4
Quote from HolyJello »
MuriKa is a YUGE nation of >320 million human beings. The level of hubris required to believe that MuriKa can be guided to paradise by a handful of elites with force, theft, and corruption is PROFOUND. I will notify Ripley's Believe It Or Not first thing in the AM.
1
1
Normally when people say they believe in personal responsibility, it's because they expect people to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, not because they want to excuse responsibility.Quote from imabusinessman »I believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Is Donald Trump personally responsible for beating up a homeless man and putting him in the hospital? No he is not.
M:tG isn't openly advocating political violence.Quote from imabusinessman »You might as well blame Magic: The Gathering for the next mass shooting while you're at it.
Interesting how you keep calling the perpetrators "Hispanics" but the victim is simply a "man".Quote from imabusinessman »Were those three hispanics personally responsible for tearing apart a man's Trump sign and then one of them pulled a gun on the man? Yes they are responsible for that.
What issue? Race-baiting anecdotes notwithstanding, Trump's claim that illegal immigrants tend towards violent criminality is simply a lie. Immigrants commit fewer crimes than the American general public.Quote from imabusinessman »Are you done with these false equivalencies in an effort to deflect from the issue?
3
(a) If you toss around insults based on race, sex, orientation, favorite Beatle, or anything else, then you're not viewing people with basic respect, and you're an ********.Quote from Gentleman Johnny »@SC: At the risk of perhaps changing the subject too much, where is the line drawn? Both the right and left on the issue of PC have likely gone too far, but what part is correct?
1
Not at all.Quote from Gentleman Johnny »
I knew what triggered it, but how beholden are delegates to their candidate?
No, that's just it. They're not his delegates. In the second round, any delegate can vote however he or she chooses to vote.For instance, in some universe, could Trump decide to just all in-Cruz and convince his delegates for the next round to vote Cruz, or would his delegates more likely than not just go any way each individual person wants?
Well Carson was not a viable candidate and made it very clear he wasn't. He had his time in the spotlight, and quickly faded from it. We can talk about unfair media bias or whatever, but none of that would change the fact that Carson just plain wasn't qualified to be president.Even if I agreed with you 110%, Carson sure doesn't feel that way.
1
expecting Zindabad in particular to sign up for this game is a bit ambitious.
1
The senior staff just wanted everything to be uniform across the site, and I wanted to make sure that whatever decision was made did not disrupt our long-standing structure.
I've updated the rules to reflect the more modern MTGS rules, as well as dropped mention of archaic ones that are no longer in effect (such as the double-posting rule).
1
3
Quote from Sheldon »There are people who are way better at math than I am so maybe they can speak to the specifics, but I'm reasonably sure the numbers work out that removing off-color fetches would not have a significant impact on how efficiently a deck works or how many turns it will take you to get all your colors or however one might measure such things. Anyone claiming that removing off-color fetches will cripple their deck is being hyperbolic at best, disingenuous, or simply blatantly lying because they don't like the idea. Which, I might point out, is an idea and one that we've had for a long, long time and not a 'proposed change.'
2
Quote from Iso »The problem with Normals these days is that they're too bland, too blase, too cookie-cutter.
1
1
Then how could the situation be remedied to avoid Trump being able to accuse the judge of being biased? Because that is afterall the end goal, I assume you are after.
2). You realize that White Supremacist is someone who has "the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races". So since you are clearly pointing out it would be unfair that a black judge could preside over this individual, wouldn't it be true for anyone who didn't happen to be white?
Let me try this again: Unless you can prove to us here that this judge was incapable of giving an unbiased decision, theorizing that because the judge was Mexican affected the outcome (or that Trump has the right to question this based on race, and not look an ********), you can't just come in here and accuse a judge of being unable to do his job. And this isn't a strawman, that is exactly what you are arguing: That the judge's race could be a factor, and Trump is not a racist for accusing a judge of being unable to do his job fairly because of his race.
Of course I do. I assume any judge who hears a case can rule unbiased, as they can recuse themselves if they feel they can't, unless someone points out otherwise. Think about how ridiculous this would be if in a divorce case, a man argued that the judge was biased because the court sided with his ex-wife, and the judge happened to be a woman.
It is what we are discussing because the only real reason Trump's comments who could be dismissed as not being racist would be if you could justify that the judge was legitimately biased. Let's solve this and strike racism from the dictionary. Would you agree that Trump's comment came from a place of prejudice?
2
And oh my, where would it end? Maybe the judge in the OJ trial felt white guilt, and sided with Simpson's attorney in every objection brought to him. We aren't playing the could have, would have, might have in debates. You are either saying it is reasonable for a party to question the race of a judge if a ruling goes against them, or it is unreasonable to question the race of the judge. There is no middle ground here. We are dealing with judges, and unless you can show that this particular judge has a biased issues, we can safely assume the judge was unbiased enough that he carried on the case, rather than choosing to recuse himself.
1
GAME ON
2
Let's try this another way: What threshold does Donald Trump have to pass over to be considered "racist" by you?
1
The points the two of them are making is that the Republican party is not in the ground. Whether they are getting anything done in office or not, they are still being elected to power and they were still getting enough support so that they can control Congress.
1
As far as morality, I like reading that discussion, but maybe another thread would work better? This summer is going to be intense for the race.
1
For any of you curious people not named Proph or Rhand. Cadium is a softer type of metal, and one of the new ones in the second set of Mistborn.
Mod notes.
Alright, so here is one of my favorite parts of the games I host: My vision of the game, and how the game ended up progressing. Number 1 should be very obvious, and I just want to get this out of the way.
1. Lynching roles that have no business being lynched.
So, when I designed this game originally, I knew that because the set-up of no vanillas, there was going to be a lot of power running around. Atog's role orignally had a tough guy shot allomancy ability, and his feru prevented him from doing anything to charge his unlynchable shot. Few other changes to town roles, but Proph's Brute/Leecher role and JD's double Zinc power felt to be the safest roles for the lynch. Hell, I thought from the get go that there is no way JD would ever be lynched. Most people think scum double voters are insane, imagine now a triple voter with utility. Proph's role......I feel like most people give vigs a shot to prove they are vigs, or get shot by the real vig. Another very real chance this slot doesn't get lynched. Well, it got lynched ><. Aside from the fact that scum with that role would have NEVER claimed the leecher part of the role, his PGO claim might have been seen as a lie, but should have been obvious as a town lie, otherwise why admit it?
Note, that I am still strongly against flavor gaming. I'll get to this later, but there are some things that you can guess at, have no way of ever being fair for a certain alignment to have. Think Iso's claimed role in Stargate, and how insane that would have been as a town role.
2. Deadlines aren't always great, but there needs to be an effort shrown.
This was by far, the slowest game in terms of posting I have ever hosted, regardless of set-up. Day 1 had a 28 day deadline (which four weeks I thought was quite generous). The problem is that too many people were dragging their feet, both town and scum. I was originally going to do a formula that had basically number of players x 2 +5 (I made an exception for day 1, just to keep it clean) but I felt it wouldn't do anything. I thought slightly shorter (this day still ended up being two weeks) would cause both sides to realize lurking here is dangerous. Which brings me to my next point.
3. We heart Lurkers, yes we do. We heart lurkers, how bout you?
I don't know when, how, or if has always been acceptable since I started to just wait in the weeds. This is only aimed at townies, as scum can only pull this off if enough town are also lurking. It is a point I will always go after as long as I play, regardless of alignment, and I hope this game, and even recent games that have passed will show this: A lot of mafia members lurk, and it seems that calling them out on this gets people into more trouble than just leaving them alone. I don't understand this. If you are town and just being lurky, you are hurting your team. You are allowing the scum to also hide along side with you, and get away with not posting because no one it is. The scum don't have to initiate conversation, or force the day their way, and the good ones usually won't (or will, without being noticed) so you need to make sure you can stand out. Your primary job, even more than catching scum is to make yourself unlynchable.
4. Flavor Traps. Sometimes, they bite back.
I was well aware that Hunt's / JD's role might cause tension. I almost changed Hunt's to be a shot reimburse for allomancy to avoid it. But going into this game, after the mafia nerfs, I thought the town had a slight edge going in. The town had a pretty large amount of power, and even after KJ's role was switched to a self-watch, I still felt the mafia could get some really bad luck, so I left a single flavor trap in. Going from point 1, I figured that JD was likely safe. If the town made it into a dichotomy, Hunt likely dies first, especially with the fact his role "pierces" protections (so KJ/DV would have lost their protection. A kill would have gone through Iso, ect, ect). So, the bone I threw was small: Both roles granted priority on a limited basis, but both had a slight utility that made them a bit more unique (don't get me wrong, I figured a counterclaim would likely happen),a different codename for the role, and make the town more reliant on behavior (which was unfortunate that JD was being seen as scum even before that came up to be an issue).
5. Where does that leave us?
There were some questionable plays all around. I don't think anyone played super bad, so no LVP or ***** like that. I think lessons were learned, and we can all have fun in the future.
Town MVP: DV
While no one really took over the role as town leader, I felt DV's reads were the most constant, and he was on the trail of at least 1-2 scum (atog/Tordeck). He also played an overall solid game, and really wasn't viewed as a lynch until late day three by Iso.
Scum MVP: Rhand
Each member of the scum did a great job, but I felt Rhand did the best of standing out, and keeping himself out of harm's way. He was ALMOST caught at the end, but he was in the bottom half of people who were being considered for being lynched, and I felt he played the Hunt/JD thing out incredibly well.
I would love to hear any more comments, questions, or feedback if anything else exists!
1
Trump had a ton of more money, while Fiorina had to work from the bottom up. You made the statement that "Since Carly Fiorina's only claim to fame is running not just one but two companies into the ground", it is a fair point that Trump's failed business ventures are fair game, especially when much earlier in this thread, it was pointed out that Trump would have made just as much money from his initial investment if he had put it into stock/bonds, rather that how he did it with businesses.
I didn't read anywhere that said they were lefties/dem voters or anti law and order. Can you at least pretend to be unbiased towards a particular party?
1
Joking. I honestly don't know why people care. "Yay, women on the bill". I realize for women, it is likely a bigger deal, but I can't see why people are getting legitimately upset.