying (when you are debating with someone, for example, so that you can see if what they are saying is valid). Responding to the thought process itself is quite dangerous in a logical debate where you have to find out whether a given statement is true or false and when it doesn't involve lies from the other person, because you are likely to derail the conversation, to make ad hominem attacks, etc.

[QUOTE=Dark Magician;916563]I still TR Varcron.[/QUOTE]

I share your stance, but WHY DO YOU HAVE THAT STANCE?

Originally Posted by Dark Magician

I still TR Varcron.

I share your stance, but WHY DO YOU HAVE THAT STANCE?

[QUOTE=Helz;916539]I think it would have to be that he did not read scumchat although I find that doubtful before posting a readwall and the amount of time passed between the smite and his read wall. He does not play the amount of WIFOM for that to have been a bid and I do not see a world where scum have not either laughed at the smite on Grey or said something along the lines of 'damn bro, he got your ass.'

My town read on Mag is going to carry for quite a few days.[/QUOTE]

It's not impossible, though. Townreading him for it is fair, giving him a free pass isn't.

[QUOTE=Varcron;916540][COLOR="#FFFF00"]If Mag is indeed scum you just gave him a get out of jail free card by lowering your guard, that is a very bad idea.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Varcron;916542]Don't get me wrong, your reasoning in my eyes is sound and I concur with it mostly; however, that does not mean I will give him a free pass moving onwards.[/QUOTE]

This is absolutely correct, and looks like towny caution about free passes.

Originally Posted by Helz

I think it would have to be that he did not read scumchat although I find that doubtful before posting a readwall and the amount of time passed between the smite and his read wall. He does not play the amount of WIFOM for that to have been a bid and I do not see a world where scum have not either laughed at the smite on Grey or said something along the lines of 'damn bro, he got your ass.'

My town read on Mag is going to carry for quite a few days.

It's not impossible, though. Townreading him for it is fair, giving him a free pass isn't.

Originally Posted by Varcron

If Mag is indeed scum you just gave him a get out of jail free card by lowering your guard, that is a very bad idea.

Originally Posted by Varcron

Don't get me wrong, your reasoning in my eyes is sound and I concur with it mostly; however, that does not mean I will give him a free pass moving onwards.

This is absolutely correct, and looks like towny caution about free passes.

[QUOTE=Varcron;916537]I'm not sure if your judging based off of Leto or whatnot, but #387 was not by me but by the slot before me.[/QUOTE]
It's still your slot, though. You carry his karma.
[QUOTE=Leto II;915161]Wiisp I think you upset about the day kill that happened
[Vote]wiisp[/vote][/QUOTE]
[MENTION=45724]S-FM Magoroth[/MENTION] this is post #387, how is it bad?

Originally Posted by Varcron

I'm not sure if your judging based off of Leto or whatnot, but #387 was not by me but by the slot before me.

It's still your slot, though. You carry his karma.

Originally Posted by Leto II

Wiisp I think you upset about the day kill that happened

-vote wiisp

@S-FM Magoroth this is post #387, how is it bad?

[QUOTE=deathworlds;916676]I think people underestimate how important having your setup being easy to read and or presentable is.
Not only does it draw people in, make the game easier to play, and make [I]you[/I] as a host appear more competent, but uh, actually that's most of the benefits I can think of.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. It also avoids setup misunderstandings. Having a beautiful, organized and gramatically correct setup matters.

Originally Posted by deathworlds

I think people underestimate how important having your setup being easy to read and or presentable is.
Not only does it draw people in, make the game easier to play, and make you as a host appear more competent, but uh, actually that's most of the benefits I can think of.

Absolutely. It also avoids setup misunderstandings. Having a beautiful, organized and gramatically correct setup matters.

[QUOTE=aamirus;916469]Your penis[/QUOTE]

much deep, much funny, ha ha

Originally Posted by aamirus

Your penis

much deep, much funny, ha ha

Anti-vaxxers can be found at the four corners of the Hexagon.

Anti-vaxxers can be found at the four corners of the Hexagon.

[QUOTE=S-FM Magoroth;916524][vote]Dark Magician[/vote][/QUOTE]
Not that I disagree, but do you really place your vote for a strict policy lynch here? It's not exactly informative.
What did yzb do that was pro-town and [I]towny[/I] enough to get in that spot? I don't see it.
[QUOTE=Helz;916530]I strongly town read Magoroth for this list.

There is no way wolves have not discussed how Wisp is host confirmed town in their chat. You are now my 2nd to top town read Magoroth, Congrats : )[/QUOTE]

This is a good point, although I wouldn't totally exclude scum!Mag for this; it's not impossible he has simply not read scumchat, or that scum are keeping this for the night. It does give him quite a lot of townpoints, though.

Originally Posted by S-FM Magoroth

-vote Dark Magician

Not that I disagree, but do you really place your vote for a strict policy lynch here? It's not exactly informative.
What did yzb do that was pro-town and towny enough to get in that spot? I don't see it.

Originally Posted by Helz

I strongly town read Magoroth for this list.

There is no way wolves have not discussed how Wisp is host confirmed town in their chat. You are now my 2nd to top town read Magoroth, Congrats : )

This is a good point, although I wouldn't totally exclude scum!Mag for this; it's not impossible he has simply not read scumchat, or that scum are keeping this for the night. It does give him quite a lot of townpoints, though.

[QUOTE=S-FM Magoroth;916514]And it sucks because it sheds light on the slot. It's just as bad as rage quitting. Ride it out to the fucking end dude.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree if it had happened, but it didn't (and he's dead anyway, smitten by our lord and savior Wisp who works in mysterious ways). I guess I can't blame you for live reading-posting though xD.

Originally Posted by S-FM Magoroth

And it sucks because it sheds light on the slot. It's just as bad as rage quitting. Ride it out to the fucking end dude.

I'd agree if it had happened, but it didn't (and he's dead anyway, smitten by our lord and savior Wisp who works in mysterious ways). I guess I can't blame you for live reading-posting though xD.

[QUOTE=yzb25;916345]No read on your slot at all.

Maybe I'm being too soft on Varcron, but I don't know how anyone can possibly think continuing to push SJ is pro-town. If you seriously think that kind of play is optimal, move your vote back to me. Here is your vote from the previous page:

level 1 scumreads my ass. This vote was purely an omgus on DM. My play isn't amazing, but sheeping a credible vote is a hell of a lot better than throwing an OMGUS vote and making no effort to rally anyone else. I'm not sure I agree with DM's specific point on you, but this vote was ironically extremely opportunistic. Your play has been wonky as hell.[/QUOTE]

Nice deflection :) [vote]yzb25[/vote]
I find quite hard to believe you're sheeping a weak townread on a nullread while you claim to have significant scumreads yourself on other people, and you haven't proved me wrong, only deflected onto me and my vote on DM, which was completely unrelated.

But at risk of falling into your game, I'll comment on the DM vote: when I see bullshit that seems to stem from scum intent, I expose it. I saw that, I exposed it. That's not opportunistic, that's scum-hunting.

Originally Posted by yzb25

No read on your slot at all.

Maybe I'm being too soft on Varcron, but I don't know how anyone can possibly think continuing to push SJ is pro-town. If you seriously think that kind of play is optimal, move your vote back to me. Here is your vote from the previous page:

level 1 scumreads my ass. This vote was purely an omgus on DM. My play isn't amazing, but sheeping a credible vote is a hell of a lot better than throwing an OMGUS vote and making no effort to rally anyone else. I'm not sure I agree with DM's specific point on you, but this vote was ironically extremely opportunistic. Your play has been wonky as hell.

Nice deflection

-vote yzb25

I find quite hard to believe you're sheeping a weak townread on a nullread while you claim to have significant scumreads yourself on other people, and you haven't proved me wrong, only deflected onto me and my vote on DM, which was completely unrelated.

But at risk of falling into your game, I'll comment on the DM vote: when I see bullshit that seems to stem from scum intent, I expose it. I saw that, I exposed it. That's not opportunistic, that's scum-hunting.

If only the avatar wasn't lost and gone forever... I'd /SIGN

If only the avatar wasn't lost and gone forever... I'd /SIGN

[QUOTE=Voss;916344]The meta on this site is to make trains on people and move around. If you find yourself as the train in the beginning of the day, you know you ain't getting yeeted. Ergo, yes, nobody does actually care and people should not be feeling pressure because they should know the meta that it'll move off to someone else. ESPECIALLY if you play inactive. (I of course would never play inactive, but I will tell the train to fuck off because I know it'll move elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

False: if your name is [MENTION=43484]Varcron[/MENTION], a train against you on D1 is a death sentence.
More seriously, D1 trains can be damning if you play badly around them. We may be a little bit less tunnelly than most sites when it comes to D1 trains, but that doesn't mean they are pointless or pressureless.

Originally Posted by Voss

The meta on this site is to make trains on people and move around. If you find yourself as the train in the beginning of the day, you know you ain't getting yeeted. Ergo, yes, nobody does actually care and people should not be feeling pressure because they should know the meta that it'll move off to someone else. ESPECIALLY if you play inactive. (I of course would never play inactive, but I will tell the train to fuck off because I know it'll move elsewhere.

False: if your name is @Varcron , a train against you on D1 is a death sentence.
More seriously, D1 trains can be damning if you play badly around them. We may be a little bit less tunnelly than most sites when it comes to D1 trains, but that doesn't mean they are pointless or pressureless.

[QUOTE=Zedus;916327]Oh, I should say that's BECAUSE I was in hospital and you had no scums :)[/QUOTE]

Uh oh. Can you get COVID again pls? :P

[class=hidden]disclaimer: since I know by experience some people can't understand irony, especially online... THIS IS IRONY[/class]

Originally Posted by Zedus

Oh, I should say that's BECAUSE I was in hospital and you had no scums

Uh oh. Can you get COVID again pls? :P

disclaimer: since I know by experience some people can't understand irony, especially online... THIS IS IRONY

[QUOTE=OzyWho;916468]How do I give negative? I only see from 0 to +9.[/QUOTE]

Staff / donor privilege again. I think that was taken away from normal users because people used it exclusively to bitch lol, but that was waaay before I even joined.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

How do I give negative? I only see from 0 to +9.

Staff / donor privilege again. I think that was taken away from normal users because people used it exclusively to bitch lol, but that was waaay before I even joined.

[QUOTE=yzb25;916041]I kind of assumed I would have more to say, but the thread has not had many AI interactions frankly. My reads are something like this:

Wiisp - town. (I thought the way they probed me and Leto was very much sincerely trying to understand. Don't agree with the reads they often produce but the thought process is very consistent)
Martin - town. (I thought the wallpost was good. Helz's characterization if it seemed unfair. Their thought process reminds me of the prior illuminati game.)
Helz - null/town. (I'm honestly not sure how much the towntells ppl point out on Helz's slot can be trusted, but they seem to be making a very earnest effort to push the game forward)
SJ - scum. (the overall play has been very anti-town and the way they push ppl has been more plain argumentative than trying to actually find alignments and shit)
Leto/Varcron - scum. (after the early posts that seemed extremely vain, they mainly pop in to have lame arguments and excuse themselves for not reading / taking stances)
MM - null. The vote on gray and the way they responded to being asked about it remains very strange. But whenever they're not talking to me they seem like usual early game null MM.

I don't have any meaningful read on anyone else (if the above can even be considered meaningful). There is a good chance there are multiple scums among the people that barely have any AI content and this game is just town cannibalism.

[vote]samsungLyssa[/vote]

I can get behind Helz reasoning for this vote for now.[/QUOTE]

:sheep:ing someone you're not sure about against someone you don't have a read on instead of going after your very "level 1" scumreads... what am I missing here?

Originally Posted by yzb25

I kind of assumed I would have more to say, but the thread has not had many AI interactions frankly. My reads are something like this:

Wiisp - town. (I thought the way they probed me and Leto was very much sincerely trying to understand. Don't agree with the reads they often produce but the thought process is very consistent)
Martin - town. (I thought the wallpost was good. Helz's characterization if it seemed unfair. Their thought process reminds me of the prior illuminati game.)
Helz - null/town. (I'm honestly not sure how much the towntells ppl point out on Helz's slot can be trusted, but they seem to be making a very earnest effort to push the game forward)
SJ - scum. (the overall play has been very anti-town and the way they push ppl has been more plain argumentative than trying to actually find alignments and shit)
Leto/Varcron - scum. (after the early posts that seemed extremely vain, they mainly pop in to have lame arguments and excuse themselves for not reading / taking stances)
MM - null. The vote on gray and the way they responded to being asked about it remains very strange. But whenever they're not talking to me they seem like usual early game null MM.

I don't have any meaningful read on anyone else (if the above can even be considered meaningful). There is a good chance there are multiple scums among the people that barely have any AI content and this game is just town cannibalism.

-vote samsungLyssa

I can get behind Helz reasoning for this vote for now.

ing someone you're not sure about against someone you don't have a read on instead of going after your very "level 1" scumreads... what am I missing here?

[QUOTE=Dark Magician;916014]I ain’t reaching anything. I don’t have any hands, I have magic.
Lots of things are Scummy. Doesn’t mean your scum.
If that was the case then I guess me and you are both scum buddies.[/QUOTE]

No comprendo.

And Varcron, it'd have been basically impossible to scumpaint you efficiently for not jumping on a fluffy slot lol. I like the answers I'm seeing from you, though.

Originally Posted by Dark Magician

I ain’t reaching anything. I don’t have any hands, I have magic.
Lots of things are Scummy. Doesn’t mean your scum.
If that was the case then I guess me and you are both scum buddies.

No comprendo.

And Varcron, it'd have been basically impossible to scumpaint you efficiently for not jumping on a fluffy slot lol. I like the answers I'm seeing from you, though.

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;916280]Renegade how do you reconcile your tying in religion with far right extremism with the fact that some of the most fervent abolitionists were not only religious, but driven to abolitionism because of religion?[/QUOTE]

STOP SPEAKING IN ABSOLUTES, YOU LITTLE PIECE OF SITH!

It's not because some far-right people weren't religious that all far-right people aren't. Take Franco as an example of religious far-right. Anti-far-right people being religious doesn't exclude far-right people from being religious too.

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

Renegade how do you reconcile your tying in religion with far right extremism with the fact that some of the most fervent abolitionists were not only religious, but driven to abolitionism because of religion?

STOP SPEAKING IN ABSOLUTES, YOU LITTLE PIECE OF SITH!

It's not because some far-right people weren't religious that all far-right people aren't. Take Franco as an example of religious far-right. Anti-far-right people being religious doesn't exclude far-right people from being religious too.

[QUOTE=aamirus;916008]search engine spiders are on every site they can find[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/deusex/images/9/95/Dx2_spiderbot_hvy.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110902071215&path-prefix=en[/IMG]

Originally Posted by aamirus

search engine spiders are on every site they can find

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;916266]I think since we’ve brought up the Catholic Church as a topic, I may as well fuck with this. I feel like the conflict between Protestants and Catholics (during the Reformation) can essentially be put down to ‘if the Catholics didn’t believe enough, then the Protestants believed too much.’ I mean, on the Catholic side you had priests and bishops, who were supposed to be celibate, commonly entertain mistresses and some living on their own land rather than their parish. Going even further up the hierarchy the Pope engaged in some spectacular opulence. I would go as far naming the heresy trials conducted during the 14th-15th centuries as evidence of the Pope wanting his hold on power maintained through sham trials.

Whereas on the Protestant side you had shit like the Salem witch trials where Protestants would straight up execute ppl for suspected witchcraft. Shit that ironically is popularly attributed to Catholics but Protestants mostly engaged in.[/QUOTE]

Celibate was imposed by the Gregorian Reform... so that priests' riches would go back to the Church. Popes back then were all but holy, acting like true statesmen. The literal teen we talked about is a ridiculous example, Rodrigo Borgia is another. Things like this lead me to strongly believe the institution is full of shit lol (don't you dare tell me they were inspired by God and truly followed the path of Jesus Christ as his successors...).

About "Protestants", there's a quite important point you're missing: the Reformation created a ton of different "branches". Some were completely insane (like in Münster), some were much more sane than what existed before (like those saying people should be able to read the Bible in their own language so that they may understand it). You can't just say a bunch of crazies represent the entire religion.

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

I think since we’ve brought up the Catholic Church as a topic, I may as well fuck with this. I feel like the conflict between Protestants and Catholics (during the Reformation) can essentially be put down to ‘if the Catholics didn’t believe enough, then the Protestants believed too much.’ I mean, on the Catholic side you had priests and bishops, who were supposed to be celibate, commonly entertain mistresses and some living on their own land rather than their parish. Going even further up the hierarchy the Pope engaged in some spectacular opulence. I would go as far naming the heresy trials conducted during the 14th-15th centuries as evidence of the Pope wanting his hold on power maintained through sham trials.

Whereas on the Protestant side you had shit like the Salem witch trials where Protestants would straight up execute ppl for suspected witchcraft. Shit that ironically is popularly attributed to Catholics but Protestants mostly engaged in.

Celibate was imposed by the Gregorian Reform... so that priests' riches would go back to the Church. Popes back then were all but holy, acting like true statesmen. The literal teen we talked about is a ridiculous example, Rodrigo Borgia is another. Things like this lead me to strongly believe the institution is full of shit lol (don't you dare tell me they were inspired by God and truly followed the path of Jesus Christ as his successors...).

About "Protestants", there's a quite important point you're missing: the Reformation created a ton of different "branches". Some were completely insane (like in Münster), some were much more sane than what existed before (like those saying people should be able to read the Bible in their own language so that they may understand it). You can't just say a bunch of crazies represent the entire religion.

[QUOTE=Renegade;916263]Your belief in the bible is [COLOR="#008080"]established[/COLOR] on the phrase "springs of the sea"? Wut?

What "springs" in the sea are you even referring to? Fault lines? Plate tectonics?

Yikes

Again a PERFECT example of cherry picking and mental gymnastics. Here you take "springs of the sea" literally, but we aren't supposed to take literally the age of the earth calculated by the blood lines described as 6000 years old?

Exhausting.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="#008080"]By saying "established", you probably think we shouldn't take this literally (as in "built on"). Is that incompatible with taking the rest of your post literally?[/COLOR]

If I make a metaphor in a text, does it mean nothing has to be taken literally in my text?
One thing not having to be taken literally does not exclude other things from the same text to be meant to be taken literally. Now, I don't really understand what Mike said lol, but your argument is invalid.
Note that this works the other way around too: it's not because some things can be taken literally that EVERYTHING has to be taken literally.

Originally Posted by Renegade

Your belief in the bible is established on the phrase "springs of the sea"? Wut?

What "springs" in the sea are you even referring to? Fault lines? Plate tectonics?

Yikes

Again a PERFECT example of cherry picking and mental gymnastics. Here you take "springs of the sea" literally, but we aren't supposed to take literally the age of the earth calculated by the blood lines described as 6000 years old?

Exhausting.

By saying "established", you probably think we shouldn't take this literally (as in "built on"). Is that incompatible with taking the rest of your post literally?

If I make a metaphor in a text, does it mean nothing has to be taken literally in my text?
One thing not having to be taken literally does not exclude other things from the same text to be meant to be taken literally. Now, I don't really understand what Mike said lol, but your argument is invalid.
Note that this works the other way around too: it's not because some things can be taken literally that EVERYTHING has to be taken literally.

[QUOTE=Renegade;916249]A long line of Popes, chief arbiters of the word of god for catholics, have long oversaw the abuse of children at the hands of God sanctioned predators, as a simple example.

Word of god![/QUOTE]

The Catholic Church as an entity (but not all of its individual members, priests, etc.) can and should go the fuck away. That's just because it's an institution of power that uses religion as an excuse for many bad things (again, not everyone in it, but the entity as a whole). It doesn't mean all religion is bad and should be rejected vehemently like you're doing. Why not respect those who live in accordance to their faith and who are helped by their religion to be better people, independently from any religious belief (or lack thereof)? Like this post, which I absolutely love btw:

[QUOTE=Mike;916239]This is hitting the nail on the head. If everyone could understand this imagine the world.

Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Luke 9:50
And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.[/QUOTE]

What is bad about that? Worst case scenario is, there's actually no God at all, but at least the Bible helped people in their lives and did no harm in such a case. Note that I'm talking about specific cases like this one, not talking about all consequences religion had.

Originally Posted by Renegade

A long line of Popes, chief arbiters of the word of god for catholics, have long oversaw the abuse of children at the hands of God sanctioned predators, as a simple example.

Word of god!

The Catholic Church as an entity (but not all of its individual members, priests, etc.) can and should go the fuck away. That's just because it's an institution of power that uses religion as an excuse for many bad things (again, not everyone in it, but the entity as a whole). It doesn't mean all religion is bad and should be rejected vehemently like you're doing. Why not respect those who live in accordance to their faith and who are helped by their religion to be better people, independently from any religious belief (or lack thereof)? Like this post, which I absolutely love btw:

Originally Posted by Mike

This is hitting the nail on the head. If everyone could understand this imagine the world.

Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Luke 9:50
And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

What is bad about that? Worst case scenario is, there's actually no God at all, but at least the Bible helped people in their lives and did no harm in such a case. Note that I'm talking about specific cases like this one, not talking about all consequences religion had.

[QUOTE=Zedus;916166]Well, my corona is over, I am survived and I am back.
As for formula, it's simple for this forum. Here it is:
[COLOR="#FF0000"][SIZE=3]Scum wins.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

?! welcome back among the living, I wasn't aware you had the Black Death.

Also, that's completely false :) town has won a rather big share of games recently.

Originally Posted by Zedus

Well, my corona is over, I am survived and I am back.
As for formula, it's simple for this forum. Here it is:
Scum wins.

?! welcome back among the living, I wasn't aware you had the Black Death.

Also, that's completely false town has won a rather big share of games recently.

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;916002]I don’t think there’s any authoritarian regimes with an armed populace, and for a good reason. [COLOR="#FF0000"]Europe and the like may not have authoritarian governments, so they don’t need guns yet. But wait until some dictatorship starts to emerge, and ppl will wish they had guns. [/COLOR]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]To address your points about the US and its stance on gun rights though, the problems in America are much older than ppl marching on the Capitol and trying to take over Congress by force: guns have played a very minor role in this... situation thus far. [/COLOR]

[COLOR="#008080"]Hillbillies with rifles are a real threat, but I think paying that price is worth it if it means you can defend yourself if the government wants to take your shit. Imagine how the Cuban/Russian Revolutions would’ve gone if ppl were armed. Imagine how Hitler’s rise to power could’ve been averted or at least Jews could’ve defended themselves if they were as well armed as Americans are.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="#008080"]I can imagine the corpses piling up, yes.[/COLOR]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]Agreed, but that doesn't mean they aren't an issue, and even less that they won't be.[/COLOR]

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Ah yes, it would be absolutely lovely if Belarusians had guns... [/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

I don’t think there’s any authoritarian regimes with an armed populace, and for a good reason. Europe and the like may not have authoritarian governments, so they don’t need guns yet. But wait until some dictatorship starts to emerge, and ppl will wish they had guns.

To address your points about the US and its stance on gun rights though, the problems in America are much older than ppl marching on the Capitol and trying to take over Congress by force: guns have played a very minor role in this... situation thus far.

Hillbillies with rifles are a real threat, but I think paying that price is worth it if it means you can defend yourself if the government wants to take your shit. Imagine how the Cuban/Russian Revolutions would’ve gone if ppl were armed. Imagine how Hitler’s rise to power could’ve been averted or at least Jews could’ve defended themselves if they were as well armed as Americans are.

I can imagine the corpses piling up, yes.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean they aren't an issue, and even less that they won't be.

Ah yes, it would be absolutely lovely if Belarusians had guns...

[CENTER][SIZE=5]Regarding [URL="https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/47994-Winter-2020-21-Krc-(S-FM-320)%22]S-FM 320: ?krc[/URL][/SIZE]

[MENTION=2166]Bruno[/MENTION] (@S-FM BFTW) has been banned for a month during the game (18 days ago) for posting several inflammatory threads on his main account about his then-recent modkill while the host had not yet decided what to do with his slot. This breaks several rules: no out of game communication, no intentional posting from your main account during an anonymous game, no personal attacks. Despite Bruno's very long history of infractions, some leniency has been applied, because the host appealed to leniency after having a civil conversation with Bruno; he had [I]mistakenly[/I] thought Bruno was guilty of cheating by OGCing with another player. While this does not excuse the major and intentional intentional rulebreak, we understand being wrongly accused isn't fun, so no additional punishment will be given.
Host appealing for leniency and rescinding his cheating-by-OGC accusations: [url]https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/47994-Winter-2020-21-Krc-(S-FM-319)?p=912459&viewfull=1#post912459[/url]

On another note, let it be known that further serious FM-related offenses (severe personal attacks, intentional OGC, etc.) from Bruno will result in a permanent game ban. We hope we won't need to get there (and in theory, we shouldn't need to), but after seeing multiple people reasonably take issue with his behavior in multiple games, seeing how he intentionally broke the rules even after S-FM 313: Mushroom Kingdom II (see the verdict related to that game), and considering his infraction history, this seems only appropriate to prevent repeated rulebreaking that would be detrimental to games.


~~

We'd also like to reminder to all players that games are meant to be fun. Before posting something toxic, think about this. Toxicity doesn't make things fun for anyone, and can only hurt the game and its players, not help. This is not an attack, nor is it targeted at anyone. It's normal to get a bit more heated and to have less fun in games with a bad climate. That's why we should all try to defuse such situations during games, and obviously avoid causing them. If everyone played nice, infractions would be extremely rare, and that's what we want.

[/CENTER]

Regarding S-FM 320: ?krc

@Bruno (@S-FM BFTW) has been banned for a month during the game (18 days ago) for posting several inflammatory threads on his main account about his then-recent modkill while the host had not yet decided what to do with his slot. This breaks several rules: no out of game communication, no intentional posting from your main account during an anonymous game, no personal attacks. Despite Bruno's very long history of infractions, some leniency has been applied, because the host appealed to leniency after having a civil conversation with Bruno; he had mistakenly thought Bruno was guilty of cheating by OGCing with another player. While this does not excuse the major and intentional intentional rulebreak, we understand being wrongly accused isn't fun, so no additional punishment will be given.
Host appealing for leniency and rescinding his cheating-by-OGC accusations: https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showt...l=1#post912459

On another note, let it be known that further serious FM-related offenses (severe personal attacks, intentional OGC, etc.) from Bruno will result in a permanent game ban. We hope we won't need to get there (and in theory, we shouldn't need to), but after seeing multiple people reasonably take issue with his behavior in multiple games, seeing how he intentionally broke the rules even after S-FM 313: Mushroom Kingdom II (see the verdict related to that game), and considering his infraction history, this seems only appropriate to prevent repeated rulebreaking that would be detrimental to games.


~~

We'd also like to reminder to all players that games are meant to be fun. Before posting something toxic, think about this. Toxicity doesn't make things fun for anyone, and can only hurt the game and its players, not help. This is not an attack, nor is it targeted at anyone. It's normal to get a bit more heated and to have less fun in games with a bad climate. That's why we should all try to defuse such situations during games, and obviously avoid causing them. If everyone played nice, infractions would be extremely rare, and that's what we want.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;916036]From now on, outside of FM games, whenever I see someone use that awful awful "/s" I will quote it and fix it.
People on this site are so uncultured! :mad:[/QUOTE]

So true!
/s

Originally Posted by OzyWho

From now on, outside of FM games, whenever I see someone use that awful awful "/s" I will quote it and fix it.
People on this site are so uncultured!

So true!
/s

[QUOTE=SuperJack;915996]Ok. I'll do it eventually >->[/QUOTE]

Thanks ^.^

Originally Posted by SuperJack

Ok. I'll do it eventually >->

Thanks