We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
 
Mafia: The Gathering
 
The Magic Market Index for June 23, 2017
 
Treasure Cruisin' with Monogreen Stompy
  • 0

    posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    Quote from Wildfire393 »
    Quote from Highroller »
    Which is why I'd like to gauge interest for a clan thread for debate forum alums. Allows us to keep the debating going, does so in a more conducive manner.


    Of note, the Admins have discussed this and we would not be in favor of this. We would encourage you to instead look into a Discord or Slack or other offsite communications method for your debate discussions.


    As a former mod, can I ask why curse is hellbent on killing debate?
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • 0

    posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    I'd be ok with that.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • 0

    posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from TomCat26 »
    What happened to the debate forum? I haven't posted in years.
    It was retired. Took up more moderator resources than the staff felt was justified.


    I know. It was almost like Debate was as aggressive as the Rumor Forum used to be.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • 0

    posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    What about a discord chat? We could make a specific channel and have different topics.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • 2

    posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    I don't even participate that much, and I already miss it.

    Thanks mtgs.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • 0

    posted a message on Debate is Closing 05/05/17
    Shame, I really enjoyed this website. Getting rid of any reason for me to continue at this rate.

    Any odds we could open up a debate tab on discord? Will never be the same, but it would be kind of cool.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    hey i'm back, hopefully you enjoyed your regularly scheduled broadcast of leftist echo chamber.

    on water distribution, why is this a problem? it is unlikely that a water provider would want to start charging monopoly prices as this is a highly ineffective strategy... communities that are gouged on water prices could truck in their water, get it from wells, or there could be a water providing business that approaches members of the community and agrees to build pipes and sell them water at a reasonable market price as long as the patrons agree to get their water from them for whatever amount of time is specified on the contract.

    on how the legal system would work, people would patronize private protection agencies which would offer them dispute resolution services in exchange for a monthly fee. now you might ask couldn't big businesses ignore the private protection agencies? well the big businesses wouldn't be able to stay big for very long if they spent revenue on a private army instead of reinvesting it back into the business. now wouldn't the private protection agencies fight each other?, well the answer to that is that it is unlikely that two protection agencies would fight each other because it is expensive and would be bad press, instead they would negotiate the dispute or they would choose a mutually agreed upon arbitrator to decide on the case.


    I'll let the people you responded to have the first crack, but why wouldn't water distributors change more if they could? Water isn't like a video game.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Supreme Court Justice Nominees Gorsuch and Garland
    Quote from Surging Chaos »


    To be fair, Dred Scott v. Sandford has been universally and unequivocally condemned in retrospect by virtually every single individual as being one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made.


    I don't doubt that, but that's not what I am arguing. The 7-2 decision was clearly made along partisan lines (in this case, the 2 against both happened to be Northern Judges and of the 7, 5 were southern and 2 were from the west).

    What I'm talking about is more about hot-button issues that cause partisan lines to be drawn today. Let's take an example of a hot-button issue of its time: interracial marriage. As late as the 60s, interracial marriages were forbidden in many states. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that all laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Let that sink in for a moment. In the politically-unstable environment of the early 60s, the Supreme Court made a 9-0 ruling on an issue that many people at the time had sheer hatred for. It was a non-partisan decision.


    And just a little bit later, the Civil Rights Act passed through the House of Represenatives with 78% of Democrats and 81% of Republicans backing it. Clearly, decisions in partisan politics can be made accross the party lines. I am not arguing that every case in the Supreme Court is going to have lines drawn between liberal and conservative, but to pretend that those lines don't exist is lying to yourself.

    Same thing for another landmark case of its time, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Again, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state-enforced segregated schools were unconstitutional.

    Even Roe v. Wade wasn't a partisan decision. It wasn't unanimous, but at 7-2 the decision clearly was not split on partisan lines.


    AGain, not example or partisan. Abortion at the time was incredibly hot topic, and even today, can make the most liberal people uncomfortable (even if they overall agree with the right of choice)

    Now compare it to a similar hot-button issue of our time: gay marriage. The Obergefell v. Hodges case was a 5-4 decision. Not surprisingly, the decision was strictly made on partisan lines.


    I don't disagree. Partisan Politics has hit critical mass, peaked, is as bad as it ever was, ect. I am not disagreeing with that or calling any of your examples wrong. All I am arguing is that the SC has been partisan for a lot linger than this. Ginsburg's comments towards Trump are simply more direct than most presidents have seen. I have not


    I could go on and on. This is why the Supreme Court has become far more relevant than it has ever been. Judges no longer make non-partisan decisions like they used to. They strictly make the decisions based on whether the ruling lines up with their political ideology. A Supreme Court packed with liberals, for example, would severely undermine the 2nd Amendment. Conversely, a court packed with conservatives could do something like severely undermine the 14th Amendment or overturn cases they do not agree with, such as Roe v. Wade. Such nightmare scenarios would have been unthinkable decades ago. But today they are a real possibility.


    When I brought up the Dred Scott decision, we were in the midst of a Civil War, where terms like doughboy and copperhead were thrown around (I am not trying to suggest we are about to enter another Civil War). We are reaching another extreme though in politics, and it isn't a coicedence that the SC was extremely partisan back then when tensions were flaring and Congress itself was also tearing itself apart along the lines. The SC is supposed to be a non-partisan body, of that we agree. My point was that how could the SC not be expected to be become heavily influenced by partisans when their appointment to duty is completely based on their politics and ruling. It's the flaw of our original plan that did not take into account a two-party system.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Supreme Court Justice Nominees Gorsuch and Garland
    Quote from Surging Chaos »
    Quote from Xeruh »
    I don't really agree with what you're saying on RBG


    RBG calling out Trump the way she did was completely wrong. Her comments show that the Supreme Court is now a partisan legislative body, which is not what the court is supposed to be.


    The Supreme Court has been a partisan legislative body since at least the Dred Scott decision (and perhaps even earlier). Do you think it's a coincidence that left leaning justices happened to be appointed by democratic presidents and vice-versa? When Earl Warren was nominated, Eisenhower was hoping for a more conservative judge (which was ironic considering he was a judge in California). The only difference nowadays is that the justices are making the Court more visible, and that was arguably still the fault of the GOP than RBG (If you want to blame anyone for making the SC appear as a partisan legislative body, blame McConnell.

    I agree that the SC should not be home to partisan poltics. It's one and ONLY job is to make sure the Constitution is being followed correctly, and police the President/Congress when they step out of line.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Unreliable SHOTS Mafia - Game Over, Shots Fired
    Quote from shadowlancerx »
    Awwww yeah!! Seriously though, the quick lynch of AG had me confused as all heck because it made no sense and was super careless. I seriously considered no killing to support the idea that GJ had not actually been shot, meaning that one of you had "blocked" the other and neither shot, but in the end I went for the simpler play. GJ, would you have caught me out if I'd left you alive?


    Hard to say. I think at first, I would have leaned KJ, but you kept pushing Cops so much, I was starting to get really suspicious.

    I don't envy KJ's spot, and though it was a well played spot.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • 0

    posted a message on Unreliable SHOTS Mafia - Game Over, Shots Fired
    Why the hell was I being shot >:(
    Posted in: Mafia
  • 0

    posted a message on Mafia Championships - Battle of 165 Sites
    I want to nominate tomsloger. I think his game has been really on in the ones both here and on MU, and I feel like of our community, he is the best equipped to handle the much more fast paced format at MU (even with players deciding, it would astonish me if the format was slower than 72/24).
    Posted in: Mafia
  • 0

    posted a message on Supreme Court Justice Nominees Gorsuch and Garland
    Republicans officially pulled the trigger and took the nuclear option. Looks like Gorsuch is going to go the distance.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Unreliable SHOTS Mafia - Game Over, Shots Fired
    Neverimind. DV could have easily lied from his spot. I thoughthim and KJ came out before I did.

    Shadow might be lock clear then.

    ****, I don't know anymore. Glgl
    Posted in: Mafia
  • 0

    posted a message on Unreliable SHOTS Mafia - Game Over, Shots Fired
    Quote from shadowlancerx »
    Time to mass claim I think.
    Vig, chickened out last night.


    Quote from D_V »
    Vig Shot.

    Waiting on others to claim.
    Quote from Killjoy »
    Rawr growl

    (Vig. Target didn't die so either I got rbed (unlikely because doctor) or I found the one shot bp. Will claim who that is when everyone's here)
    Quote from AtheistGod »
    Bulletproof

    Quote from D_V »
    Vote GJ
    Tried to shoot him last night XD
    Quote from shadowlancerx »
    I'm not saying or doing anything until we hear from KJ. DV, I strongly suggest you Unvote, because something screwy is going on.
    Quote from Killjoy »
    RAWR


    (Gentleman Johnny was my target. As claimed earlier, it didn't work.

    But if he's one shot, then both me and DV shot him, he should be dead. So one of DV/me is lying.

    So it has to be DV/AG as the team.

    Actually, wait.

    @Mod: If two people shoot the BP in one night, do both shots fail? Also, would we get notified of roleblocks?)


    Order of operations =/
    Posted in: Mafia
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.