Mafia: XX - Game Over (Village and Mr Hyde win) rex smells!!

Dr Henry · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 6:29 am

Riptide wrote:

I love D1 shenanigans.

I don't.

Fully believe Scar to be mafia.

PenguinGuy · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 8:14 am

Riptide wrote:

I love D1 shenanigans.

Obvious scum right there. It says right here in the metagame.

Riptide

CODfisherMW2 · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica.

Kikori · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 10:49 am

Sure, why not. Riptide for preference of shenanigans to gameplay.

Sighence · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 11:12 am

I, too, love D1 shenanigans. I'm in the process of seeing if there's any correlation between D1 shenanigans levels and alignment.

So please, continue to shenanigan.

Market Man6 · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 11:18 am

aye aye captain!
monk

Kikori · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 11:20 am

I already gave my two cents on that last game I played. People either blatantly give their role away in an ironic way that makes nobody take them seriously, or they just post nonsense / usual shenanigans that have no relation to their role.

Sighence · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 11:31 am

That's far too basic of a way to look at it. Relative amounts corresponding to alignments on an individual level is what I'm talking about. It's based on the same principles as my average post count per day theory, where, using the patterns each individual player has developed over the course of the games they've played, a given player will shenanigan either more or less according to the three categories of Town PR, vanilla, or scum PR. I don't expect it to be quite as reliable, but this would be usable first thing D2, where average post count doesn't really shake out until D4.

Dr Henry · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm

Monk Basher wrote:

That's far too basic of a way to look at it. Relative amounts corresponding to alignments on an individual level is what I'm talking about. It's based on the same principles as my average post count per day theory, where, using the patterns each individual player has developed over the course of the games they've played, a given player will shenanigan either more or less according to the three categories of Town PR, vanilla, or scum PR. I don't expect it to be quite as reliable, but this would be usable first thing D2, where average post count doesn't really shake out until D4.

Doesn't work. People post depending on how busy/bored they are, how much they WANT to contribute, and how much they think they can actually contribute. Just like some people have a certain style which doesn't change no matter what role they are.

Sounds like a load of crap to base poor trains on tomorrow in a hope to get a free lynch... Monk

Aragorn Ix · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 12:41 pm

[youtube]MFZG8KQJni8[/youtube]

Sighence · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 1:24 pm

Henry, as he's just shown, can't afford to have my posts be a joke. Only one alignment truly can't.

I'll let you guess which that is.

Dr Henry · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 1:45 pm

Monk Basher wrote:

Henry, as he's just shown, can't afford to have my posts be a joke. Only one alignment truly can't.

Yeah........

PenguinGuy · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 6:32 pm

Dr Henry wrote:

Monk Basher wrote:

Henry, as he's just shown, can't afford to have my posts be a joke. Only one alignment truly can't.

Yeah........

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would post little when he is scum or a lot? Now, a clever man would post a lot when he is scum, because he would know that only a great fool would not notice his lack of posts. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not deduce you are good from your many posts. But then you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I clearly cannot deduce you are scum from your many posts.

Aragorn Ix · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 6:42 pm

PenguinGuy wrote:

Dr Henry wrote:

Monk Basher wrote:

Henry, as he's just shown, can't afford to have my posts be a joke. Only one alignment truly can't.

Yeah........

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would post little when he is scum or a lot? Now, a clever man would post a lot when he is scum, because he would know that only a great fool would not notice his lack of posts. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not deduce you are good from your many posts. But then you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I clearly cannot deduce you are scum from your many posts.

That has to be the wishywashy-ist use of ontology I've ever seen haha.

Landerpurex · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 7:42 pm

I think Penguinguy's analysis is more of an epistemological problem than an ontological one.

Actually, I don't think his thesis has anything to do with reality or the nature of reality at all. :?:

Either way, he's full of nonsense.

Aragorn Ix · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 7:56 pm

Landerpurex wrote:

I think Penguinguy's analysis is more of an epistemological problem than an ontological one.

Actually, I don't think his thesis has anything to do with reality or the nature of reality at all. :?:

Either way, he's full of nonsense.

Well it relates to the nature of identity, which is ontological in essence, but his posit is primarily epistemological. It suffers from similar flaws as the ontological argument for God, haha.

Riptide · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 8:06 pm

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Landerpurex wrote:

I think Penguinguy's analysis is more of an epistemological problem than an ontological one.

Actually, I don't think his thesis has anything to do with reality or the nature of reality at all. :?:

Either way, he's full of nonsense.

Well it relates to the nature of identity, which is ontological in essence, but his posit is primarily epistemological. It suffers from similar flaws as the ontological argument for God, haha.

Remind me to expand my vocabulary.

Aragorn Ix · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 8:29 pm

Riptide wrote:

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Landerpurex wrote:

I think Penguinguy's analysis is more of an epistemological problem than an ontological one.

Actually, I don't think his thesis has anything to do with reality or the nature of reality at all. :?:

Either way, he's full of nonsense.

Well it relates to the nature of identity, which is ontological in essence, but his posit is primarily epistemological. It suffers from similar flaws as the ontological argument for God, haha.

Remind me to expand my vocabulary.

Apologies, it's the result of my course, basically a crash course in the use of big words.

PenguinGuy · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 8:58 pm

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Riptide wrote:

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Landerpurex wrote:

I think Penguinguy's analysis is more of an epistemological problem than an ontological one.

Actually, I don't think his thesis has anything to do with reality or the nature of reality at all. :?:

Either way, he's full of nonsense.

Well it relates to the nature of identity, which is ontological in essence, but his posit is primarily epistemological. It suffers from similar flaws as the ontological argument for God, haha.

Remind me to expand my vocabulary.

Apologies, it's the result of my course, basically a crash course in the use of big words.

Ontology is the philosphy of exisistence, whether things exist or not and such topics. Epistemology is the philosphy of the nature of knowledge, how its obtained, its limits, etc. I would say the logic is definitly epistemological, as are all WIFOM arguments. But their circular nature is their flaw, which is probably what Aragon was pointing out. (Correct me if I am wrong on the definition of either term)

But Lander is correct in the logics absurity. I was merely trying to parody the famous Battle of Wits from Princess Bride, of which WIFOM (Wine In Front Of Me) is named. I was concerned more with humor than accuracy.

Aragorn Ix · **Posted:** June 1st, 2012, 9:34 pm

PenguinGuy wrote:

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Riptide wrote:

Aragorn Ix wrote:

Landerpurex wrote:

I think Penguinguy's analysis is more of an epistemological problem than an ontological one.

Actually, I don't think his thesis has anything to do with reality or the nature of reality at all. :?:

Either way, he's full of nonsense.

Well it relates to the nature of identity, which is ontological in essence, but his posit is primarily epistemological. It suffers from similar flaws as the ontological argument for God, haha.

Remind me to expand my vocabulary.

Apologies, it's the result of my course, basically a crash course in the use of big words.

Ontology is the philosphy of exisistence, whether things exist or not and such topics. Epistemology is the philosphy of the nature of knowledge, how its obtained, its limits, etc. I would say the logic is definitly epistemological, as are all WIFOM arguments. But their circular nature is their flaw, which is probably what Aragon was pointing out. (Correct me if I am wrong on the definition of either term)

But Lander is correct in the logics absurity. I was merely trying to parody the famous Battle of Wits from Princess Bride, of which WIFOM (Wine In Front Of Me) is named. I was concerned more with humor than accuracy.

Precisely. Ontological arguments are generally built on false presumptions and use circular logic. That was a fun diversion from the normal line of talk that happens on day one though, heh.

Mafia: XX - Game Over (Village and Mr Hyde win) rex smells!!

Who is online